ahhahaha that would rule.

"So, all I need to do to get one of you to send me $5k is to set up a fake email account and pretend to be a net model? Okay then, I am Malezia, the Vivid girl, but really I was forced by my brother to do porn for his website. Please send me $1,000 so I can be that much closer to my dream of opening a popcorn ball trailer on the county fair circuit!"

Am I the only one who finds this hillarious? :1orglaugh

But that means thats not really Malezia on that board either :(

The original holder of the license should have that info. It makes no sense at all to not block that out address info to protect the model as the content is distributed.

So if you' buy the content and the address info is blocked out, common sense says that's good enough. So some misguided prosecutor decides you should have had the address too as a secondary source of the information; you explain in pretrial motions why you don?t have it. If the judge doesn?t buy it, you contact your content provider and get the complete record, which they will do once you are in court. You ask the court to seal the information to protect the model. Common sense has to take over at some point.

So if this gets to trial, you have the records you started with and the complete records provide by your content provide. Maybe you had to subpoena them? Actually that would be best.

Do doubt this issue will be tested in court. Some poor Webmaster will have to pay the price for all.

I?m not an attorney this is a lay opinion.

That was probably posted by some GFYer who followed the link...
:evil-laug

*grabs some popcorn*