When to give out model ID's to affiliates?

[Lensman]

I think it's great that guys like Steve Lightspeed and Donovan Phillips don't want to give out the IDs of their models to affiliates. After all, their models are amateurs and most of the time do not do it for a living. They most likely have only shot for 1-2 shooters ever. They don't even fuck guys on camera (note to myself - ask Steve about off camera).

BUT we will provide model IDs to our full-time RealityCash affiliates. Why? Because our girls are not amateurs, they shoot for lots of people. You can buy content on most of them from someone else and get the info. It's pretty tough to sell hardcore porn these days without avertising hardcore porn. Also, we will not hand it out to any old surfer that joins our program, we will only give it to known long-term webmasters who do this shit for a living.

Not giving IDs = good.
Giving out IDS = good.

It just depends on the circumstances.

Long live RealityCash webmasters.

[Halcyon]

I wish I knew that before I shot that scene for Big Sausage Pizza.

j/k Thanks for the open dialogue on this.

[FilthyRob]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I wish I knew that before I shot that scene for Hot Sausage Pizza.

Pink sausage, sound good

[seeric]

Wow!!!!!!!!!


Here comes another 400 replies in debate.

[Donny]

I can't really speak out about this as much as I did before.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=478471



Damn, this new law sucks.

[xxxice]

Interesting way to look at it

[Extreme John]

Very well put Lens.

[FilthyRob]

Originally Posted by Lensman

I think it's great that guys like Steve Lightspeed and Donovan Phillips don't want to give out the IDs of their models to affiliates. After all, their models are amateurs and most of the time do not do it for a living. They most likely have only shot for 1-2 shooters ever. They don't even fuck guys on camera (note to myself - ask Steve about off camera).

BUT we will provide model IDs to our full-time RealityCash affiliates. Why? Because our girls are not amateurs, they shoot for lots of people. You can buy content on most of them from someone else and get the info. It's pretty tough to sell hardcore porn these days without avertising hardcore porn. Also, we will not hand it out to any old surfer that joins our program, we will only give it to known long-term webmasters who do this shit for a living.

Not giving IDs = good.
Giving out IDS = good.

It just depends on the circumstances.

Long live RealityCash webmasters.

Good deal Lensman, I am one of your not so full time webmasters, but I have sent you traffic from the day we talked in Santa Monica, so I hope you make me work even harder for you by giving me the necessary tools to keep promoting you the only way I know how. Content that matches the sites.

[vvq]

so part-time webmasters are fucked?

[CaptainHowdy]

Awesome Move, Mr. Lensman! ;)

[TheDoc]

From what I gather, unless your release states that you are giving out the records, legally, you can't. A person has to sign off to allow personal data to transfer hands.

[adonthenet]

thats intresting... not sure about it

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by Lensman

I think it's great that guys like Steve Lightspeed and Donovan Phillips don't want to give out the IDs of their models to affiliates. After all, their models are amateurs and most of the time do not do it for a living. They most likely have only shot for 1-2 shooters ever. They don't even fuck guys on camera (note to myself - ask Steve about off camera).

BUT we will provide model IDs to our full-time RealityCash affiliates. Why? Because our girls are not amateurs, they shoot for lots of people. You can buy content on most of them from someone else and get the info. It's pretty tough to sell hardcore porn these days without avertising hardcore porn. Also, we will not hand it out to any old surfer that joins our program, we will only give it to known long-term webmasters who do this shit for a living.

Not giving IDs = good.
Giving out IDS = good.

It just depends on the circumstances.

Long live RealityCash webmasters.

Sounds good on the surfice, but even to smallest nerd will need th the info to be legal maybe??? So you ready to right off all the new webmasters? Just say we'll stick with what we got that is doing good now? That leaves you no room for growth.

[Anna_O]

Originally Posted by vvq

so part-time webmasters are fucked?

He probably meant webmasters who make some sales...

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by Lensman

I think it's great that guys like Steve Lightspeed and Donovan Phillips don't want to give out the IDs of their models to affiliates. After all, their models are amateurs and most of the time do not do it for a living. They most likely have only shot for 1-2 shooters ever. They don't even fuck guys on camera (note to myself - ask Steve about off camera).

BUT we will provide model IDs to our full-time RealityCash affiliates. Why? Because our girls are not amateurs, they shoot for lots of people. You can buy content on most of them from someone else and get the info. It's pretty tough to sell hardcore porn these days without avertising hardcore porn. Also, we will not hand it out to any old surfer that joins our program, we will only give it to known long-term webmasters who do this shit for a living.

Not giving IDs = good.
Giving out IDS = good.

It just depends on the circumstances.

Long live RealityCash webmasters.

They're doing the right thing for a bunch of reasons. Someone may have to pay the legal bill to prove the point though. You can say it depends on circumstances. The rules have to be equal for all. Exclude the obvious scam shit heads of course (CP, beast etc.).

[pornstar2pac]

Not giving IDs = good.
Giving out IDS = good.

It just depends on the circumstances.




you should run for office. lol

[GatorB]

Yes but secondary prodcucers are required to have EVERY url where their content is located. Now sponsors that get their content from somewhere else are considered secondary producers. Now if your a sposnsor that gives out content aren't you required to have the EXCAT urls that your affiliates will have this content? How do you police that?

[Lensman]

Originally Posted by vvq

so part-time webmasters are fucked?

Not at all, we will help all webmasters comply in one way or another (more soon). Full time is more of a time / earnings continum, wms who have been around and getting regular checks are good as are those who have made some sales and can establish themselves as being serious about their business.

[Lensman]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes but secondary prodcucers are required to have EVERY url where their content is located. Now sponsors that get their content from somewhere else are considered secondary producers. Now if your a sposnsor that gives out content aren't you required to have the EXCAT urls that your affiliates will have this content? How do you police that?

Primary producers are not required to know where secondary producers publish.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

I don't think anyone is being forced to give out model info, as evidenced by a number of sites and programs refusing to do so.

I would hope that the sites and programs which do decide to provide model info to anyone that signs up for their affiliate program or purchases photos/videos from them would have the courtesy to at least notify the models that this is what they will do, and make sure that any future models they work with understand that they intend to provide anyone with an e-mail address or a few bucks in their pocket with the model's personal information.

Too bad this industry can't self-regulate itself so that there is a level playing field, and so that the talent is treated with the same courtesy and respect that we all would expect (as I recall Lensman banned someone recently for posting his personal info).

ADG Webmaster

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Lensman

Primary producers are not required to know where secondary producers publish.

I'm not talking about sponsors that shoot their own content. If I'm a sponsor and I but content from a primary prodcuer, that makes me a secondary producer. Now if I let my affilates use that same content for promotion then under 2257 I have to list the urls wher this content will be found. At least that the way I read it.

[SetTheWorldonFire]

good = good

[tranza]

That's AWESOME news!

I just asked Ramos earlier today about this.

[Kimmykim]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes but secondary prodcucers are required to have EVERY url where their content is located. Now sponsors that get their content from somewhere else are considered secondary producers. Now if your a sposnsor that gives out content aren't you required to have the EXCAT urls that your affiliates will have this content? How do you police that?

Sigh. Affiliates aren't secondary producers if they are getting their content from a sponsor that bought it from someone else. They are then technically a tertiary in the mathematical chain of things, though I doubt the government has given any thought to the difference between an affiliate and a sponsor, or a primary content producer versus a customer.

Frankly, I don't think, reading through the new regs the way they were finally adopted, that the government has the least clue about how our business works or what the relationships between the different entities and parties involved actually convey or represent.

Add to that the fact that the government most likely has made their target list already of whom they intend to investigate first, and the whole situation begins to resemble a badly run goat rodeo.

I've heard of situations already where two attorneys, both card carrying bar members able to practice in two different states, have diametrically opposing counsel for the same client in regards to the same situation.

I'm also curious as to what may happen if one of the targets happens to be a US citizen that doesn't own their company or their company is owned outside the United States.

At the end of the day, the attorneys are going to be happy campers with this deal, they're surely the only ones that are going to benefit when the investigations, and potential indictments, start coming down the pipe.

[wdsguy]

great news for me.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

Sigh. Affiliates aren't secondary producers if they are getting their content from a sponsor that bought it from someone else. They are then technically a tertiary in the mathematical chain of things, though I doubt the government has given any thought to the difference between an affiliate and a sponsor, or a primary content producer versus a customer.

Then why is everyone getting their panties ina wad over this? You think the DOJ is going to say "Oh you are just an affiliate so you're not required to have the 2257 info on your sites"?

Frankly, I don't think, reading through the new regs the way they were finally adopted, that the government has the least clue about how our business works or what the relationships between the different entities and parties involved actually convey or represent. .

Of course, the government doesn't know how the internet works PERIOD. If they did they'd realize how retarded these rules are. Doesn't mean they can't bust you FIRST. Doesn't matter if I eventually get out, damage has been done.

[seeric]

i think im going to go to law school and make my millions on people that will get caught in this massive catch 22 for the next 20 years.

[WiredGuy]

Are the models who filmed for your sites aware that their ID's will be distributed to affiliates?
WG

[wjxxx]

good move

I'm on the same page as you Lensman. We are in a very similar situation with our girls, and our stance will be very similar to yours.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Lensman

I think it's great that guys like Steve Lightspeed and Donovan Phillips don't want to give out the IDs of their models to affiliates. After all, their models are amateurs and most of the time do not do it for a living. They most likely have only shot for 1-2 shooters ever. They don't even fuck guys on camera (note to myself - ask Steve about off camera).

BUT we will provide model IDs to our full-time RealityCash affiliates. Why? Because our girls are not amateurs, they shoot for lots of people. You can buy content on most of them from someone else and get the info. It's pretty tough to sell hardcore porn these days without avertising hardcore porn. Also, we will not hand it out to any old surfer that joins our program, we will only give it to known long-term webmasters who do this shit for a living.

Not giving IDs = good.
Giving out IDS = good.

It just depends on the circumstances.

Long live RealityCash webmasters.

You're my number one sponsor for a reason.

[Lensman]

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

Are the models who filmed for your sites aware that their ID's will be distributed to affiliates?
WG

Tell it to the DOJ.

[WiredGuy]

Originally Posted by Lensman

Tell it to the DOJ.

I'm thinking more of privacy laws here, particularly the distribution of private information. If the models didn't consent to this information being distributed, RealityCash could land itself into some problems. Maybe not on the 2257 front, but on applicable privacy laws...

WG

[Sly]

From what I've seen so far, "most" of the larger sponsors are adapting similar policies. The single girl sponsors and other similar softcore sponsors are not, as Lensman mentioned. By the time I'm done working through 2-3 sponsors I'll probably have IDs for every model I need anyway, heh. A lot of these models are all over the place. Once they hit LA they're pussy doesn't come up for air.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

Frankly, I don't think, reading through the new regs the way they were finally adopted, that the government has the least clue about how our business works or what the relationships between the different entities and parties involved actually convey or represent.

This raises an interesting point, which is why the industry didn't have representatives (FSC or another elected body) meeting with the legislators or DOJ to make this process better for us all prior to the new 2257 becoming law.

As I understand it, the DOJ may have received as few as 40 or so written comments about the proposed legislation. If there were ever evidence needed that this industry has to become better organized and better represented, the current 2557 underscores this.

The process as it stands is very adversarial. Industries smaller than ours learn to organize so that they can affect the outcome of the laws as they are being written. Sometimes it has to come down to court cases, however in many instances it doesn't.

Likewise, if the laws are made, then at the very least they will be clear and understandable as opposed to the current rules which are being interpretted 20 different ways.

For example, a form or database program could have been developed (and still should be developed) which makes it exactly clear and uniform as to what info is to be collected and how it is to be displayed. The inspection process could then be sped up which would benefit both the govenment and the industry.

I have worked in other industries which are regulated. This isn't rocket surgery.

ADG Webmaster

[V_RocKs]

Most single girl sponsors content doesn't even require 2257.

[pornstar2pac]

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

Are the models who filmed for your sites aware that their ID's will be distributed to affiliates?
WG

yep, just like trading baseball cards

[Jace]

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

I'm thinking more of privacy laws here, particularly the distribution of private information. If the models didn't consent to this information being distributed, RealityCash could land itself into some problems. Maybe not on the 2257 front, but on applicable privacy laws...

WG

i was thinking the same thing...it really is a catch 22...but the fact remains, if lensmans program doesn't have it in their model release that their info is no longer private and will be handed out to promote that model, i can see some serious legal issues coming if that girl gets stalked or in trouble with some crazy fan

[3piece chicken Dinner]

Originally Posted by JaceXXX

i was thinking the same thing...it really is a catch 22...but the fact remains, if lensmans program doesn't have it in their model release that their info is no longer private and will be handed out to promote that model, i can see some serious legal issues coming if that girl gets stalked or in trouble with some crazy fan

Yes this is my biggest fear for those sponsors who feel their "circumstances" put them into a spot where they have to provide id's..


While I am almost certain if something bad happens to a model. the program would not be in trouble in a criminal trial.

However they would get their ass handed to them in civil court.



Godspeed Lensman, and other sponsors who are being put into this spot.
I wish nothing but the best for you.

[Kimmykim]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Then why is everyone getting their panties ina wad over this? You think the DOJ is going to say "Oh you are just an affiliate so you're not required to have the 2257 info on your sites"?

Of course, the government doesn't know how the internet works PERIOD. If they did they'd realize how retarded these rules are. Doesn't mean they can't bust you FIRST. Doesn't matter if I eventually get out, damage has been done.

Don't you go getting your panties in a wad. My comment regarding secondary and tertiary is simply a mathematical observation based on the way the goverment has chosen to designate relationships. Their lack of understanding and knowledge in regards to the adult business is not going to deter them from proceeding with whatever scheme they've dreamed up to get some good press and make America safe from the dirty scheming pornographers.

I'd be surprised to see affiliates included in the first wave of their investigations, unless it's by accident. Think what you will of the DOJ, they do have a very sound plan for prosecuting an industry, especially one as much on the fringe of legality as this one happens to be.

However -- the DOJ is not stupid and they look for bang for the buck. If an affiliate gets caught in the crossfire because he is promoting a sponsor program they are after, then that's the way it goes. As I said, they do not understand, nor do they care to imo, just how the system that income is generated exists or is created between affiliates and sponsors.

Just like the FTC or the Meese Commission days when people were prosecuted, the government goes for the biggest target they can find. I've had stories told to me by people that were prosecuted way back when for their video content. People that did go to jail and people that didn't. The ones that didn't paid some pretty massive fines to the government, and in one case ended up with a hung jury to stay out of jail.

[jimmyf]

Originally Posted by pornstar2pac

Not giving IDs = good.
Giving out IDS = good.

It just depends on the circumstances.




you should run for office. lol

[PurrrsianPussyKat]

AWESOME NEWS LENS!
YOU ROCK!

*enter lensmans dancing banana here*

[dopeman]

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

Don't you go getting your panties in a wad. My comment regarding secondary and tertiary is simply a mathematical observation based on the way the goverment has chosen to designate relationships. Their lack of understanding and knowledge in regards to the adult business is not going to deter them from proceeding with whatever scheme they've dreamed up to get some good press and make America safe from the dirty scheming pornographers.

I'd be surprised to see affiliates included in the first wave of their investigations, unless it's by accident. Think what you will of the DOJ, they do have a very sound plan for prosecuting an industry, especially one as much on the fringe of legality as this one happens to be.

However -- the DOJ is not stupid and they look for bang for the buck. If an affiliate gets caught in the crossfire because he is promoting a sponsor program they are after, then that's the way it goes. As I said, they do not understand, nor do they care to imo, just how the system that income is generated exists or is created between affiliates and sponsors.

Just like the FTC or the Meese Commission days when people were prosecuted, the government goes for the biggest target they can find. I've had stories told to me by people that were prosecuted way back when for their video content. People that did go to jail and people that didn't. The ones that didn't paid some pretty massive fines to the government, and in one case ended up with a hung jury to stay out of jail.

well fucking stated. and if these regulations are interpreted as retroactive, that means affiliates taking everything down before the 23rd does nothing to protect them for sponsor content they put up previously. according to the existing regulations, they at least need a copy of the model's ID. and so far, it looks about half and half in terms of sponsors giving out IDs. those affiliates that don't have them can be left very vulnerable.

[seeric]

i think it if it ever came to it, the models should sue the GOV. i mean if you read the comments and the neglect of the department to recognize those comments for their safety, they are reponsible. it is the GOV that is mandating the distribution of the records themselves. they don't care about people. ultimately, they care about votes and that is evident.

[dopeman]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

i think it if it ever came to it, the models should sue the GOV. i mean if you read the comments and the neglect of the department to recognize those comments for their safety, they are reponsible. it is the GOV that is mandating the distribution of the records themselves. they don't care about people. ultimately, they care about votes and that is evident.

the government is saying that secondary producers should have had them the entire time. they shouldn't have posted those thumbnails or AVS sites without the model IDs.

[Tempest]

Nice to see a reasonable approach to this...

[seeric]

Originally Posted by dopeman

the government is saying that secondary producers should have had them the entire time. they shouldn't have posted those thumbnails or AVS sites without the model IDs.

yes, i understand this. even more so then. the studios and content producers didn't disseminate records for that exact reason, i am sure of it. and secondary producer was vaguely defined and that was the gray area. what was the interpretation of "secondary producer". basically i feel they are more at fault now, because they have had the opportunity now to adjust this law to a more "spirit of the law" approach, instead of a "letter of the law" approach. they have drastically blown it by requiring companies to give out their information to comply.

i am pretty sure that they know that most agreements made by the content producers dont have the stipulation that the id's can be passed on to secondary producers, as in the case of a program like Extreme Paychecks who has always had it in their agreements.



im up to about $80.00 in posts on 2257 and about 100 bucks worth on COPA when it was the issue.

[Cavello]

Originally Posted by Lensman

Tell it to the DOJ.

I'm not so sure that will hold up in cort.

[tony286]

giving models info to a affiliate or to someone who buys content ,has nothing to do with any privacy law.I dont know who came up with this? Adult mag publishers have been doing this for years. My wife shot for a adult mag(got the cover ,the photog who shot her was a freelancer he sold the pics to the mag and that included all her info. Its done all the time in the real world. As for lens if your going to give them the info what are u waiting for the time is ticking? I would assume the 80/20 rule applys here. Meaning 80% of the sales are made by 20% I would take care of the 20. Also I would think about no one becomes a affiliate who incorporated with a tax id number. It saves you money no more 1099's and the person has put some skin in the game.

[tony286]

Also for a frame of reference all the models I have including my wife . None of them have the same address as on their id today. Models move especially in adult