2257 - Say goodbye to your Canadian produced content? - GoFuckYourself.com

$pikes · 05-31-2005, 01:49 PM

So, I just heard back from one of our Canadian based content producers. They are saying their legal dept. told them it's against Canadian law to pass along personal information hence, they don't want to comply to US law only to break a law in their homeland. They are working on a solution but this is where I'm told it stands ATM.

For us, this only effects a batch of photosets we have so it's no big deal but I'm wondering if anyone else has come up against this when requesting docs from Canadian producers?

who · 05-31-2005, 01:50 PM

Tell them to keep everything business related in Canada, and they might be able to ride it out.

NaughtyRob · 05-31-2005, 01:53 PM

Wow, more shit hitting the fan.

StuartD · 05-31-2005, 01:55 PM

Canadian law won't allow for a business to divulge full documents about the person's address and personal information.
Yet American law now requires that they do.

It makes for a messed up situation.

SykkBoy · 05-31-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NichePay - StuartD

Canadian law won't allow for a business to divulge full documents about the person's address and personal information.
Yet American law now requires that they do.

It makes for a messed up situation.

yeah, I would hope that the Rebecca Shaffer law would apply here......

GatorB · 05-31-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $pikes

So, I just heard back from one of our Canadian based content producers. They are saying their legal dept. told them it's against Canadian law to pass along personal information hence, they don't want to comply to US law only to break a law in their homeland.

That's bull. The DOJ isn't asking for the model's home address or phone #. They want a picture ID with a birthdate on it. I guess Canadians stores break the law all the time when their customers use checks and they ask for ID. I mean since the same model would be giving her real name, birthdate, address and phone number to some pimply faced 16 year old cashier. Not to mention her checking account # is on the checks too. Anyways good luck losing American sales which is probally the bulk of their business.

Quote:

They are working on a solution but this is where I'm told it stands ATM.

What solution? Either they are willing to give up the info or they aren't. There isn't a middle ground. If an American gets inspected by the DOJ, telling them "My Canadian content provider refuses to break Canadian law by giving me the info you require. And they also said for me to tell you FUCK AMERICA AND YOUR LAWS YOU DON'T OWN US" isn't going to cut it. That American is going to jail.

JD · 05-31-2005, 02:09 PM

soooo.....pretty much when the new 2257s are live Canadian content producers can't do biz with US people?

$pikes · 05-31-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

What solution? Either they are willing to give up the info or they aren't. There isn't a middle ground. If an American gets inspected by the DOJ, telling them "My Canadian content provider refuses to break Canadian law by giving me the info you require. And they also said for me to tell you FUCK AMERICA AND YOUR LAWS YOU DON'T OWN US" isn't going to cut it. That American is going to jail.

We'll.. just passing along what we were just told. Agreed there is no middle ground which is why we are removing these few pic sets if they confirm they are in violation of Canadian law by passing the info to us and make a final decision not to give over the docs. They are still working with their legal to be 100% certain on this but this is where it stands now so most likely we will be removing the sets before the 23rd or sooner.

StuartD · 05-31-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPeRMiNaToR

soooo.....pretty much when the new 2257s are live Canadian content producers can't do biz with US people?

I guess that depends on how the full interpretation of the new regs come out. If you believe GatorB's interpretation where personal information is not required, then Canadian content producers can still conduct business and send out censored ID's.
However, it is my understanding that censored documents are not required, but no one is yet 100% clear as to whether or not uncensored document are required, or if content producers can reserve the right to censor or uncensor at their discretion....
and until that point becomes very clear from greater legal minds than any we'll find in the GFY think tank...

I think it is not yet determined if Canadian content producers will be able to conduct business with US citizens or not.

chadglni · 05-31-2005, 02:18 PM

I don't think GatorB understands the regs as well as he thinks.

$pikes · 05-31-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NichePay - StuartD

I guess that depends on how the full interpretation of the new regs come out. If you believe GatorB's interpretation where personal information is not required, then Canadian content producers can still conduct business and send out censored ID's.
However, it is my understanding that censored documents are not required, but no one is yet 100% clear as to whether or not uncensored document are required, or if content producers can reserve the right to censor or uncensor at their discretion....
and until that point becomes very clear from greater legal minds than any we'll find in the GFY think tank...

I think it is not yet determined if Canadian content producers will be able to conduct business with US citizens or not.

Exactly... and they don't expect to have that figured out in a timely manner or before the 23rd deadline.

notjoe · 05-31-2005, 02:28 PM

Canadian Prostitution Law
In addition to the communicating law, ?bawdy houses? are prohibited (Criminal Code sections 210 and 211), as are procuring and living on the avails of prostitution of another person (section 212). Procuring and living on the avails are indictable offences carrying terms of up to ten years in prison (and in the aces of a person under 18, up to 14 years in prison). A common bawdy house is a place kept, occupied or used by at least one person for the purposes of prostitution or indecent acts. ?Keeping? a bawdy house (section 210(1)) is an indictable offence liable to up to two years in prison. Being ?found in? or an ?inmate? of a bawdy house (Criminal Code sections 210(2) and 211) are summary offences carrying a maximum term of six months in prison and/or a $2000 fine (being a summary offence, the communicating law carries the same maximum penalties).

The living on the avails, procuring and bawdy house laws date back to Canada?s first criminal code, as did the vagrancy provision which prohibited street prostitution. The vagrancy law was replaced in 1972 with the soliciting law which, in turn, was replaced by the communicating law.

While the activity proscribed by each law is relatively clear, the overall goal of Canadian prostitution law is not. Apparently it is not prohibition, otherwise the buying and selling of sexual services as such would be prohibited. However, the aforementioned criminal laws circumscribe prostitution in a way that makes it difficult to conceive how a person can prostitute without breaking the law. The practical solution to this contradiction is that, as long as it is off the street, laws against prostitution are rarely enforced. Indeed, most large municipalities facilitate the off-street trade by licensing and regulating it. And yet the rhetoric of Canadian politicians about prostitution is almost entirely abolitionist. The Canadian political solution to the problems created by prostitution has been to say one thing and do another.

http://users.uniserve.com/~lowman/ProLaw/prolawcan.htm

ANYONE WHO buys/sells/licenses content produced in canada is in violation of Canadian law and all you're worried about are some docs?! LOL

WiredGuy · 05-31-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $pikes

They are saying their legal dept. told them it's against Canadian law to pass along personal information hence, they don't want to comply to US law only to break a law in their homeland.

I just wanted to add that the producer is probably referring to this law:
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)

http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_e.asp

It does allow for the release of their information, but each model would need to sign an ammendment to their 2257's which allows this. They can only release the 2257 information if the models requested it and I'm willing to bet that the content producers didn't have that additional information attached. Quite a few producers have ammended their releases for Canadian productions to allow this but the PIPEDA is a rather new law here still.

WG

GatorB · 05-31-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I don't think GatorB understands the regs as well as he thinks.

I understand them just fine. Show me where it say a model address and phone # are required? The main sticking point is whether primary producer can black out info( like home adresses and home phone #'s ) It's says they are not REQUIRED to black out un-necessary info. It's doesn't specifically say they CAN'T. Whether or not they CAN is something the DOJ has yet to clarify.

decrypted · 05-31-2005, 02:44 PM

I think it's gonna be a while before all these regs are figured out.

My personal interpretation, and this doesn't reflex the view of my company, but I don't think we fall under 2257 at all because we do leased feeds. We both host and run the feeds ourselves, and all people do is text link to them from thier members areas.
Us needing to provide documents to people is no different then google needing 2257 docs for every single porn site that its search can find.

Of course, I haven't read the new laws, and I'm just making my own interpretation from what i've heard around on gfy...we're still putting together and organizing all our stuff into a database for our clients to download...

RawAlex · 05-31-2005, 03:06 PM

Okay, I am Canadian, so let me have at it.

First off, our privacy laws basically forbid the sharing or transmission of personal information without permission. The problem that exists is that the DOJ has decided that you cannot accept the word of a third party (IE: primary producer), yet at the same time the Canadian government forbids the sharing of the info.

Plain and simple, Canadian content producers are pretty darn screwed.

European content producers need to check their local privacy laws as well, as there may be issues going forward.

There is a huge difference between someone going to a beer store and showing ID to buy beer compared with appearing in a photoshoot and having copies of your drivers license and passport mailed out to tens, hundreds, or even thousands of webmasters (and a few potential stalkers). If you cannot see the difference, then you miss the point entirely.

notjoe, it's called "art"... and you can do almost anything for art as long as it's not obscene.

Prostitution itself is illegal in the US, but is not in Canada - so this issue would be much more relevant in the US if the subject had not been settled more than 25years ago already.

Alex

RawAlex · 05-31-2005, 03:07 PM

decrypted: I think much of it depends on the URL on the page. If they are text linking to your domain, then you are the publisher and you need the records. If they integrate your feed into their pages (and appear to be the publisher as a result) they will likely need records.

Don't send records out unless you truly feel you have to.

Alex

kristin · 05-31-2005, 03:09 PM

I HATE THIS!!

Seriously, if I never have to hear the number combination of 2257, I'll be happy. Most of our content is shot in Canada. One site is nothing but Canadian girls ... grrr, very grrr.

Michaelious · 05-31-2005, 03:10 PM

All this red tape is a bunch of crap!

Sin · 05-31-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

I guess Canadians stores break the law all the time when their customers use checks and they ask for ID. I mean since the same model would be giving her real name, birthdate, address and phone number to some pimply faced 16 year old cashier. Not to mention her checking account # is on the checks too. Anyways good luck losing American sales which is probally the bulk of their business.

You've got that complete ass backwards GatorB

They are saying that COMPANIES are not allowed to distribute informaiton. The scenario you describe would be the model herself, distributing her own damned information.

HUGE fuckin' legal difference between the two.

After Shock Media · 05-31-2005, 04:25 PM

Hmm first off I have been buying content from Canada for a few years. Every producer I have ever dealt with in Canada had no problems before giving me copies of the ID's and releases. It was always a condition we had in order to purchase. Not one time did I ever hear a provider tell me no or say they would but it is against the law. Sure it may be against the law, and it pretty much is in California as well in regards to privacy info. Yet this has been a zero issue, so why are people making a fuss now? I mean if it is to show your disproval with 2257 or some other lame reason, please get a damn clue. You did not care about it last year, so why now?

Then a little FYI, just add a damn disclaimer on your release and have the model sign it. Just like in California I am sure you can get away with not breaking the law if you have an information sharing waiver statement that they sign.

GatorB · 05-31-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinistress

You've got that complete ass backwards GatorB

They are saying that COMPANIES are not allowed to distribute informaiton. The scenario you describe would be the model herself, distributing her own damned information.

HUGE fuckin' legal difference between the two.

No No businesses would NEVER EVER sell your info to anyone. EVER.

Webby · 05-31-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $pikes

So, I just heard back from one of our Canadian based content producers. They are saying their legal dept. told them it's against Canadian law to pass along personal information hence, they don't want to comply to US law only to break a law in their homeland. They are working on a solution but this is where I'm told it stands ATM.

For us, this only effects a batch of photosets we have so it's no big deal but I'm wondering if anyone else has come up against this when requesting docs from Canadian producers?

Interesting! Gotta say the same situation will apply with UK content and several other EU counties where existing laws are in place to prevent the dissemination of private data.

In the case of the UK.. it's the Data Protection Act.

GatorB · 05-31-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

There is a huge difference between someone going to a beer store and showing ID to buy beer compared with appearing in a photoshoot and having copies of your drivers license and passport mailed out to tens, hundreds, or even thousands of webmasters (and a few potential stalkers). If you cannot see the difference, then you miss the point entirely.

Alex

Because stalkers don't have jobs where they can come into contact with women personal info ????Hmmmmm. You'd think those be the very type of jobs they'd get.

I'm tired of this "You're a pornographer so your're a stalker" crap. A model is 10,000 times more likely to get stalked by some dude working at McDonald's than pornographer.

LadyMischief · 05-31-2005, 04:36 PM

Actually, it's with regards to PIPA, the Personal information protection act. In Canada, identification cannot even be collected and stored by the PRODUCER (let alone passed on) if he does not have a proper privacy release from the model. However if he has a privacy release that also incorporates a release for cross-border data flow, it shouldn't be an issue at all.

LadyMischief · 05-31-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Hmm first off I have been buying content from Canada for a few years. Every producer I have ever dealt with in Canada had no problems before giving me copies of the ID's and releases. It was always a condition we had in order to purchase. Not one time did I ever hear a provider tell me no or say they would but it is against the law. Sure it may be against the law, and it pretty much is in California as well in regards to privacy info. Yet this has been a zero issue, so why are people making a fuss now? I mean if it is to show your disproval with 2257 or some other lame reason, please get a damn clue. You did not care about it last year, so why now?

Then a little FYI, just add a damn disclaimer on your release and have the model sign it. Just like in California I am sure you can get away with not breaking the law if you have an information sharing waiver statement that they sign.

PIPA was only passed into law in Canada in 2004. Our lawyer is one of the main lawyers who was in charge of the lobby group trying to get changes to the legislation. You are right about the disclaimer, however it's best to have it drafted by a lawyer.

LadyMischief · 05-31-2005, 04:40 PM

If any Canadians want more information about it, hit me up I can send you info

After Shock Media · 05-31-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

PIPA was only passed into law in Canada in 2004. Our lawyer is one of the main lawyers who was in charge of the lobby group trying to get changes to the legislation. You are right about the disclaimer, however it's best to have it drafted by a lawyer.

Pretty sure the data protection act in California was also passed around same time. Either way it still is a very easy work around just like in California and everywhere else.
Then again fact of the matter is up until the new regs got signed, people were selling me content with ID's from Canada with not a single word said.

$pikes · 05-31-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Pretty sure the data protection act in California was also passed around same time. Either way it still is a very easy work around just like in California and everywhere else.
Then again fact of the matter is up until the new regs got signed, people were selling me content with ID's from Canada with not a single word said.

Agreed... but these are sets from years ago when we first started in this business when we would just obtain a license and not IDs as well and I think these privacy laws were not in place in US or Canada then so many producers didn't have a privacy disclaimer on their model contracts (guessing). Now that we may need everything the photographers and/or producers are reluctant to give them up due to the new privacy laws.

BTW.. anyone have a link to the California privacy law?

DWB · 05-31-2005, 05:16 PM

Yet another pickle...

After Shock Media · 05-31-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $pikes

.

BTW.. anyone have a link to the California privacy law?

It is somewhere in this site.
http://www.privacy.ca.gov/

Webby · 05-31-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Because stalkers don't have jobs where they can come into contact with women personal info ????Hmmmmm. You'd think those be the very type of jobs they'd get.

I'm tired of this "You're a pornographer so your're a stalker" crap. A model is 10,000 times more likely to get stalked by some dude working at McDonald's than pornographer.

Hear what you are saying Gator and ya got a point!

But.. consider this, you got a friend who happens to be a model and she did a shoot sometime last year and where the usual photo ID and model release was signed.

Then... unknown to her, and contrary to any "normal" model release terms, some producer (current holder of rights), sends out her home address to anyone that needs it.

Personally... if I were a model and I ended up with some perv hounding me and found out it he established my home address via 2257 docs - there would be several court cases. Not only for the webmaster, but all up that tree and applications for destruction of all content which was, in effect, distributed contrary to the terms originally established.

If you think you would treat a friend that way, that's fine. But no friggin way am I gonna be releasing model's home addresses to anyone - nevermind any asshole "just doing his job" from the US govt.

Webby · 05-31-2005, 05:28 PM

And.. can't say for the US - it's probably worse, - but models do sue. One of ours ended up with an out of court settlement for .. around $650K.

05-31-2005, 01:49 PM	#1
$pikes Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,055	2257 - Say goodbye to your Canadian produced content? So, I just heard back from one of our Canadian based content producers. They are saying their legal dept. told them it's against Canadian law to pass along personal information hence, they don't want to comply to US law only to break a law in their homeland. They are working on a solution but this is where I'm told it stands ATM. For us, this only effects a batch of photosets we have so it's no big deal but I'm wondering if anyone else has come up against this when requesting docs from Canadian producers? __________________ SMASHBUCKS Paying webmasters on time since 2001 Joe Spikes - ICQ: 160069266

05-31-2005, 01:53 PM	#3
NaughtyRob Two fresh affiliate progs Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Inside teen pussy Posts: 29,602	Wow, more shit hitting the fan. __________________ [email protected] Skype: 17026955414 Vacares Web Hosting - Protect Your Ass with Included Daily Backups

05-31-2005, 01:55 PM	#4
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	Canadian law won't allow for a business to divulge full documents about the person's address and personal information. Yet American law now requires that they do. It makes for a messed up situation. __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

05-31-2005, 02:18 PM	#10
chadglni Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: PEI, Canada Posts: 6,924	I don't think GatorB understands the regs as well as he thinks. __________________ Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

05-31-2005, 02:44 PM	#15
decrypted Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: future-assassin.com Posts: 370	I think it's gonna be a while before all these regs are figured out. My personal interpretation, and this doesn't reflex the view of my company, but I don't think we fall under 2257 at all because we do leased feeds. We both host and run the feeds ourselves, and all people do is text link to them from thier members areas. Us needing to provide documents to people is no different then google needing 2257 docs for every single porn site that its search can find. Of course, I haven't read the new laws, and I'm just making my own interpretation from what i've heard around on gfy...we're still putting together and organizing all our stuff into a database for our clients to download... __________________ Konrad - ICQ 59416956

05-31-2005, 01:50 PM	#2
who So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ICQ #23642053 Posts: 19,593	Tell them to keep everything business related in Canada, and they might be able to ride it out.

05-31-2005, 02:09 PM	#7
JD Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 22,651	soooo.....pretty much when the new 2257s are live Canadian content producers can't do biz with US people?

05-31-2005, 02:28 PM	#12
notjoe Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 5,599	Canadian Prostitution Law In addition to the communicating law, ?bawdy houses? are prohibited (Criminal Code sections 210 and 211), as are procuring and living on the avails of prostitution of another person (section 212). Procuring and living on the avails are indictable offences carrying terms of up to ten years in prison (and in the aces of a person under 18, up to 14 years in prison). A common bawdy house is a place kept, occupied or used by at least one person for the purposes of prostitution or indecent acts. ?Keeping? a bawdy house (section 210(1)) is an indictable offence liable to up to two years in prison. Being ?found in? or an ?inmate? of a bawdy house (Criminal Code sections 210(2) and 211) are summary offences carrying a maximum term of six months in prison and/or a $2000 fine (being a summary offence, the communicating law carries the same maximum penalties). The living on the avails, procuring and bawdy house laws date back to Canada?s first criminal code, as did the vagrancy provision which prohibited street prostitution. The vagrancy law was replaced in 1972 with the soliciting law which, in turn, was replaced by the communicating law. While the activity proscribed by each law is relatively clear, the overall goal of Canadian prostitution law is not. Apparently it is not prohibition, otherwise the buying and selling of sexual services as such would be prohibited. However, the aforementioned criminal laws circumscribe prostitution in a way that makes it difficult to conceive how a person can prostitute without breaking the law. The practical solution to this contradiction is that, as long as it is off the street, laws against prostitution are rarely enforced. Indeed, most large municipalities facilitate the off-street trade by licensing and regulating it. And yet the rhetoric of Canadian politicians about prostitution is almost entirely abolitionist. The Canadian political solution to the problems created by prostitution has been to say one thing and do another. http://users.uniserve.com/~lowman/ProLaw/prolawcan.htm ANYONE WHO buys/sells/licenses content produced in canada is in violation of Canadian law and all you're worried about are some docs?! LOL

05-31-2005, 03:06 PM	#16
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Okay, I am Canadian, so let me have at it. First off, our privacy laws basically forbid the sharing or transmission of personal information without permission. The problem that exists is that the DOJ has decided that you cannot accept the word of a third party (IE: primary producer), yet at the same time the Canadian government forbids the sharing of the info. Plain and simple, Canadian content producers are pretty darn screwed. European content producers need to check their local privacy laws as well, as there may be issues going forward. There is a huge difference between someone going to a beer store and showing ID to buy beer compared with appearing in a photoshoot and having copies of your drivers license and passport mailed out to tens, hundreds, or even thousands of webmasters (and a few potential stalkers). If you cannot see the difference, then you miss the point entirely. notjoe, it's called "art"... and you can do almost anything for art as long as it's not obscene. Prostitution itself is illegal in the US, but is not in Canada - so this issue would be much more relevant in the US if the subject had not been settled more than 25years ago already. Alex

05-31-2005, 03:07 PM	#17
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	decrypted: I think much of it depends on the URL on the page. If they are text linking to your domain, then you are the publisher and you need the records. If they integrate your feed into their pages (and appear to be the publisher as a result) they will likely need records. Don't send records out unless you truly feel you have to. Alex

05-31-2005, 03:09 PM	#18
kristin GOO! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Back Home : ) Posts: 9,768	I HATE THIS!! Seriously, if I never have to hear the number combination of 2257, I'll be happy. Most of our content is shot in Canada. One site is nothing but Canadian girls ... grrr, very grrr. __________________ Vacares rules. "Usually only fat guys have the kind of knowledge and ability that Kristin has."

05-31-2005, 03:10 PM	#19
Michaelious Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Scotland Posts: 6,720	All this red tape is a bunch of crap! __________________

05-31-2005, 04:25 PM	#21
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	Hmm first off I have been buying content from Canada for a few years. Every producer I have ever dealt with in Canada had no problems before giving me copies of the ID's and releases. It was always a condition we had in order to purchase. Not one time did I ever hear a provider tell me no or say they would but it is against the law. Sure it may be against the law, and it pretty much is in California as well in regards to privacy info. Yet this has been a zero issue, so why are people making a fuss now? I mean if it is to show your disproval with 2257 or some other lame reason, please get a damn clue. You did not care about it last year, so why now? Then a little FYI, just add a damn disclaimer on your release and have the model sign it. Just like in California I am sure you can get away with not breaking the law if you have an information sharing waiver statement that they sign. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

05-31-2005, 04:36 PM	#25
LadyMischief Orgasms N Such! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Ontario Posts: 18,135	Actually, it's with regards to PIPA, the Personal information protection act. In Canada, identification cannot even be collected and stored by the PRODUCER (let alone passed on) if he does not have a proper privacy release from the model. However if he has a privacy release that also incorporates a release for cross-border data flow, it shouldn't be an issue at all. __________________ ICQ 3522039 Content Manager - orgasm.com [email protected]

05-31-2005, 04:40 PM	#27
LadyMischief Orgasms N Such! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Ontario Posts: 18,135	If any Canadians want more information about it, hit me up I can send you info __________________ ICQ 3522039 Content Manager - orgasm.com [email protected]

05-31-2005, 05:16 PM	#30
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	Yet another pickle...

05-31-2005, 05:28 PM	#33
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	And.. can't say for the US - it's probably worse, - but models do sue. One of ours ended up with an out of court settlement for .. around $650K. __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.