no it doesn't. think about the true significance of what i said. what if i go to my lawyer and he says 'you better get those documents or you could face felony charges even if you took everything down tonight'. what then?

jesus christ.

LOL dude he's doing you a favor. If people just let your thread sit then itd have been on page 3 by now and then where would YOU be and YOUR moment of glory? LOL... sheesh

Like I really give a fuck how you spell your name dumbass.

It won't matter what company or producer gives out the info that gets a girl stalked....once it happens no girl anywhere will want to shoot porn. I think this law sucks for that reason along with many others, but you seem to think that companies like extreme paychecks should break the law to help your business. That's not going to happen, so get over it.



Welcome to the 21st century dumbass. Where almost all computers are networked to all the other computers.
Do you think a company like ATK has only one person working on one computer to handle their 2257 stuff? I doubt it.
There's probably several people all tied into a network, working on this stuff.
If the computer is on a network, then it can be hacked, simple as that.



The porn model put herself into that position also....probably more so than the stripper who only did "softcore dancing"....since as you put it before, Extreme's models are more likely to get stalked because they do hardcore extreme porn which brings out more stalkers. (Your argument, not mine)

If there's any legal ownage it will be the model owning the DOJ.
You can't sue somebody for doing what they're required by law to do.....so the model is more likely to sue the gov't than the porn company.
Or if she sues the porn company the porn company can sue the gov't to recover the damages.

Well aren't you special, I'm sure big people just run to call Donny :1orglaugh


That's right all the models are going to run to you. Because you know whats right and whats wrong for them :1orglaugh


Learn to read.

We said 100x over that all models were made aware that the info they supplied to us before agreeing to model could and would be passed on to secondary producers. SO they knew damn well what they signed up to do as does all girls who become strippers.

So now you've gone on and on for hours making up your own info., adding your own opinions and twisting everything they way you want to see it. But all you've done its show everyone what a clown you are. Now how about you run along and start your own thread to cry in because some of our affiliates have important questions to ask here.

You didn't answer my question, what does your daddy (the pastor) think about you producing porn? Your sins must make him real proud :1orglaugh

Sorry, didnt mean to imply that you did or didnt do anything of the kind :) I was just using you as an example since its your thread.

OK back to the discussion. I think I understood finally where you're coming from, Extreme John. You're saying since everyone should have, according to the existing law, been sending ID information to affiliates all along, there really is no option now but to send it since now affiliates are clearly labeled as secondary producers. Not sending the ID information is simply not an option, since it was always required (if the affiliate ever used a HC image) and so now you're fixing the situation.

Basically in your intepretation the revised 2257 regs are not new, they're simply a clarification, and that was the intent all along.


Did I get it?

You'd be surprised (and will be soon I'm afraid).




Not at all. The point is that I live in a place where I'm the only guy in town. I don't live in LA where all the models stumble across each other, particularly your extreme hardcore models. When models stop posing for LA producers, who are porn companies gonna have to buy from? Producers outside the LA market.



YOU need to learn to read. And comprehend. If a model gets in front of a JURY, do you think that jury is going to care WTF you claim to have told them? There are plenty of loopholes, I guarantee it. Use some common sense. The jury will side with the poor, exploited model.

ASK an attorney who SPECIALIZES in 2257 whether or not he thinks it's a good idea to give out IDs to affiliates. Seriously. Spend the $500 to talk to Larry Walters.

Thanks for the info :)

I don't know about Extreme's viewpoint, however, my attorney told me that I'm required as a secondary producer to have the documents, under the OLD regulations.
You can technically be prosecuted under the old regulations as a secondary producer because inferior courts outside of the 10th circuit aren't bound by the Sundance V Reno decision.

So about a year ago I stopped doing business with companies that didn't provide me with model ID's and paperwork

:2 cents:

Donnovan I think they're saying that the cat is out of the bag, because they previously allowed affiliates to use HC images so now to be compliant they have to give ID information. Its the "retroactive reach" interpretation of the revised 2257 regulations.

Frankly, they do make some sense.

The answer really doesn't matter in this discussion, now does it? My dad's thoughts on what I do for a living has absolutely zero relevence to this discussion.

But if you must know the answer, my father is actually proud of me. He says, "While I'd have chosen a different profession, I'm very proud of you" and he makes that clear to everyone. He's proud with what I do for other people, which is also none of your business.

In fact, he's pissed people off to the point that they don't want to talk to him anymore by replying to their emails when they ask, "Why do you condone your son doing this". His reponses put them in their place.

Will you sleep better knowing that?

P.O. Boxes will work great for new and future models to have listed on their
ID's. As for the all of the past models, I bet if you sent a $50.00 check to the addresses listed on the ID's of models from 6 months ago and older, that only 20% percent of those checks would be cashed.

and this is sounding like the round and round of "Guns don't kill people" mantra.

Follow the law or don't follow the law, whichever you choose, do you really expect to see that it will make a difference as to where a majority of affiliates or models are going to do business if they want to do business at all?

A business that will be shutdown for not following the law won't be around to write any checks for models looking to make an income.

Everyone has a choice to make, so the fingerpointing, condescending tones have really been an immense help to everyone concerned :disgust

A big hooray for all the action taken on the part of the individuals in fighting the revised 2257 law beforehand. :anon :anon

Frankly, it doesn't matter. Seriously. A decent attorney will tell you that you're gonna have to take a hard stance and make people take down content or redirect to hosted galleries. Seriously. Believe me, I know this for a fact as I've been received counsel from the best in the business (again, I encourage talking to attorneys who SPECIALIZE in 2257 and not just your neighborhood contract writer). I have more than 1,200 affiliates of my own to deal with, after all.

Lenny

As a matter of interest, what were you doing with the content? I mean, by what action did your lawyer consider you to fall under "secondary producer" according to the original 2257 regs?

that's not good enough. they were up. they need documentation. taking them down doesn't change that fact.

Yes it does. The galleries must be documented OR taken down by the 23rd. You will not be penalized for "what used to be there". I know this for a fact.

Oh quit your scare tactics, dopeman. There's bigger fish to catch in this pond.

I was making TGP galleries with sponsor provided content.

If you "publish" any sexually explicit content then you're a secondary producer. If you film/photograph sexually explicit content then you're a primary producer.
The same person can be both a primary and a secondary producer.

Well at least not by a jury... But do you really want to go through hell and a trial?

This statement makes me :sleep

You think you have it all figured out and yet your still way off base.


Once again just another assumption from Donny. Doesn't really mean a whole lot coming for you. NEXT


Can you please provide proof that you completed law school?

I didn't think so, so once again run along and worry about yourself. I'm done playing games with you, so you can try to make a name for yourself with your opinions. We don't and never will buy content from you and you are not an affiliate. So if you want to voice your opinion from now on start your own thread. We wasted enough time on you and your silly statements.

Really? Did Alberto Gonzales tell you this?

Unless you heard it from him it's not a fact, it's an opinion....even if it's a professional opinion it's still just an opinion.

There's very little case law surrounding 18 USC section 2257, so most of what any attorney tells you is just an educated opinion. They can only speculate as to what the DOJ will and will not try to prosecute.

uh - i'm not trying to scare anyone. we're talking felony charges here. one large sponsor is saying that yes - you can be retroactively prosecuted for previous galleries you had up. another sponsor is saying the opposite. now another secondary producer is confirming his lawyer agrees with the stance that you can prosecuted for all previous galleries.

now lets say you went to your lawyer and he told you, yes - you need the documentation. what then?

Okay, Extreme. I'm outta here. You'll be hearing the "I told you so's" quite soon, I'm afraid.

I have this sneaking feeling this coming week may even be a big eye opener for ya. :)

Good luck.

Yes now I see where you get it from. Your a hypocrite just like your daddy.

I'd ask for docs. Many European sponsors (hegre, domai, ...) would tell me to go to hell in a hand basket.

Anyways my point was that there's bigger fish. This retroactivity on a glam site where theyd have to dicker and discuss about each image whether it's 2257 exempt, c'mon that's not how they want to spend their efforts.

well what about the large american sponsors that say, 'we're not giving out the docs'.

what then?

Guess you'll be screwed if the feds show up.

If the retroactive interpretation is upheld then they'd be breaking the law by refusing to release the docs.

Where are you going with this? I'm curious.. :)

what the fuck are you talking about 'where am i going with this?'

do you not see the fucking seriousness of this?

read the regs - it's up to the secondary producer to get the docs before publishing. 'he didn't give it to me' isn't good enough.

Wayback machine, a trip down memory lane.

The Internet Archive is building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public.
Browse the Archive

Sad I came in here so late...
I think It's a good move for EPC to go...
fuck Donovan...
you got balls dude... if I was an exposed shaver I'd keep my mouth shut
especially when attacking a program like EPC

you can not expect all programs to go the lame lightspeed way... nastyd will have their model release stuff ready by the 15th... what are you gonna call ernesto & co??
trashy scum?? I feel sorry for you... worry about your own shit

BP you cant black out the address. If John does, which is admirable he can be pinched on a clerical error. Thats why this law sucks.

Duke

Donny law is law.. If the government cared so much about the models this wouldnt even be an issue. I read another post of yours where if a model was on the witness stand telling about how her privacy was violated you said "the jury will believe the model." News falsh donny.. The gov thinks these models are trash and disposable or this part of the law wouldnt exist. Now ask yourself again donny, who will a jury side with, the law abiding pornagrapher or the model whos privacy was violated. Its a toss up.. but im gonna lean with the pornagrapher.
Duke

Wrong BP.. They will come down on you just as hard. If you dont file your docs correctly it is not the primarys fault. It is yours. I know it sucks.. Sucks major cock. But dont think secondarys are off the hook.
Duke

duke, i think what you are referring to is the comment that says that it would be too burdonsome to sanitize the documents - but that is still a comment, not the actual law. the law says that the docs must provide suffcient information to identify the performer - which can be clearly done by the full name and the DOB.

damn nastydollars has shot a load of models, thats a lot of ids's going out

John is very smart businessman and knows how to run his business.

agreed!!

the gov rejected teh proposal of sanatized docs.

im sure
duke

Sorry bro Im an old man and needed my beauty sleep :)

In short, yes. Based on "Comments" (which are an additional 33 or 36 pages that were added to the Actual Physical law which is much shorter .. maybe 4 pages) that is the fact, the biggest part of this law is the "Commentor" or "Comment" sections, because it shows exactly what the DOJ feels about this and exactly what they plan to do when this law is actually "Enforced", they have felt all along that this was the law now they are simply saying, they will "Enforce" it with Inspections (as many as 1 every 4 montsh for a specific company).

So imagine this for one second than Donovan and hopefully everyone else might have a little clearer understanding (which seems like you do already), the DOJ plans to enforce these regs on the 23rd, however perhaps right now and for the last 6 months they have been taking screen shots, printing out documents and basically doing their homework on sites that are active on the web and they already have their targets picked. Doesnt matter if someone removes the images or not, if you removed them and they show up with a photo and ask to see your paperwork and now not only do you not have a backup of the images (offline), but you also dont have it cross referendec and have no paperwork... In short that "Secondary Producer" regardless of who it might be, me... you... or anyone other than Donovan will be fucked and possibly charged with a Felony. Sorry but Im not in a position to put my affiliates at risk, or better yet the least I can do is minimize that risk for our existing and long term affiliates.

Your assuming now that Extreme didnt go to a lawyer that Specialized in Adult, your right I thumbed through the phone book and said , "Wow this family law Attorney would be a great choice to decide my possible fate and the fate of my affiliates and all of my employee's". Common I know you dont know me but I would assume since your full of assumptions that you would perhaps consider I might be a tad bit more intellgent than that.

Your also now assuming that right off the bat girls are just gonna stop posing. Thats it their finished, all because of this. It's over and everyone has to go to Donny, I dont know your content from Adam but it's safe to say you wouldnt be the only guy anyone ran to.

As for a Gran Jury, the law is the law isnt it? Doesnt the law state that ALL "Secondary producers" must be compliant with this law which the DOJ has clearly stated in it's comments that "The main issue of importance is the protection of underage children" in short they dont give a fuck about models, because they feel that because this law has been in effect since July 1995 that there is no standing proof that distrubuting the proper paperwork to "Secondary producers" has shown or proven to shown any risk to Adult Entertainment Models. Therefore they expect you to follow the law, simple as that, your opinion and what you want to assume about the law doesnt matter, what does matter is that the DOJ has the law written and plans to enforce it... REAGRDLESS of what might come of it.

You should honestly say your ASuming this for a fact, because it's not a fact unless the content was up and not "Managed" anytime after July of 1995

I guess we will see Donny and guess what Im willing to live with whatever comes of my decision, I feel much better listening to Donny's "I told you so's" than I would about telling my affiliates to go fuck a tree.

The key statement there is that Nasty Dollars will be releasing their stuff on the 15th...

Look around Donny, not EVERYONE (regardless of what big guys called you to vent but dont want to post here), every affiliate program is going to make the decision they see best for their Long Term Business Relationship with thier Affiliates and other Business partners.

Another news flash for Donny also, please keep in mind that any outside producer that we use (which Im sure ND and many other companies are the same way), has spent and taken the time to have Our own Model Release drawn up which we require our outside Producers to use, if a model chooses not to shoot because of the content of that Agreement thats their choice, in the same fashion it's our choice (weather it be ND, EP, TB or anyone else) to ensure we have documentation that protects us and our affiliates in the long run.

Sorry Donny your opinion is just that, I respect that you have one, doesnt mean I have to agree with it and it certainly doesnt mean I should put the personal income of our affiliates at risk based on what your opinion or interpitation of the law is.

Respect the fact that Extreme Paychecks made a Proffesional Business decision that we felt was the right thing to do for our Models (long ago through communication) , our Affiliates, our Producers and the Famalies of the employee's of EP. As Im sure many other sponsors like FTV & Nasty have also decided to do.

I have three passports in front of me now: American, British and Israeli. None include addresses. There may be countries which do include that information and I realize passports are not the only acceptable form of documentation. Still I can't help feeling there is too much artificial drama over this issue. And anyone who isn't even comfortable providing a model's real name, really is in the wrong business. How can the authorities confirm a model's age if they cannot confirm who the model is?

EPC have set an excellent example. It's good they have done some thinking and come up with a solution which doesn't amount to a cop-out. But...

Many are going to disagree with the interpretation that partially obscured documents are acceptable. Until there is a definitive case to settle the issue, those differences in opinion will remain and in the meantime, I'm going the cautious route. A lot of people are predicting the outcome of cases if this or if that, but they seem to have forgotten the cost and other negative aspects of fighting a case, regardless of its eventual outcome.

You bring up an excellent point (which I failed to mention in any of my previous posts), thank you for that.

Passport's are an excellent way to verify Model Age, and are an acceptable form of ID without having the detailed private information on the information. Which would addrerss the "Sanatizing" or possible "Sanatizing" of these documents.

Perhaps producers such as Donovan should explain the Passporte idea to possible Talent, offering them a way to continue being as active as they want to be in the business and therefore squash any concerns over Model Privacy.

I also agree this thread which was created as a form of Information for our Affiliates, and a place to communicate any questions turned out to be a "What is right" "What is wrong" based on opinion's of 1 or 2 people thread.

Regardless the end result is the same, everyone will have their opinions, Extreme wont be the only one's to make this choice, it wont destroy the entire industry and decrease the talent pool, and affiliates doing business with EP will at least have a chance to be in compliance.

very good work

the passport as form of id thing is a very good point
hell there are passports these days that are impossible to fake and could easily be used to verify a models age

Debate this :

"Any primary producer who fails to release the records to a secondary
producer is simply in violation of the regulations and may not use the
excuse that the records contain alleged trade secrets to avoid
compliance."

From [[Page 29614]]
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm

Exactly, however certain people want to assume they know all the details and exactly what should be done. Im almost certain that the person im talking about didnt even know that existed in the ruling.

Excellent addition, and it doesnt even need to be debated :)