is your content provider a scumbag? - GoFuckYourself.com

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 01:22 PM

18 USC § 2257 provides: ?[any primary or secondary producer] shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises?

28 CFR § 75.2(b) provides: ?a secondary producer . . . may . . . to create and maintain records . . . [accept] from the primary producer . . . copies of the records.?

28 CFR § 75.2(b) further requires that: ?a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.? Note the words "also" and "copies".

28 CFR § 75.4 requires that ?Any [primary or secondary] producer . . . shall make such records available at the producer's place of business.?

Those four clauses, taken together, require you to maintain copies of the records at your place of business. Specifically, as a secondary producer, you must keep records ?at [your] business premises?. Though you need not create the records yourself, you still must get ?copies of the records? ?from the primary producer?. Additionally, if you get copies (as opposed to create records yourself), you have to ALSO keep ?the name and address of the primary producer? on file.

This is pretty clear.

so my question is this. Why are 50% of the content providers out there not willing to give up this info required by law?

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 01:28 PM

bizump

gornyhuy · 07-31-2004, 01:29 PM

Because it is not required by law yet.

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gornyhuy
Because it is not required by law yet.

did you not read my post? I just quoted the current fucking law.

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 01:32 PM

where are the content providers?

brand0n · 07-31-2004, 01:36 PM

hiding

JayJay · 07-31-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by p1mpdogg
did you not read my post? I just quoted the current fucking law.

CJswe · 07-31-2004, 01:39 PM

based on the ones we've been dealing with the answer would be an astounding no, for them being jokers that is. all depends on who you go for.

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 01:39 PM

charly, aaron, mutt, anyone care to comment? I just want a straight answer from a contetn provider.... and nobody seems to agree on anything

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJswe
based on the ones we've been dealing with the answer would be an astounding no, for them being jokers that is. all depends on who you go for.

english porfavor?

wyldblyss · 07-31-2004, 01:40 PM

I have the releases signed by the models along with copies of their ID's and the licence for 99% of my content. The other 1% was just recently purchased so I don't have that yet....but I will get it.

I know many of the content providers are having difficulty giving up the model ID's because many of the girls don't want their real names known.

No idea what recourse you have if you can't get what you need.

freeadultcontent · 07-31-2004, 01:41 PM

Current/unrevised version was very unclear on whom a secondary producer was. It went into ad nausem about hiring, securing, filming and such of models when the definition was explained.

CJswe · 07-31-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

english porfavor?

try reading it again, just a quick tip.

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wyldblyss
I have the releases signed by the models along with copies of their ID's and the licence for 99% of my content. The other 1% was just recently purchased so I don't have that yet....but I will get it.

I know many of the content providers are having difficulty giving up the model ID's because many of the girls don't want their real names known.

No idea what recourse you have if you can't get what you need.

unfortuntaly, I am going to have to delete a ood portion of my database because of this..

Just wanted to thank all the content providers for being stubborn bitches and making things easy. You sure lost my business in the future

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Current/unrevised version was very unclear on whom a secondary producer was. It went into ad nausem about hiring, securing, filming and such of models when the definition was explained.

right, I understand its somewhat unclear, but if you take those 4 quotes i posted, what is unclear about those?

pxxx · 07-31-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wyldblyss

I know many of the content providers are having difficulty giving up the model ID's because many of the girls don't want their real names known.

No idea what recourse you have if you can't get what you need.

This would probably be the best explaination you are going to get. Maybe AaronM can give a better one later or so, but i am sure this is one of the main reason.

freeadultcontent · 07-31-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by p1mpdogg
right, I understand its somewhat unclear, but if you take those 4 quotes i posted, what is unclear about those?

I am using the whole code, not just the quotes.

Sly_RJ · 07-31-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by p1mpdogg
unfortuntaly, I am going to have to delete a ood portion of my database because of this..

Just wanted to thank all the content providers for being stubborn bitches and making things easy. You sure lost my business in the future

What are you doing about your affiliates that you supplied free content to?

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
What are you doing about your affiliates that you supplied free content to?

not my responsibility, its thiers.. if i am not hosting it, then i am not responsible for it. I didnt produce the content...the best I can do is send out an email warning everyone... what else can I do? nothing.

gornyhuy · 07-31-2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by p1mpdogg
did you not read my post? I just quoted the current fucking law.

Does anything in the current law require primary content producers to hand over records to anyone other than the attorney general?

freeadultcontent · 07-31-2004, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gornyhuy
Does anything in the current law require primary content producers to hand over records to anyone other than the attorney general?

Well its not just the AG, its law enforcement for the most part.

gornyhuy · 07-31-2004, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Well its not just the AG, its law enforcement for the most part.

Sure, but primarys are not necessarily required by law to share records outside of LE and AG, right?

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 02:04 PM

awsome

still at square one

TheWildcard · 07-31-2004, 02:08 PM

My content provider gives me free sausages so I'm statisfied.

freeadultcontent · 07-31-2004, 02:10 PM

p1mpdogg what makes you think you were a secondary producer to begin with?

gornyhuy · 07-31-2004, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by p1mpdogg
awsome

still at square one

Well answer my fucking question then.

freeadultcontent · 07-31-2004, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gornyhuy
Sure, but primarys are not necessarily required by law to share records outside of LE and AG, right?

They could be required to share with secondaries, if indeed they had a secondary.

Mutt · 07-31-2004, 02:13 PM

trey i'm not an expert on this because i'm only selling exclusive content and customers get all the documentation, so we've never had to debate whether the customer should have the documents.

charly is the guy who can answer your question - charly's had a fight for years with one of the big brokers - he agrees with you, that licensees(secondary producers) should have always been given the model id's to comply with 2257.

and yeah, i'm afraid for the companies who are going to try to comply now alot of content is going to have to be dumped.

Sly_RJ · 07-31-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
They could be required to share with secondaries, if indeed they had a secondary.

Lovely how the same things that qualify someone as a secondary go ahead and disqualify them in later clauses.

freechess · 07-31-2004, 02:14 PM

well i am not worried untill i get a visit by the feds i will not sweat it

freeadultcontent · 07-31-2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
Lovely how the same things that qualify someone as a secondary go ahead and disqualify them in later clauses.

That is the law for you, and why lawyers are ussually well off.

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freechess
well i am not worried untill i get a visit by the feds i will not sweat it

great answer

gornyhuy · 07-31-2004, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by p1mpdogg
great answer

I see you are continuing to provide great answers as well.

crockett · 07-31-2004, 02:25 PM

Quote:

so my question is this. Why are 50% of the content providers out there not willing to give up this info required by law?

well number one, it's not law yet.. it's still proposed.. if it goes into law lets say next month. You still have 30 days to become compliant.

When you look at the implications at what is at stake, I can't blame them for not handing the info over until the law is in affect.
First off I believe this law violates the models right to privacy and I can't see it being upheld. John Asscrap has a history of trying to pass un constitutional laws.

Why on earth would a content producer want to put himself at liability for giving out a models personal information with out written consent? They may have written consent to sell the pictures and videos but it if very unlikely, any have written consent to hand over the models personal info. I see this entire fiasco as a major lawsuit waiting to happen.

psyko514 · 07-31-2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett
well number one, it's not law yet.. it's still proposed.. if it goes into law lets say next month. You still have 30 days to become compliant.

his quotes are from 2257 as it is now, not as it's proposed to be.

Donny · 07-31-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by p1mpdogg
where are the content providers?

When I sell content to others I give them all the documents required by law, including ID.

I don't have a clue why someone wouldn't do that. But then again, I've never sold anything but Exclusive content.

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett
well number one, it's not law yet.. it's still proposed.. if it goes into law lets say next month. You still have 30 days to become compliant.

When you look at the implications at what is at stake, I can't blame them for not handing the info over until the law is in affect.
First off I believe this law violates the models right to privacy and I can't see it being upheld. John Asscrap has a history of trying to pass un constitutional laws.

Why on earth would a content producer want to put himself at liability for giving out a models personal information with out written consent? They may have written consent to sell the pictures and videos but it if very unlikely, any have written consent to hand over the models personal info. I see this entire fiasco as a major lawsuit waiting to happen.

you obviously did not read the current 2257 and the 4 quotes i posted from the current regs.

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DonovanPhillips
When I sell content to others I give them all the documents required by law, including ID.

I don't have a clue why someone wouldn't do that. But then again, I've never sold anything but Exclusive content.

donny see this thread

http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...hreadid=334301

im serious.

titmowse · 07-31-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett
well number one, it's not law yet.. it's still proposed..

yup. a lot can change in those proposed regulations between now and later.

the proposed rules for adult material in the CAN SPAM ACT changed.

*okay, that's the current stuff? i need to read that shit again.. my statement still stands. the proposed NEW rules can change.*

psyko514 · 07-31-2004, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DonovanPhillips
When I sell content to others I give them all the documents required by law, including ID.

I don't have a clue why someone wouldn't do that. But then again, I've never sold anything but Exclusive content.

if you were to sell non-exclusive, would you have a problem giving the docs?

freeadultcontent · 07-31-2004, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett
When you look at the implications at what is at stake, I can't blame them for not handing the info over until the law is in affect.
First off I believe this law violates the models right to privacy...

Why on earth would a content producer want to put himself at liability for giving out a models personal information with out written consent? They may have written consent to sell the pictures and videos but it if very unlikely, any have written consent to hand over the models personal info.

First he talking about current law not the proposed one.

Now onto what you said.
I have been to a few lawyers regarding these revisions. I am also located in California. As many will know California does have some of the strongest privacy and anti-stalking laws in the US, on top of the Federal privacy act.
1. If you model or put yourself out into public view for profit. You have less of a right to privacy. (take it as what it is)
2. In CA one can not share personal information with a 3rd party without written authorization. UNLESS you are doing so to comply with the law.

So in reality a provider in CA could share information. Be fully covered by the law and not need written consent to share the information. Not saying this is safe nor what we will do, but it is how it is.

Donny · 07-31-2004, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514
if you were to sell non-exclusive, would you have a problem giving the docs?

I don't know because I've never done it. I think, for the model's protection, that I'd be very picky who I let buy from me. It's kinda scary that anybody can go to a content store, spend just a few dollars, and get a copy of the model's ID, address, phone number, etc.

But since I only sell exclusive to a handful of people I've been doing business with for YEARS, I don't hesitate to provide those docs.

amacontent · 07-31-2004, 02:51 PM

We are in process of digitizing ALL our 2257 docs and ids and then categorizing them into folders that correspond with product IDs of the scenes. But now I will give out the required docs when webmasters ask for them. .

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DonovanPhillips
I don't know because I've never done it. I think, for the model's protection, that I'd be very picky who I let buy from me. It's kinda scary that anybody can go to a content store, spend just a few dollars, and get a copy of the model's ID, address, phone number, etc.

But since I only sell exclusive to a handful of people I've been doing business with for YEARS, I don't hesitate to provide those docs.

I have no problem signing a nda or whatever insuring that her info will not be givin to anyone other than law enforcement if requested

p1mpdogg · 07-31-2004, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by amacontent
We are in process of digitizing ALL our 2257 docs and ids and then categorizing them into folders that correspond with product IDs of the scenes. But now I will give out the required docs when webmasters ask for them. .

how much for everything you got? consider we have bought from you before.. I want the id's release and website license.. make me a deal and you have it sold.

icq 141588569

freeadultcontent · 07-31-2004, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by amacontent
We are in process of digitizing ALL our 2257 docs and ids and then categorizing them into folders that correspond with product IDs of the scenes. But now I will give out the required docs when webmasters ask for them. .

Why now? having the id's correspond with projects etc, was always required. Not stiring up shit, just curious.

07-31-2004, 01:22 PM	#1
p1mpdogg Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 16,714	is your content provider a scumbag? 18 USC § 2257 provides: ?[any primary or secondary producer] shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises? 28 CFR § 75.2(b) provides: ?a secondary producer . . . may . . . to create and maintain records . . . [accept] from the primary producer . . . copies of the records.? 28 CFR § 75.2(b) further requires that: ?a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.? Note the words "also" and "copies". 28 CFR § 75.4 requires that ?Any [primary or secondary] producer . . . shall make such records available at the producer's place of business.? Those four clauses, taken together, require you to maintain copies of the records at your place of business. Specifically, as a secondary producer, you must keep records ?at [your] business premises?. Though you need not create the records yourself, you still must get ?copies of the records? ?from the primary producer?. Additionally, if you get copies (as opposed to create records yourself), you have to ALSO keep ?the name and address of the primary producer? on file. This is pretty clear. so my question is this. Why are 50% of the content providers out there not willing to give up this info required by law? __________________ A fast fortune is easy to earn! Just go with a winner!

07-31-2004, 01:28 PM	#2
p1mpdogg Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 16,714	bizump __________________ A fast fortune is easy to earn! Just go with a winner!

07-31-2004, 01:29 PM	#3
gornyhuy Chafed. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Face Down in Pussy Posts: 18,041	Because it is not required by law yet. __________________ icq:159548293

07-31-2004, 01:32 PM	#5
p1mpdogg Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 16,714	where are the content providers? __________________ A fast fortune is easy to earn! Just go with a winner!

07-31-2004, 01:36 PM	#6
brand0n been very busy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: the queen city Posts: 26,983	hiding __________________ want to buy this spot for cheap? it is of course for sale. long term deals are always the best bet. brand0n/ at/ a o l dot commies.

07-31-2004, 01:39 PM	#8
CJswe Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 129	based on the ones we've been dealing with the answer would be an astounding no, for them being jokers that is. all depends on who you go for. __________________ Erotikpalatset.com - Swedes do it better Street69.com - Where did your wife go last night? Sexyvidz.com - Coming soon to a computer near YOU

07-31-2004, 01:40 PM	#11
wyldblyss Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Buck Starts Here Posts: 5,779	I have the releases signed by the models along with copies of their ID's and the licence for 99% of my content. The other 1% was just recently purchased so I don't have that yet....but I will get it. I know many of the content providers are having difficulty giving up the model ID's because many of the girls don't want their real names known. No idea what recourse you have if you can't get what you need.

07-31-2004, 01:41 PM	#12
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	Current/unrevised version was very unclear on whom a secondary producer was. It went into ad nausem about hiring, securing, filming and such of models when the definition was explained. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

07-31-2004, 02:04 PM	#23
p1mpdogg Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 16,714	awsome still at square one __________________ A fast fortune is easy to earn! Just go with a winner!

07-31-2004, 02:08 PM	#24
TheWildcard So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,759	My content provider gives me free sausages so I'm statisfied.

07-31-2004, 02:10 PM	#25
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	p1mpdogg what makes you think you were a secondary producer to begin with? __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

07-31-2004, 02:13 PM	#28
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	trey i'm not an expert on this because i'm only selling exclusive content and customers get all the documentation, so we've never had to debate whether the customer should have the documents. charly is the guy who can answer your question - charly's had a fight for years with one of the big brokers - he agrees with you, that licensees(secondary producers) should have always been given the model id's to comply with 2257. and yeah, i'm afraid for the companies who are going to try to comply now alot of content is going to have to be dumped.

07-31-2004, 02:14 PM	#30
freechess Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 25	well i am not worried untill i get a visit by the feds i will not sweat it

07-31-2004, 02:51 PM	#43
amacontent STANLEY CUP CHAMPION ! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 12,895	We are in process of digitizing ALL our 2257 docs and ids and then categorizing them into folders that correspond with product IDs of the scenes. But now I will give out the required docs when webmasters ask for them. . __________________ Joe Loughlin [email protected] TEAM- joeloughlin. Telegram - AMA_JOE https://www.amaproduction.com