Can You Trust Your Content Provider? - Page 9 - GoFuckYourself.com

jact · 04-27-2003, 09:07 PM

400 for the sake of it.

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 09:07 PM

Dammit.. beat me to it

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

Exactly! Like who is customer-friendly, provides good support, easy to deal with, actually has good content, etc.

We have excellent customer support.. I don't think we've ever had an actual customer who went away unhappy.. In fact, I pride myself in going absolutely above and beyond the call of duty in all things customer-related. I would love to hear if someone has had problems with our services/support, anything. I can't fix a problem I don't know about.

And as for the actually good content comment, there are more than enough here who have purchased through us and will vouch for our quality. Also remember, we broker as well, and a few of the producers we broker for broker through other content providers too. If you're taking a jab at our content, you're insulting them too.

You and I get along (as far as I know), can you stop poking at my business (and pissing me off as well as insulting me greatly) and continue your pissing match with jact? It's entertaining me while I finish this graphic :P

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 09:10 PM

Yes, you should use the list... as a guide to find out if your content provider is compliant... to get on their ass to update their $hit!!

I said no one ever said to use it as their bible numb nuts... read everything I said or none of it at all.

Yes, most people should use that list... if you see your content provider has an N... than it's up to you if you wanna continue to use their stuff or not... isn't it? It's also up to you to just waste all the money you spent on the stuff, or to get them to update so that your money hasn't been wasted.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

If that's what you base your content purchases on, then you obviously have bought from JACT Content often! If you're going to make jabs like that because of how I am on a board, you have some serious fucking issues to work out. Business is business, this ain't business.

You think so ? If I'm going to spend $5000 on some new content for a project, I'll continue to work with the company or individual I've developed a good working relationship with. Impressions do get formed and business relationships do become affected by a board persona whether you think so or not.

jact · 04-27-2003, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

You think so ? If I'm going to spend $5000 on some new content for a project, I'll continue to work with the company or individual I've developed a good working relationship with. Impressions do get formed and business relationships do become affected by a board persona whether you think so or not.

Well then I guess we'd both be losing out. However I really feel your arguement is really weak so I'm going to go do something more amusing, like stare at a wall. Next time you start a piss with me, could you make it at least interesting?

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyMischief

You and I get along (as far as I know), can you stop poking at my business (and pissing me off as well as insulting me greatly) and continue your pissing match with jact? It's entertaining me while I finish this graphic :P

I say "Jact" because thats the name he posts with.

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 09:15 PM

Yup, I'd rather buy from non-compliant people I know, than people who actually abide the laws any day

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

Well then I guess we'd both be losing out. However I really feel your arguement is really weak so I'm going to go do something more amusing, like stare at a wall. Next time you start a piss with me, could you make it at least interesting?

Zzzzzzz...

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

I say "Jact" because thats the name he posts with.

Yes dearie :P

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan
Yup, I'd rather buy from non-compliant people I know, than people who actually abide the laws any day

As long as you realize you're the one saying it.. not me. As far as I'm concerned, you aren't qualified to give me legal advice.

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

As long as you realize you're the one saying it.. not me. As far as I'm concerned, you aren't qualified to give me legal advice.

Uhm... you're the one saying it dude... have been all along.
Apparently Aaron's lawyer isn't qualified to give you legal advice either. Or any content producer/provider.

Who is prey tell? Your mom?

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan

Uhm... you're the one saying it dude... have been all along.
Apparently Aaron's lawyer isn't qualified to give you legal advice either. Or any content producer/provider.

Who is prey tell? Your mom?

MM, pay attention for the thousandth time.
I'll get my legal advice from my own attorney. Not from you, Aaron, or a GFY thread. If I have a question for example about whether or not my content provider, Cloud9Content is breaking the law.. I'll deal with it.

When you ask me this same question again in 3 or 4 threads, please refer back to this one.. or any of the previous ones.

jact · 04-27-2003, 09:27 PM

Funny, I just took a quick look at the thread again with the word "illegal" highlighted. Seems Brujah has a hardon for labeling these content providers as illegal content businesses.

.

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact
Funny, I just took a quick look at the thread again with the word "illegal" highlighted. Seems Brujah has a hardon for labeling these content providers as illegal content businesses. .

busted

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact
Funny, I just took a quick look at the thread again with the word "illegal" highlighted. Seems Brujah has a hardon for labeling these content providers as illegal content businesses. .

So then now you're saying that they're not illegal or breaking the law ?

jact · 04-27-2003, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

So then now you're saying that they're not illegal or breaking the law ?

If they're in the US and not conforming to 2257 outright, yes, they're breaking the law (Some on that list are very blatently breaking 2257). Could some of the ones marked as non-compliant be made compliant in less than 5 minutes? Hell yes. Could all of them? Honestly, I doubt it.

As mentioned earlier, as for the records actually existing or the information being correct, that isn't as easy to determine, but the fact that the website needs to be labelled with 2257 information is pretty fucking simple. Simply saying "We're complaint" isn't.

Would I like to see everyone listed with an N there get up to spec? Of course, it's good for the whole industry. The less attention an individual draws to our industry the better off we all are. Wouldn't you at least agree with me on that point?

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

If they're in the US and not conforming to 2257 outright, yes, they're breaking the law (Some on that list are very blatently breaking 2257). Could some of the ones marked as non-compliant be made compliant in less than 5 minutes? Hell yes. Could all of them? Honestly, I doubt it.

As mentioned earlier, as for the records actually existing or the information being correct, that isn't as easy to determine, but the fact that the website needs to be labelled with 2257 information is pretty fucking simple. Simply saying "We're complaint" isn't.

Would I like to see everyone listed with an N there get up to spec? Of course, it's good for the whole industry. The less attention an individual draws to our industry the better off we all are. Wouldn't you at least agree with me on that point?

I do agree that it isn't a difficult issue to be in compliant with. Even if the interpretation is to the extreme, it probably can't hurt except in the case of the amateurs who are being advised they need to put their real names, and home addresses on their website in an easy to find location. My issue earlier about the information being inaccurate was simply to say that thinking someone is compliant because they appear to be doesn't necessarily mean that they are.

jact · 04-27-2003, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

I do agree that it isn't a difficult issue to be in compliant with. Even if the interpretation is to the extreme, it probably can't hurt except in the case of the amateurs who are being advised they need to put their real names, and home addresses on their website in an easy to find location. My issue earlier about the information being inaccurate was simply to say that thinking someone is compliant because they appear to be doesn't necessarily mean that they are.

Perhaps we can get Aaron to reword it to "Appears compliant" or something. As it'd be impossible to actually verify 100% compliance without inspecting every record exists on top of what's listed.

I do see the difficulty that amateurs face, but honestly, it isn't a new law, it isn't a new regulation and it should have been something they knew they'd have to face going into it. Some people are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, this evil 2257 thing came out of nowhere, oh my! Well, it didn't. Sometimes a wakeup call is a good thing for an entire industry.

J$tyle$ · 04-27-2003, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
The following is a list of content providers who's sites have been reviewed for 2257 Compliance information.

If the Content Provider listed is compliant with U.S. Law then I have also linked their listing to their respective sites. Since the majority of this list was retrieved from adult-contentprovider.com, I have left their referral codes in place where applicable.

If I have overlooked your 2257 info then please feel free to contact me and show me where I can verify it so that I may make corrections as necessary.

With the recent additions to the laws surrounding 2257, it is now more important than ever to make sure that we are all protected. If you are purchasing content licenses from a provider who is not even covering his own ass then how can you expect that he will cover yours if and when the time comes?

Please keep in mind that not all of these companies are located in the U.S. so they may not be required by their own laws to keep the same records as U.S. companies. However, just because their laws do not have the same requirements for them does not mean that the U.S. laws so not require it from you.

Here is a link to this info. If any valid mistakes are reported to me then I will update this page as needed.

One final note. This listing is probably going to piss off a lot of people since several of these providers post to this and other webmaster boards. Before you go and flick me shit...Keep in mind that you are the one responsible for your own company, not me. If you do not have an attorney then I suggest you retain one and get your shit in order. Talk to J.D. from xxxlaw.net before it is too late.

The 2257 compliance is posted right on the front page of Cloud9content.com! It may be a small link, but it's right there on the right side towards the bottom.

It has been since Scott has been in business.

http://www.cloud9content.com

If you believe that Cloud9Content.com IS NOT compliant, please tell me why - and please be specific!

If you cannot, please remove us from the non-compliant list ASAP!

Thank you,

Jonathan Silverstein
AKA J$tyle$

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 10:01 PM

It isn't a new law, but it is still an old law being applied to the internet sites now in more or less an "Other" category. I don't expect the amateurs to know about it until someone mentions it or brings it to their attention. I'd even say most attorneys admit to being unsure about it and providing a best guess about how to comply with it and to what extent that compliance needs to be done.

If I were one of the girls running an amateur site, I wouldn't add my full name, home address, etc. on my site. Fuck that. Compliance would be a concern, but it would not outweigh the concern for my safety. I would attempt to find a safe alternative and in the meantime just have to deal with being non-compliant and taking that chance.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 10:03 PM

J.. it's because they say your attorneys office can't be your custodian of records. You have to provide an individual who can be contacted, and a real street address for place of business.

jact · 04-27-2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J$tyle$

The 2257 compliance is posted right on the front page of Cloud9content.com! It may be a small link, but it's right there on the right side towards the bottom.

It has been since Scott has been in business.

http://www.cloud9content.com

If you believe that Cloud9Content.com IS NOT compliant, please tell me why - and please be specific!

If you cannot, please remove us from the non-compliant list ASAP!

Thank you,

Jonathan Silverstein
AKA J$tyle$

I believe the problem Aaron has with the compliance notice is this part

Quote:

ben mizrahi, c/o the law offices of Jeffery Sklan, 18840 Ventura Blvd Suite 216, Tarzana, Ca 91356

A full explaination of why has already been given, I'll look for the link.

jact · 04-27-2003, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
It isn't a new law, but it is still an old law being applied to the internet sites now in more or less an "Other" category. I don't expect the amateurs to know about it until someone mentions it or brings it to their attention. I'd even say most attorneys admit to being unsure about it and providing a best guess about how to comply with it and to what extent that compliance needs to be done.

If I were one of the girls running an amateur site, I wouldn't add my full name, home address, etc. on my site. Fuck that. Compliance would be a concern, but it would not outweigh the concern for my safety. I would attempt to find a safe alternative and in the meantime just have to deal with being non-compliant and taking that chance.

They could either rent a house/apartment to conduct business out of (That they're actually available at during business hours) or move to a country other than the US to avoid such things (legally, under the interpritation that a lawyer cannot be a custodian).

AaronM · 04-27-2003, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

So all those people who have Cloud9Content should stop using it, and not buy from them because they're not compliant according to the interpretation of the law ?

So then, by also maintaining editorial control over the list.. it is stating that we are covered if we purchase from those certified as compliant. The list maker is liable.

Blow it out your ass.

Cloud 9 was not initially even on the list.

Quote:

Originally posted by media
I didnt see Cloud9Content up on that page....

the records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Û2257 and C.F.R. 75 are kept by the custodian of records, ben mizrahi, c/o the law offices of Jeffery Sklan, 18840 Ventura Blvd Suite 216, Tarzana, Ca 91356

link to 2257 Info can be found right on the front page..

Media

Somebody requested that they be added and so I did. It is hardly my fault that they are not in compliance with the laws.

Their representatives post here and have seen the thread...Yet they are still not compliant. As far as I know, they are a good company but being a good company will not keep themselves or their clients out of trouble if they are not following the law.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 10:23 PM

Blow it out your own ass. Your list is meaningless in any real sense except to give you the opportunity to label competitors as lawbreakers. It's one thing to suggest that content providers be informed. It's something else altogether to make a list and suggest that customers not purchase from those on the list labeled as breaking the law. In reality, if a customer is concerned about his content providers.. he should take it up with them and his own attorney. He should do that even for those you have labeled as compliant, because trusting that list to determine who is compliant would be a big mistake.

Far-L · 04-27-2003, 10:28 PM

Well... as long as you are on the subject of legal content...

http://www.homegrowncontent.com

We were in legal standing before 2257 even became enforcable...

Newsweek Magazine said "Homegrown Video is the longest running series in the history of porn"

We continue to run by the book...

Our popularity grows, we are the most popular content on cable... of course that is the "XX", not "XXX" versions... which is only available online in the complete and uncut versions...

We have 20 years worth of fans to vouch for the lure of our stuff... and so much variety that everyone finds something to like... which we make sure to deliver with weekly updates on some of the finest streams on the net... most of our original customers are still with us almost four years later... happy to provide service references...

and we just created a price schedule that the smallest to the largest can be happy with...

OK... I will shut up now, but hopefully you get the point...

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Far-L
Well... as long as you are on the subject of legal content...

http://www.homegrowncontent.com

We were in legal standing before 2257 even became enforcable...

Newsweek Magazine said "Homegrown Video is the longest running series in the history of porn"

We continue to run by the book...

Where would that be found on your site ?

J$tyle$ · 04-27-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
J.. it's because they say your attorneys office can't be your custodian of records. You have to provide an individual who can be contacted, and a real street address for place of business.

Jeffery Sklan, handles all of Cloud9contents contracts and business filings.

Herein lies the problem with this whole mess.

If THAT is the fact, then we're fully compliant - because we have the records here as well.

If it's as simple as changing the business location on our compliance claim, then tell me that's the case - and as a concerned webmaster, please show me where and it's done!

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
Blow it out your own ass. Your list is meaningless in any real sense except to give you the opportunity to label competitors as lawbreakers. It's one thing to suggest that content providers be informed. It's something else altogether to make a list and suggest that customers not purchase from those on the list labeled as breaking the law. In reality, if a customer is concerned about his content providers.. he should take it up with them and his own attorney. He should do that even for those you have labeled as compliant, because trusting that list to determine who is compliant would be a big mistake.

And how would they know this without someone ever pointing it out? Believe it or not... not 100% of people just know to check these things.

You honestly assume that all people everywhere know all laws and regulations and know exactly what to have lawyers check for anything they do?

Sometimes people need a shove.. they need to be shown what to be aware of.

Far-L · 04-27-2003, 10:32 PM

Brujah: Excellent point, btw.

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J$tyle$

Jeffery Sklan, handles all of Cloud9contents contracts and business filings.

Herein lies the problem with this whole mess.

If THAT is the fact, then we're fully compliant - because we have the records here as well.

If it's as simple as changing the business location on our compliance claim, then tell me that's the case - and as a concerned webmaster, please show me where and it's done!

You have to have the records in the place where you change the address to, and that place has to be your "place of business". Someone needs to be there like 9-5 5 days a week type of idea ;) That's what it boils down to, anyways.

Far-L · 04-27-2003, 10:36 PM

JStyles: That is accurate that you cannot post an attorney as the custodian. It must be a direct employee of the company.

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Far-L
JStyles: That is accurate that you cannot post an attorney as the custodian. It must be a direct employee of the company.

Yep! And it can't be the name of a business listed.. Glad to see you know your stuff, Far-L. HOw's that acacia thing going, anyways?

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J$tyle$

Jeffery Sklan, handles all of Cloud9contents contracts and business filings.

Herein lies the problem with this whole mess.

If THAT is the fact, then we're fully compliant - because we have the records here as well.

If it's as simple as changing the business location on our compliance claim, then tell me that's the case - and as a concerned webmaster, please show me where and it's done!

AaronM actually compiled the list and added Cloud9 as being non-compliant based on another post. The bad thing is that no one contacted you and let you know it happened and that you were listed as not in compliance with the law. In order to be fully compliant for Aarons list, it would appear that you would have to use your actual place of business address and not the attorneys.

I think this advice is from the interpretation by the attorney who runs http://www.xxxlaw.net

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

AaronM actually compiled the list and added Cloud9 as being non-compliant based on another post. The bad thing is that no one contacted you and let you know it happened and that you were listed as not in compliance with the law. In order to be fully compliant for Aarons list, it would appear that you would have to use your actual place of business address and not the attorneys.

I think this advice is from the interpretation by the attorney who runs http://www.xxxlaw.net

Yep... Good guy too

Far-L · 04-27-2003, 10:45 PM

LadyMischief: Thanks for asking, I would have to say that it is going very well... the ranks of our group continue to swell... we have some excellent work from our representation and we have gone on the offensive... we are still pretty much at the beginning of it all, but feeling very good about it...

If anyone needs info about joining up they should contact me or spike @homegrownvideo.com or [email protected]

Far-L · 04-27-2003, 10:49 PM

Brujah: We post it on all content products...

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Far-L
Brujah: We post it on all content products...

According to the thread, if I'm not mistaken you have to place it in an easy to find location on your website. AaronM would probably list you on his site as not compliant, as others have been.

AaronM · 04-27-2003, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

If they're in the US and not conforming to 2257 outright, yes, they're breaking the law (Some on that list are very blatently breaking 2257). Could some of the ones marked as non-compliant be made compliant in less than 5 minutes? Hell yes. Could all of them? Honestly, I doubt it.

As mentioned earlier, as for the records actually existing or the information being correct, that isn't as easy to determine, but the fact that the website needs to be labelled with 2257 information is pretty fucking simple. Simply saying "We're complaint" isn't.

Would I like to see everyone listed with an N there get up to spec? Of course, it's good for the whole industry. The less attention an individual draws to our industry the better off we all are. Wouldn't you at least agree with me on that point?

That is the single smartest reply in this entire thread.

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Far-L
LadyMischief: Thanks for asking, I would have to say that it is going very well... the ranks of our group continue to swell... we have some excellent work from our representation and we have gone on the offensive... we are still pretty much at the beginning of it all, but feeling very good about it...

If anyone needs info about joining up they should contact me or spike @homegrownvideo.com or [email protected]

I would really love to hear the updates more often! This is a serious issue ( more serious than some people give credit for I think) and you guys are doing a bang-up job! I just like to know that things are going your way!

Far-L · 04-27-2003, 10:57 PM

Brujah: It is posted on anything that contains content that falls under 2257. We post it on the front page of the www.homegrownvideo.com site and on all our content pages there and in our leased content on the products found at http://www.homegrowncontent.com

Oh yeah... it is also on all our boxcovers too...

AaronM · 04-27-2003, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J$tyle$

The 2257 compliance is posted right on the front page of Cloud9content.com! It may be a small link, but it's right there on the right side towards the bottom.

It has been since Scott has been in business.

http://www.cloud9content.com

If you believe that Cloud9Content.com IS NOT compliant, please tell me why - and please be specific!

If you cannot, please remove us from the non-compliant list ASAP!

Thank you,

Jonathan Silverstein
AKA J$tyle$

Hey J....The attorney is listed as the custodian of records. According to 2257, that is not legal. Let me know when the proper custodian of records is in place and I will happily update the listing.

J$tyle$ · 04-27-2003, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Far-L
JStyles: That is accurate that you cannot post an attorney as the custodian. It must be a direct employee of the company.

Jeffery Sklan is an employee too, but I understand completeley. It's semantics as far as I'm concerned, but - if i'ts the law, it's the law!

Hey FAR-L!!! If anyone knows, I'm sure it's YOU!

Done! http://www.cloud9content.com/section2257.html[/B] ]http://www.cloud9content.com/section2257.html

Arron, please remove us from the non-compliant list ASAP!

Now that this is cleared up, everyone that hasn't already taken advantage - better get to steppin'!!!

*** ONLY 3 DAYS LEFT FOR THE DEAL OF THE YEAR!!! ***
LOL

See what you're missin' out on:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=125911

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM

That is the single smartest reply in this entire thread.

Well, except for the typo that says "We're complaint"

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Far-L
Brujah: It is posted on anything that contains content that falls under 2257. We post it on the front page of the www.homegrownvideo.com site and on all our content pages there and in our leased content on the products found at http://www.homegrowncontent.com

Oh yeah... it is also on all our boxcovers too...

I didn't see it anywhere at Homegrowncontent.com, and thats the only reason I mentioned it. You know much more about it than I do

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Far-L
LadyMischief: Thanks for asking, I would have to say that it is going very well... the ranks of our group continue to swell... we have some excellent work from our representation and we have gone on the offensive... we are still pretty much at the beginning of it all, but feeling very good about it...

If anyone needs info about joining up they should contact me or spike @homegrownvideo.com or [email protected]

Did you guys setup a fund or anything that people can contribute to and help with this ?

J$tyle$ · 04-27-2003, 11:06 PM

Can't edit the above link, so here it is:

http://www.cloud9content.com/section2257.html

AaronM · 04-27-2003, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
Blow it out your own ass. Your list is meaningless in any real sense except to give you the opportunity to label competitors as lawbreakers. It's one thing to suggest that content providers be informed. It's something else altogether to make a list and suggest that customers not purchase from those on the list labeled as breaking the law. In reality, if a customer is concerned about his content providers.. he should take it up with them and his own attorney. He should do that even for those you have labeled as compliant, because trusting that list to determine who is compliant would be a big mistake.

Notice that the list also shows providers who are not required to be compliant? If my intent was to show those who are breaking the law then why would I bother to list those who clearly are not breaking it? Also, why would I offer to update the listing once they were compliant instead of just saying "As of the date of this publication, the following companies appear to not be in compliance with 2257?"

This list was posted as a reality check for the industry. I was not even aware of how many people were not compliant until I started updating the 2257 pages of our sites. The shit I found alarmed me and I decided to make a post about it so that others can be more aware.

Sorry that some of you think there were other motives...Actually...No, I am not sorry. Why should I appologize for trying to help? Fuck em if they are too blinded by their anger to fix their oversight.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J$tyle$
Jeffery Sklan is an employee too, but I understand completeley. It's semantics as far as I'm concerned, but - if i'ts the law, it's the law!

That probably means you actually WERE compliant before too, and no change was necessary.

Quote:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=125911

Awesome content deal!

04-27-2003, 09:07 PM	#401
jact Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Canada Posts: 9,134	400 for the sake of it. __________________ Free agent

04-27-2003, 09:07 PM	#402
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	Dammit.. beat me to it __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

04-27-2003, 09:10 PM	#404
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	Yes, you should use the list... as a guide to find out if your content provider is compliant... to get on their ass to update their $hit!! I said no one ever said to use it as their bible numb nuts... read everything I said or none of it at all. Yes, most people should use that list... if you see your content provider has an N... than it's up to you if you wanna continue to use their stuff or not... isn't it? It's also up to you to just waste all the money you spent on the stuff, or to get them to update so that your money hasn't been wasted. __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

04-27-2003, 09:15 PM	#408
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	Yup, I'd rather buy from non-compliant people I know, than people who actually abide the laws any day __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

04-27-2003, 09:27 PM	#414
jact Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Canada Posts: 9,134	Funny, I just took a quick look at the thread again with the word "illegal" highlighted. Seems Brujah has a hardon for labeling these content providers as illegal content businesses. . __________________ Free agent

04-27-2003, 10:01 PM	#421
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	It isn't a new law, but it is still an old law being applied to the internet sites now in more or less an "Other" category. I don't expect the amateurs to know about it until someone mentions it or brings it to their attention. I'd even say most attorneys admit to being unsure about it and providing a best guess about how to comply with it and to what extent that compliance needs to be done. If I were one of the girls running an amateur site, I wouldn't add my full name, home address, etc. on my site. Fuck that. Compliance would be a concern, but it would not outweigh the concern for my safety. I would attempt to find a safe alternative and in the meantime just have to deal with being non-compliant and taking that chance. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

04-27-2003, 10:03 PM	#422
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	J.. it's because they say your attorneys office can't be your custodian of records. You have to provide an individual who can be contacted, and a real street address for place of business. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

04-27-2003, 10:23 PM	#426
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Blow it out your own ass. Your list is meaningless in any real sense except to give you the opportunity to label competitors as lawbreakers. It's one thing to suggest that content providers be informed. It's something else altogether to make a list and suggest that customers not purchase from those on the list labeled as breaking the law. In reality, if a customer is concerned about his content providers.. he should take it up with them and his own attorney. He should do that even for those you have labeled as compliant, because trusting that list to determine who is compliant would be a big mistake. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

04-27-2003, 10:28 PM	#427
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	Well... as long as you are on the subject of legal content... http://www.homegrowncontent.com We were in legal standing before 2257 even became enforcable... Newsweek Magazine said "Homegrown Video is the longest running series in the history of porn" We continue to run by the book... Our popularity grows, we are the most popular content on cable... of course that is the "XX", not "XXX" versions... which is only available online in the complete and uncut versions... We have 20 years worth of fans to vouch for the lure of our stuff... and so much variety that everyone finds something to like... which we make sure to deliver with weekly updates on some of the finest streams on the net... most of our original customers are still with us almost four years later... happy to provide service references... and we just created a price schedule that the smallest to the largest can be happy with... OK... I will shut up now, but hopefully you get the point... __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."

04-27-2003, 10:32 PM	#431
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	Brujah: Excellent point, btw. __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."

04-27-2003, 10:36 PM	#433
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	JStyles: That is accurate that you cannot post an attorney as the custodian. It must be a direct employee of the company. __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."

04-27-2003, 10:45 PM	#437
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	LadyMischief: Thanks for asking, I would have to say that it is going very well... the ranks of our group continue to swell... we have some excellent work from our representation and we have gone on the offensive... we are still pretty much at the beginning of it all, but feeling very good about it... If anyone needs info about joining up they should contact me or spike @homegrownvideo.com or [email protected] __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."

04-27-2003, 10:49 PM	#438
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	Brujah: We post it on all content products... __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."

04-27-2003, 10:57 PM	#442
Far-L Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,065	Brujah: It is posted on anything that contains content that falls under 2257. We post it on the front page of the www.homegrownvideo.com site and on all our content pages there and in our leased content on the products found at http://www.homegrowncontent.com Oh yeah... it is also on all our boxcovers too... __________________ HomegrownCash.com, the affiliate program of Homegrown Video - The Largest Collection of Amateur XXX - Est. 1982. Contact - Email: farrell AT homegrownvideo D com Skype: hgfarl Newsweek Magazine - "Homegrown Video, the longest running series in the history of porn."

04-27-2003, 11:06 PM	#448
J$tyle$ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Sunny San Diego Posts: 11,500	Can't edit the above link, so here it is: http://www.cloud9content.com/section2257.html