Content Producers

[FATPad]

Which of you provide the 2257 documents as a matter of standard practice? As in, you automatically include them with the content when you ship it, whether it be FTP or on CD.

Model ID's, releases, etc.

[FATPad]

Actually, this goes for brokers, too. Anyone who sells content.

[Va2k]

Originally posted by FATPad
Which of you provide the 2257 documents as a matter of standard practice? As in, you automatically include them with the content when you ship it, whether it be FTP or on CD.

Model ID's, releases, etc.

I DO thats the only way to do it, Fuck the keep the model crap private. what happens if say I shoot a girl that looked 16 but was only 18 and a year down the road some cock smoker kills me, you would bewithout the models info and if you get ? you get fucked I wouldnt cause I would be dead eh! lol

[FATPad]

Originally posted by va2k

I DO thats the only way to do it, Fuck the keep the model crap private. what happens if say I shoot a girl that looked 16 but was only 18 and a year down the road some cock smoker kills me, you would bewithout the models info and if you get ? you get fucked I wouldnt cause I would be dead eh! lol

LOL

Yep.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by FATPad
LOL

Yep.

LOL.. Nope.

The laws specifically cover issues like this. If my records department burns down does that mean that I will go to jail for not having my documentation?

Think about it.

[AaronM]

I have said it MANY times before...The release is not only NOT required by law but it is also nobodies business other than myself and the model. I do not currently give copies of ID with my content but I do plan on offering that in the near future.

[gothweb]

I do not shoot sex, masturbation, etc., so the extent to which I have to worry about 2257 is limited. To be on the safe side, I always keep the info, and provide a 2257 contact. However, I don't give content customers the info unless the request it.

[Kenneth K]

We doesnt provide the documentation as standard when we sell sets, only on request or when we use brokers to sell our content...

In how many countries is there a law saying that you beside of a license, must have photo ID's and model release for all sets you own???


/Kenneth K

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Kenneth K
We doesnt provide the documentation as standard when we sell sets, only on request or when we use brokers to sell our content...

In how many countries is there a law saying that you beside of a license, must have photo ID's and model release for all sets you own???


/Kenneth K

Sets you own or sets you own a license to?

I do not sell my content, I license it. In this case, the answer to your question is zero, as long as the license contains the 2257 contact information.

[Rochard]

I don't think it's required that 2257 / model information be included when you purchase content. However, I think it's in the content producer's best interest to send it. Here' s why:

Let's say "Bob" sells content to "John". John puts this content on line, and Attorney General with a stick up their ass decides to go after John.
- If John doesn't have this information, he's in trouble. And he's going to point fingers at Bob who sold him the content. Since John doesn't have this information he can get his ass pulled into court.... And Bob might be pulled in too.
- If John has this information on hand, there is no problem and no one ends up in court.

Also, what if the content provider goes under? How does someone who purchases the content prove a model's age when the content producer is gone, out of the business, dead, or whatever.

I'd want a copy of the model's license and model release form, this way I can defend myself in the future.

[FATPad]

Originally posted by RocHard
I don't think it's required that 2257 / model information be included when you purchase content. However, I think it's in the content producer's best interest to send it. Here' s why:

Let's say "Bob" sells content to "John". John puts this content on line, and Attorney General with a stick up their ass decides to go after John.
- If John doesn't have this information, he's in trouble. And he's going to point fingers at Bob who sold him the content. Since John doesn't have this information he can get his ass pulled into court.... And Bob might be pulled in too.
- If John has this information on hand, there is no problem and no one ends up in court.

Also, what if the content provider goes under? How does someone who purchases the content prove a model's age when the content producer is gone, out of the business, dead, or whatever.

I'd want a copy of the model's license and model release form, this way I can defend myself in the future.

This is what I'm worried about. If the producer with the records goes out of business, then what? I'm supposed to take all my stuff down because I don't have the copies of the records and there is no longer a person in business with the records?

[AaronM]

Originally posted by RocHard
I don't think it's required that 2257 / model information be included when you purchase content. However, I think it's in the content producer's best interest to send it. Here' s why:

Let's say "Bob" sells content to "John". John puts this content on line, and Attorney General with a stick up their ass decides to go after John.
- If John doesn't have this information, he's in trouble. And he's going to point fingers at Bob who sold him the content. Since John doesn't have this information he can get his ass pulled into court.... And Bob might be pulled in too.
- If John has this information on hand, there is no problem and no one ends up in court.

Also, what if the content provider goes under? How does someone who purchases the content prove a model's age when the content producer is gone, out of the business, dead, or whatever.

I'd want a copy of the model's license and model release form, this way I can defend myself in the future.

I would think you would know the laws a little better than this. I am not saying that what you say is not a good idea but legally speaking...You bring up no valid issues. Comments like the above ones from established people may scare others. I prefer to give them facts over "what if" fiction.

If a content provider goes out of business then he is required by federal law to keep his records for 5 years. That is U.S. law. If your content provider does not fall under that law and you do then you may wish to do business with a provider who is subject to the same laws that you are. This way, if the "what if" situation does happen...Your ass is covered by the license which should list the provider as the custodian of records.

There are a lot of idiots out there shooting pics and calling themselves content providers. Hell, some of them are stealing and reselling the content. There are ways to protect yourself but I would be far more concerned with getting sued over the use of the images than I would be of having the Attorney General knock on my door.

Buy content only from providers who are subject to the same laws or stricter than you are.

Do not buy from somebody who does not have their own shit together. A hotmail or such email addy should be a red flag.

Do some research...Ask around to see if others have done business with the provider.

Does the provider have a presence at the shows or could they be hiding in a cave with BinLaden for all you know?

If the provider is a dirtbag in the first place then what is to stop them from sending you a photoshopped ID?

[Jayson]

2257 laws do not require that the content producers customer hold copies of the documentation for content that in not exclusive or custom produced for the customer.

They do require the customer has them if the content was produced specifically for them or with direction from them. So in the case of a custom shoot, or where say your websites logo is on a tshirt in the shoot, or even if the pictures arent exclusive but there was direction provided by you in the makeup of the shoot, then you are required to hold copies of the documention.

We do provide id for every exclusive shoot, we dont provide id for non exclusive content although we are working back through sets to include even though its not required.


Jayson

[Kenneth K]

Originally posted by AaronM


Sets you own or sets you own a license to?

I do not sell my content, I license it. In this case, the answer to your question is zero, as long as the license contains the 2257 contact information.

That is sets we sell in our content store - not custom productions - just normal sets sold to normal webmasters...

But the question is rather interesting wether the license actually do hold in court; have anybody ever heard about any case where the "now if" fictions above actually happened???

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Kenneth K



That is sets we sell in our content store - not custom productions - just normal sets sold to normal webmasters...

But the question is rather interesting wether the license actually do hold in court; have anybody ever heard about any case where the "now if" fictions above actually happened???

They have yet to happen. The ONLY person with the absolute right to directly request the 2257 documentation is the Attorney General HIMSELF, at this time.

He has been a little preoccupied these days. The fucker does not even return my calls inviting him over for dinner.

According to my attorney...The license alone should keep you out of court if that is the only thing they are after. However...If you are arrested...Chances are that they will stick you with something else to drag you to court with that they know they can prosecute you for. Then they will attempt to throw the other shit on top of that to confuse the issues and to establish new precedents in the court systems that will allow them to circumnavigate the current legal system.

Who voted for Bush? Not me.

[SGS]

Surely anyone who pays for content to publish on an adult web site without getting the full documentation is a fool. It?s not really about federal law requirements or anything else, its just common sense and good business practice as far as I can see.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by SGS
Surely anyone who pays for content to publish on an adult web site without getting the full documentation is a fool. It?s not really about federal law requirements or anything else, its just common sense and good business practice as far as I can see.

Of course it is not about federal law to you. You do not live in the US.

Good business practice...Sure, why not. Nothing wrong with it....Calling people a fool though? Kinda harsh considering that there have been no prosecutions based on this...that I am aware of...and the fact that most providers do not offer the ID.

Think about it....If I give my clients an ID that I have altered by removing address info and so forth...Do you really think that a copy of an altered ID would stand up in court?

Good luck with that one.

Copies of ID are a comfort thing. Nothing else.

[Paul Markham]

OK a lot of BS is going down here from people not qualified to give an opinion.

So here the law and opinions from those who are trained to deal with this question rather than people trained in other mediums.

The law #1

The law #2

The lawyers Opinion

And yet another opinion. From another lawyer

The law in the US is clear, webmasters are publishers they must have the documents.

If, and it is a big if, the police call asking for the IDs of a girl, you want to go to a filing cabinet and produce them. Not say, ?Well the I bought them from this guy on the net and he says he has them and will show them if I ask for them.? You may find your one phone call not enough to trace him.

Should he have an accident, die of a heart attack, like Henry from FlyCats did two weeks ago. You do not want to be chasing the executors of his estate. Or if you just fallout with him, you going to ask him for a favour?

Should the girls brother, father, boyfriend, grandfather, neighbour, etc. come across her pictures and go straight to a lawyer. You will want the model release to stick under his nose and show him this little girl was paid for the work.

You want to protect the girl?s anonymity? Don?t take or publish pictures of her in the nude.

All my sets come with FULL documentation. I blank out the models contact details.

Your call it?s your ass that is in the firing line.

[Paul Markham]

Shooters, if you are worried about the girls anonimity. Tell her Wal Mart are hiring.

Don't take pictures of her with a vibrator in her pussy and sell them for gain.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by charly
OK a lot of BS is going down here from people not qualified to give an opinion.

So here the law and opinions from those who are trained to deal with this question rather than people trained in other mediums.

The law #1

The law #2

The lawyers Opinion

And yet another opinion. From another lawyer

The law in the US is clear, webmasters are publishers they must have the documents.

If, and it is a big if, the police call asking for the IDs of a girl, you want to go to a filing cabinet and produce them. Not say, ?Well the I bought them from this guy on the net and he says he has them and will show them if I ask for them.? You may find your one phone call not enough to trace him.

Should he have an accident, die of a heart attack, like Henry from FlyCats did two weeks ago. You do not want to be chasing the executors of his estate. Or if you just fallout with him, you going to ask him for a favour?

Should the girls brother, father, boyfriend, grandfather, neighbour, etc. come across her pictures and go straight to a lawyer. You will want the model release to stick under his nose and show him this little girl was paid for the work.

You want to protect the girl?s anonymity? Don?t take or publish pictures of her in the nude.

All my sets come with FULL documentation. I blank out the models contact details.

Your call it?s your ass that is in the firing line.

This is so full of holes that I do not know where to begin. All I will say is that I am referring to actualy U.S. Law and nothing else. I think it is a good comforting factor to give copies of ID to my clients and that is why I intend to start doing it.

Hey bro...I thought you were daed?

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by gothweb
I do not shoot sex, masturbation, etc., so the extent to which I have to worry about 2257 is limited. To be on the safe side, I always keep the info, and provide a 2257 contact. However, I don't give content customers the info unless the request it.

Read the law, you will find their definition of sexual content different from yours.

[SGS]

Originally posted by AaronM


Good business practice...Sure, why not. Nothing wrong with it....Calling people a fool though? Kinda harsh considering that there have been no prosecutions based on this...that I am aware of...and the fact that most providers do not offer the ID.

Think about it....If I give my clients an ID that I have altered by removing address info and so forth...Do you really think that a copy of an altered ID would stand up in court?

Good luck with that one.

Copies of ID are a comfort thing. Nothing else.

I appreciate your point but personally I wouldn?t feel very comfortable publishing anything I didn?t have full paperwork for. We just produce so much of our own content with meticulous paperwork and bookkeeping it just seems like the easy way to me.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by AaronM


This is so full of holes that I do not know where to begin. All I will say is that I am referring to actualy U.S. Law and nothing else. I think it is a good comforting factor to give copies of ID to my clients and that is why I intend to start doing it.

Hey bro...I thought you were daed?

I don't think either lawyer stated that the law was full of holes. And even if it is I gave other reasons for having the documents on hand.

I am daed, this is my son posting in my memory. Also as an artist, now daed, my work has gone up in value.

[AaronM]

Compare today?s Internet to an adult video store.....The 2257 laws were, after all, put in place due to the adult video business using an underage female (Traci Lords) who actually DID HAVE ID showing her to be at least 18 years old.

How many video stores have copies of the ID's from every porn star in the video that THEY are providing to their members?

NONE

Why is that? They give access to porn materials and so do webmasters. The laws were invented for them...not for the Internet so why are then not doing this?

Because they are not the original producers of the pornographic materials therefore they do not fall under the laws of 2257. When the video goes to the store, it has the contact info for the 2257 records keeper in it. That is all they need...That is all anybody on the internet needs.

It?s that simple people.

Czech your facts.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by charly
Read the law, you will find their definition of sexual content different from yours.

I read the law. Very clearly. It is no different than my definition. The definition of sexual content is not the question here. The legal requirements of 2257 are. I suggest you become familiar with them if you want to do business in the US.

I love ya bro but you are wrong on this.

OOPS.. I see you were quoting another person. My bad.

Sorry Charly.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by SGS


I appreciate your point but personally I wouldn?t feel very comfortable publishing anything I didn?t have full paperwork for. We just produce so much of our own content with meticulous paperwork and bookkeeping it just seems like the easy way to me.

I agree 100%.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by charly

I am daed, this is my son posting in my memory. Also as an artist, now daed, my work has gone up in value.

That almost makes you ELITE!
Oh wait...You were at the TGP dinner.

[jact]

Originally posted by AaronM
Compare today?s Internet to an adult video store.....The 2257 laws were, after all, put in place due to the adult video business using an underage female (Traci Lords) who actually DID HAVE ID showing her to be at least 18 years old.

How many video stores have copies of the ID's from every porn star in the video that THEY are providing to their members?

NONE

Why is that? They give access to porn materials and so do webmasters. The laws were invented for them...not for the Internet so why are then not doing this?

Because they are not the original producers of the pornographic materials therefore they do not fall under the laws of 2257. When the video goes to the store, it has the contact info for the 2257 records keeper in it. That is all they need...That is all anybody on the internet needs.

It?s that simple people.

Czech your facts.

Well said. Each video contains 2257 record keeping information, thus protecting the video store in the event that the content of the video is challenged.

Shall we add that custodian of records cannot be a company (It must be an individual) and they may NOT be using a P.O. Box as their custodial address? I've seen so many companies doing this (Some quite promient) and where does this leave their customers? Up shit's creek. So at least make sure that the custodial address is a real address and not some box in a country they might not live in.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by jact


Well said. Each video contains 2257 record keeping information, thus protecting the video store in the event that the content of the video is challenged.

Shall we add that custodian of records cannot be a company (It must be an individual) and they may NOT be using a P.O. Box as their custodial address? I've seen so many companies doing this (Some quite promient) and where does this leave their customers? Up shit's creek. So at least make sure that the custodial address is a real address and not some box in a country they might not live in.

Bingo.

And good advice about the P.O. Box. I have seen it MANY times as well. I should have mentioned that before. Good catch.

[Paul Markham]

What is the difference between a video store owner and a webmaster.

The difference is the webmaster is altering the images. Therefore a publisher not retailer.

It is not my opinion it is the opinion of two lawyers. Prepared to put their names to that opinion.

Post an opposing opinion from a lawyer and I will consider it.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by charly
What is the difference between a video store owner and a webmaster.

The difference is the webmaster is altering the images. Therefore a publisher not retailer.

It is not my opinion it is the opinion of two lawyers. Prepared to put their names to that opinion.

Post an opposing opinion from a lawyer and I will consider it.

I already have. My opinions are based on facts from my previous, my current, and other attorneys that I have seen give talks about these issues at adult trade shows.

If a video store splices a tape, it is then altered and they should then fall under 2257?

I think not.

Here is another example for you Charly.

Phone sex ads on adult videos..... They clearly are not 2257 exempt but the production company of the video did not produce the original phone sex ad, however they did reproduce it on the video. Since they produced the final product then they are responsible by your definition. No 2257 info is listed for the ads on the tape/DVD so is EVERY adult video out there now in violation?

No. Why not? Because the contact info for the final publisher was added to the media. If the Attorney General goes to the video store and finds a spliced tape with phone sex ads, do you think he is gonna be in hog heaven? If he thinks there is a violation, he will get the 2257 info from the box or media itself then trace it back as needed. If the person in question is underage do you think he will go after the video store? Hell no. He will go after the original producer of the material and IF the video store does not remove it THEN he may go after them for knowingly distributing the material.

This is so basic it is not even funny. Why do people insist on making it difficult?

[Kenneth K]

Originally posted by charly
What is the difference between a video store owner and a webmaster.

The difference is the webmaster is altering the images. Therefore a publisher not retailer.

It is not my opinion it is the opinion of two lawyers. Prepared to put their names to that opinion.

Post an opposing opinion from a lawyer and I will consider it.

Regarding the altering...:
http://www.paulmarkham.com/law2.html:
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(i) Photo processing;

As I understands it, and as it is written, the webmaster is processing the photos?

And I would not say that the §2257 in anyway applies to the webmaster - only to the source he bought it from, and that would be the producer in many cases.

Eventhough we are working on including the releasecontract and model ID's as Paul M, so that the webmaster can be 100% sure, I must admit that I believe that AaronM is more right in the definitions of who and/or what that is required according to §2257... Just my 2 cents...

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Kenneth K



Regarding the altering...:
http://www.paulmarkham.com/law2.html:
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(i) Photo processing;

As I understands it, and as it is written, the webmaster is processing the photos?

And I would not say that the §2257 in anyway applies to the webmaster - only to the source he bought it from, and that would be the producer in many cases.

Eventhough we are working on including the releasecontract and model ID's as Paul M, so that the webmaster can be 100% sure, I must admit that I believe that AaronM is more right in the definitions of who and/or what that is required according to §2257... Just my 2 cents...

You understand it perfectly well which is much better than most webmasters. No offense meant to them but it is the truth.

Paul is on the right track in what he does as far as comforting his customers goes. Gotta respect that.

[Plugger]

I love you guys At least I know I will never be a TEST case for all of these issues.

The way I see it, is you can play it safe and DO MORE than is required by a law that has VERY little case history behind it, or you can be a pioneer and push the limits and help bring more definition to these laws.

I will continue to have full 2257 (that means copies fo their IDs, etc.) and all model releases for everyone, even fully clothed, in any of my content. Until there is a CLEAR case history estbalished, I will not take the risk of relying on a content provider to "maintain" the records for me. If I maintain the records myself at least I know that I have all of the required information.

What happens if a provider does not have the appropriate records? Is it my fault, or the providers? Do not speculate here, site specific cases. If you can, than good, I learned something. If you have no citations, then it is just an opinion, and in court your opinion in not likely to help me . . .

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Plugger
I love you guys At least I know I will never be a TEST case for all of these issues.

The way I see it, is you can play it safe and DO MORE than is required by a law that has VERY little case history behind it, or you can be a pioneer and push the limits and help bring more definition to these laws.

I will continue to have full 2257 (that means copies fo their IDs, etc.) and all model releases for everyone, even fully clothed, in any of my content. Until there is a CLEAR case history estbalished, I will not take the risk of relying on a content provider to "maintain" the records for me. If I maintain the records myself at least I know that I have all of the required information.

What happens if a provider does not have the appropriate records? Is it my fault, or the providers? Do not speculate here, site specific cases. If you can, than good, I learned something. If you have no citations, then it is just an opinion, and in court your opinion in not likely to help me . . .

Very well thought out reply.

The law is the law however, and it is very clear cut. Going above and beyond is what is going to keep us in business.

I do not know you but you have just earned a great deal of my respect.

[Webattorney]

The relevant case citation for the records keeping issue is: Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno
139 F.3d 804
C.A.10 (Colo.),1998. This is the primary case addressing who must keep copies of age records relating to explicit imagery. I can provide a copy of the opinion to anyone who is interested in reading it. Email requests to: [email protected]

[gregtx]

We include a digital pic of the release and the model holding both her ids and release... then we block off the personal info for the models safety...

why??? this usually appeases the webmaster so that he knows that the paper work does or did exist at the shoot... but yet we don't give every phycho out their the personal address, social security number, or any other private info...

and when you fill out the license agreement.. it clearly states the custodian of records... non-po box address... and a real persons name...

[Plugger]

Originally posted by AaronM


Very well thought out reply.

The law is the law however, and it is very clear cut. Going above and beyond is what is going to keep us in business.

I do not know you but you have just earned a great deal of my respect.

Thanks, I hope we have the chance to get know each other better in the future . . .

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Webattorney
The relevant case citation for the records keeping issue is: Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno
139 F.3d 804
C.A.10 (Colo.),1998. This is the primary case addressing who must keep copies of age records relating to explicit imagery. I can provide a copy of the opinion to anyone who is interested in reading it. Email requests to: [email protected]

And for those who are interested.....This is his response:

"Here's the case. According to this panel of judges, 2257 only requires primary producers to keep age records, however the better practice is for all distributors to maintain such records to protect themselves.

Lawrence Walters
Weston, Garrou & DeWitt"


Thank you your honor...I rest my case.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by AaronM



And for those who are interested.....This is his response:

"Here's the case. According to this panel of judges, 2257 only requires primary producers to keep age records, however the better practice is for all distributors to maintain such records to protect themselves.

Lawrence Walters
Weston, Garrou & DeWitt"


Thank you your honor...I rest my case.

This shoots me down, but we will continue to provide 2257 to protect our clients.

[Mutt]

Aaron is right on the legalities, Charly is right about the practicalities. Notice how many content people have gone out of business? It may be law that content producers keep records for 5 years but this is the real world, good luck finding the guy who is the custodian of records for the content you bought 5 years ago if he's moved on to other things or died. Brokers buy from guys all over the world, small little photographers, they'll broker anything, even a guy with a handful of sets. So the day when your local police come to look at your business and go through your sites and hard drives and they find that cute little teen model who looks 14, as charly said, you're going to be in a better position if you can go to a filing cabinet and produce a copy of her ID's.

If those pics of the young looking teen become the subject of an investigation, good luck finding the custodian of records. People are transient. You'll spend lots of money tracking him down and if he lives in Khazikstan or some place even worse.

At least having the photocopies make you appear to be a responsible businessman.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Mutt
Aaron is right on the legalities, Charly is right about the practicalities. Notice how many content people have gone out of business? It may be law that content producers keep records for 5 years but this is the real world, good luck finding the guy who is the custodian of records for the content you bought 5 years ago if he's moved on to other things or died. Brokers buy from guys all over the world, small little photographers, they'll broker anything, even a guy with a handful of sets. So the day when your local police come to look at your business and go through your sites and hard drives and they find that cute little teen model who looks 14, as charly said, you're going to be in a better position if you can go to a filing cabinet and produce a copy of her ID's.

If those pics of the young looking teen become the subject of an investigation, good luck finding the custodian of records. People are transient. You'll spend lots of money tracking him down and if he lives in Khazikstan or some place even worse.

At least having the photocopies make you appear to be a responsible businessman.

Um........THE POLICE HAVE ZERO RIGHT TO DO THIS. THE FBI HAS ZERO RIGHT TO DO THIS. THE WEBMASTER HAS A LICENSE FOR THE IMAGES SHOWING THE PRODUCER AS THE RECORDS KEEPER. THIS IS THE LAW. THIS IS SIMPLE. QUIT SCARING PEOPLE WHEN YOU DO NOT KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Go to ANY video store and ask to see their 2257 documentation.

The responsible businessman part I do agree with.

[UncleJimmy]

Originally posted by FATPad
This is what I'm worried about. If the producer with the records goes out of business, then what? I'm supposed to take all my stuff down because I don't have the copies of the records and there is no longer a person in business with the records?

Exactly what happened to me and a DVD license I purchased from intervids.com

they totally disappeared, and for the life of me I can't find the license, so that content is now completely worthless to me and I wasted few hundred bucks LOL....oh well....lesson learned.

In the future I'm not buying content from anyone that doesn't provide those docs when requested.

I"m not down with getting a free ticket to the forced anal gang bang ride cuz someone didn't feel like handing over the required paperwork...

[AaronM]

Originally posted by UncleJimmy
I"m not down with getting a free ticket to the forced anal gang bang ride cuz someone didn't feel like handing over the required paperwork...

Fuck it. I give up. Some people are just too stupid to understand that the law is the law is the fucking law....and NOWHERE in the law does it say that a ANYBODY is "required" to have this information other than the original producer.

Educate yourselves on somebody else?s time...I am through trying to help you understand the facts.

[Mutt]

what the police can and cannot do is for down the line when your lawyer is fighting it out in court on your behalf.
Police don't play by the rules, if for some reason they have their eyes on you, they make their own laws up.

When the police take your license for the 14 year old girl and make a phonecall to Buttfuck, Iowa and can't find hide nor hair of Mr Custodian of Records and you have nothing but that license in your hands with that name and address of the Custodian of Records, you are now in deep shit.

When you and your lawyer can show him a photocopy/scan of an Iowa driver's license, a Social security card, which your lawyer can then go and do a search on that young looking model and show the police and D.A that the girl they are ready to throw your life into over is and was legal at the time the material was produced, you will be very happy that you had a copy of those ID's and not just a license.

[.:Frog:.]

I'd only buy content from someone who provides the docs.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Mutt
When the police take your license for the 14 year old girl and make a phonecall to Buttfuck, Iowa and can't find hide nor hair of Mr Custodian of Records and you have nothing but that license in your hands with that name and address of the Custodian of Records, you are now in deep shit.

Where in the hell do you get your information?

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

Let's stick to facts that you can back up...Not your opinion based on God knows what.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by AaronM


Where in the hell do you get your information?

You are wrong. Plain and simple.

Let's stick to facts that you can back up...Not your opinion based on God knows what.

We are talking about the U.S. Government. If they can not find the custodian of records in their own country then something is very fucked up. And the webmaster is not responsible for that.

[UncleJimmy]

Originally posted by AaronM


Fuck it. I give up. Some people are just too stupid to understand that the law is the law is the fucking law....and NOWHERE in the law does it say that a ANYBODY is "required" to have this information other than the original producer.

Educate yourselves on somebody else?s time...I am through trying to help you understand the facts.

Wanna interpret this for me oh wise one?





(c) Producer means any person, including any individual, corporation, or other organization, who is a primary producer or a secondary producer.

(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films, videotapes, or photographs a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.



Is it me, or does a secondary producer TOTALLY sound like a description of a webmaster???


hmmmm

[UncleJimmy]

Oh, and PS, I've heard about Sundance, but is the 10th circuit court having jursidiction on the whole US? are they law makers?

I know they can interpret the law, but I didn't know that it held direct influence over all states/districts....

very confusing issue for sure...