SHIT!!! Wortheless AdultLegal DVD Content Licences from 2257...

[boneprone]

Ok..

I know im not the only one here that has bought tons of DVD licences from Adult Legal and other DVD content licence places to use DVD content as content for our paysites..

Well what the hell.. Ive heard that many of these titiles we wont be getting the 2257 docs on em..

Ive been sitting on thosands of dollars of redlight district dvd content that I bought the licence for from adult legal.. Ive heard they cant get the docs we all need.

And why would redlight want to give it to them now that thier contract is over with adultlegal..

What a better way for redlight to get thier content off all those sites on the net than by not giving the docs to adult legal to give to us..

[Trax]

indeed not a stupid move for redlight - for them

[Ice]

wanna cuddle boneprone?

[boneprone]

So basically Im sitting on thousands of dollars of content I bought via DVD licences that I cant use becasue providers like adultlegal can get the docs from the DVD companies they have been selling liceneces from to webmasters to use for content in there memebers areas..

I never did launch my program, just sat on my shit.. But I know tons of webmasters who did buy this and use the content for their sites..

What are they gunna do? Run non-compiant?

[boneprone]

Originally Posted by iceicebaby

wanna cuddle boneprone?

We could cuddle on top of all these DVD licences I bought to start a paysite with..

That is now worthless..

Jesus.. This is more than I lost on the Blazers if I cant get $$ back or get docs for to make this shit useable.

[GatorB]

Report them to the DOJ

[boneprone]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Report them to the DOJ

Who is DOJ?

Some big negro for hire who is gunna go get my money back?

[Fukeneh]

if the primary refuses to give it to the secondary that is a violation of 2257. have your legal councel send them a letter reminding them.... you do have councel? RIGHT?

[xclusive]

Wow that sucks wonder if there will be legal procedings over this don't the producer have to provide those docs legally? Or can they just say fuck it you can't use the stuff and keep the money?

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Report them to the DOJ

Bingo. This is a shitty, noncompliant move on their part.

[boneprone]

"ADULT LEGAL - MARK (01:53 PM) :
many studios are waiting to see the outcome of the Free Speech Coalitions attempt to get an injunction...that should happen next week. Once they resign themselves to the fact that will most likely need to part with the records we will be glad to get them to you asap"

[boneprone]

Originally Posted by Fukeneh

if the primary refuses to give it to the secondary that is a violation of 2257. have your legal councel send them a letter reminding them.... you do have councel? RIGHT?

ADULT LEGAL - MARK (01:57 PM) :
if the law stands and they don't they can be prosecuted because they were paid for those licenses and charged with being an accomplice when you fail an inspection....this is according to our attorney

[boneprone]

It appears adultlegal is on this trying to get what we need.

I hope it works out..

What a shitty deal for everyone..

[boneprone]

If im Redlight though, Id fight not having to give up the docs..
Not just to protect the privacy of models, but to keep the content for themselves and get rid of all the people using thier content who already paid for it..

Good way to make thier saturated oversold content, back into rare and exclusive content all over again overnight.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by boneprone

Who is DOJ?

Some big negro for hire who is gunna go get my money back?

Depratment Of Justice. They are in violation of 2257 of they don't give you the docs.

[boneprone]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Depratment Of Justice. They are in violation of 2257 of they don't give you the docs.

Hmmm. I wonder why they havent given it to adultlegal yet then?

[boneprone]

It is my understanding that adultlegal is working night and day on this.

I feel a bit better.

I hope everything works out.

[tranza]

How about getting an off-shore partner to run that site?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Read the license. If they have a termination clause (or other such provision for cutting you off with or without cause), then you might be hosed.

Hopefully they will work it out.

ADG Webmaster

[Shap]

You know Boneprone I love when you post, it makes me feel like I'm not alone.
You are the only other guy I know that has multiple posts to his own posts. It's as if your mind is rushing and once you post you think of something else you want to add. The same always happens to me in posting, email, icq. LOL Sometimes I'll send one person 3 or 4 emails in a row because I'll think of something else I wanted to say. Anyhow that was off topic

I'm in the adultlegal boat with you. I know they are working on it and Rick is a great guy. My problem is I'm getting the vibe that the studios are claiming they will be compliant by June 23rd. How the hell does that help us? It sounds to me like the studios are looking out for themselves and that's it. I sense this law is going to change the dvd licensing business HUGE!

Btw I'm wondering what Videobox and Videosz are doing. They obviously don't have even 30% of the documents required. VideoBox is a US company as far as I know. Sounds to me like this could be a major problem for them.

[jayeff]

Of course there is another possibility...

Back in March I bought some content sets from another well-known broker and one of the sets included an unobfuscated driving license showing an address about a half mile from where I live. Except it didn't look quite right. So being cynical and knowing 2257 was on its way, I checked it out. The people who do live at the address in question have been there 8 or 9 years and have never heard of the person who supposedly lived there in 2002 when the license was issued.

I have called the broker about this and I won't mention their name, since I seriously doubt they were involved. But it leaves you wondering how much faith you can put in these records, even when you can get them. And who will be held responsible if it turns out they are fakes?

And BTW, the new regs state that records must be kept from day 1, along with copies of your (changed) pages. Which means you would be taking a big risk displaying content from someone who has not supplied the required documents by June 23. If they never do, then unless the law is eventually overturned, even an inspection 5 years from now could put you in big trouble.

[WiredGuy]

I guess Adult Legal isn't so legal afterall...
WG

[After Shock Media]

As stated most licenses have a clause that allows them to revoke licenses.
Next issue, studios would have the full right and ability to say up until the new regs were released they were doing business and handling it as per the 10th circuit ruling, and thus webmasters and site owners would not be secondary producers, despite what the new regulations state, and that the new regulations are clearly an attempt to circumvent the 10th circuit and therefore they will not comply.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by jayeff

Of course there is another possibility...

Back in March I bought some content sets from another well-known broker and one of the sets included an unobfuscated driving license showing an address about a half mile from where I live. Except it didn't look quite right. So being cynical and knowing 2257 was on its way, I checked it out. The people who do live at the address in question have been there 8 or 9 years and have never heard of the person who supposedly lived there in 2002 when the license was issued.

I have called the broker about this and I won't mention their name, since I seriously doubt they were involved. But it leaves you wondering how much faith you can put in these records, even when you can get them. And who will be held responsible if it turns out they are fakes?

And BTW, the new regs state that records must be kept from day 1, along with copies of your (changed) pages. Which means you would be taking a big risk displaying content from someone who has not supplied the required documents by June 23. If they never do, then unless the law is eventually overturned, even an inspection 5 years from now could put you in big trouble.

Ever post you make is amazing.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by shap

Ever post you make is amazing.

Shows how smart i am. ever = every

[pornstar2pac]

Originally Posted by boneprone

If im Redlight though, Id fight not having to give up the docs..
Not just to protect the privacy of models, but to keep the content for themselves and get rid of all the people using thier content who already paid for it..

Good way to make thier saturated oversold content, back into rare and exclusive content all over again overnight.

BP, from what i've heard. red light doesn't like Adult legal too much because they sold their DVD content to adultbouncer and deluxe pass and they flooded the market with RLD content and i don't think red light got their fair share.

[tranza]

Originally Posted by shap

Shows how smart i am. ever = every

Lol... Nah, don't say that... Your interview was the best one so far...

Did you finish it? I guess I didn't read it all...

[Shap]

Finishing it up now. I'm actually going to do something first and put all the answers on one page to make it easier to read

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by shap

Shows how smart i am. ever = every

Only a wise man will realize his mistakes. Only an even wiser one will correct them.

[whorehole]

Bottom line is that the new 2257 regs clearly state that Redlight and the other primary producers of the DVD content that adultlegal had licensed are *required by federal law* to provide copies of those records to the secondary producers (ie: you, the guy who is using the licensed content)

The exact date at which they are required to hand this stuff over is kinda vague, but after june 23rd it is definitely something they will have to do. This goes beyond their adultlegal contract with you (which also clearly states that the content must be "2257 compliant") and becomes an issue of federal law.

Now, i'm sure Redlight would like to not give these records out and have all that content disappear from the web, but it would be incredibly stupid for them to not give it out, as it would *instantly* open them up for a federal shitstorm, not to mention private lawsuits by companies who have contracts with them that state the material must be 2257 complaint.

So i would figure they will be waiting as long as possible and then making the records available.. unless they really have a desire to wind up in a world of shit with multiple parties, not the least of which is the DOJ.

It still puts us as secondary producers in an odd spot as far as using this content immediately after june 23rd, because we will still have the mountainous task of organizing and cross-indexing it all by name, scene, url etc, and thats not gonna happen overnight.

This is a really good thread though- this is gonna be a big issue, lets keep this one alive

[NTSS]

Did they use any vaseline?....

[Rich]

That sucks, but don't blame them, blame your government. Content producers have no obligation to provide 2257 documents for content that has already been sold. A lot of people inside the United States are going to be shit out of luck for content they've already bought, especially content from producers outside the USA.

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by jayeff

Of course there is another possibility...

Back in March I bought some content sets from another well-known broker and one of the sets included an unobfuscated driving license showing an address about a half mile from where I live. Except it didn't look quite right. So being cynical and knowing 2257 was on its way, I checked it out. The people who do live at the address in question have been there 8 or 9 years and have never heard of the person who supposedly lived there in 2002 when the license was issued.

I have called the broker about this and I won't mention their name, since I seriously doubt they were involved. But it leaves you wondering how much faith you can put in these records, even when you can get them. And who will be held responsible if it turns out they are fakes?

And BTW, the new regs state that records must be kept from day 1, along with copies of your (changed) pages. Which means you would be taking a big risk displaying content from someone who has not supplied the required documents by June 23. If they never do, then unless the law is eventually overturned, even an inspection 5 years from now could put you in big trouble.

You aren't responsible for fakes, as a secondary producer. Whoever passed you those, if they were in on it, is also guilty of fraud in addition to 2257 violations.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by whorehole

Bottom line is that the new 2257 regs clearly state that Redlight and the other primary producers of the DVD content that adultlegal had licensed are *required by federal law* to provide copies of those records to the secondary producers (ie: you, the guy who is using the licensed content)

sort of. See the DOJ has no authority to write new law that oversteps a previous courts ruling. I am sure you keep hearing about sundance. Well if the primary producers insist that they did business under the 10th circuits ruling of secondary producers, and they no longer sell content. They could easily get away with never handing over documents. Yes this would really only put you the webmaster at risk. The DOJ would be foolish to take on someone like redlight who does have all their documentation in order. In a case that could once again screw up their evil plans and the term secondary producer.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

You aren't responsible for fakes, as a secondary producer. Whoever passed you those, if they were in on it, is also guilty of fraud in addition to 2257 violations.

Not really, producers are only supposed to provide due deligence.

[Rich]

Is Redlight an American company?

[whorehole]

From the new 2257 regs, effective 6/23/2005: (and I quote..)

"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."

Page 29614

BTW- as a secondary producer, you are only require to post the primary producers custodial address, and you can take the copies of the records on "good faith" from the primary that they are indeed accurate. I recommend, however, checking them over yourself for anythin obviously fishy, and consider not using scenes that have iffy documentation.

If the effective date comes to pass and you do not have the records in hand AND organized/filed, do yourself a favor and yank it from your site until you do.

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Not really, producers are only supposed to provide due deligence.

Hmm, I thought that as long as it wasn't blatantly fake you were ok.

Similar to how a liquor store can't get written up if a minor passes a well made fake ID.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by whorehole

From the new 2257 regs, effective 6/23/2005: (and I quote..)

"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."

Again does not alter what I have said. Then again my opinions are just that of our lawyers.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

Hmm, I thought that as long as it wasn't blatantly fake you were ok.

Similar to how a liquor store can't get written up if a minor passes a well made fake ID.

thats basicly what I said.

[NetRodent]

Originally Posted by boneprone

If im Redlight though, Id fight not having to give up the docs..
Not just to protect the privacy of models, but to keep the content for themselves and get rid of all the people using thier content who already paid for it..

Good way to make thier saturated oversold content, back into rare and exclusive content all over again overnight.

2257 only applies to commercial sites. Depending on your license agreement you could make all of the vidoes available for free on a non-commercial website. It would end up costing you bandwidth but you could prevent Redlight from unsaturating their content.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by NetRodent

2257 only applies to commercial sites. Depending on your license agreement you could make all of the vidoes available for free on a non-commercial website. It would end up costing you bandwidth but you could prevent Redlight from unsaturating their content.

And where did you gather this info?

[whorehole]

"sort of. See the DOJ has no authority to write new law that oversteps a previous courts ruling. "


you are correct, sir. But of course, if the sundance case sticks, then the whole secondary producer thing is out the window anyway, making this a moot discussion.. ie: boneprone will be able to use that content w/o having to hold records

so either way, that content should end up useable.. just a matter of when it would actually get compliant for the secondary, or when the notion of "secondary producer" goes kaput

[whorehole]

by the way, isnt this administration great?

[Shap]

Originally Posted by tranza

Lol... Nah, don't say that... Your interview was the best one so far...

Did you finish it? I guess I didn't read it all...

Not thread jacking or anything Bone. Just a quick reply to Tranza. Here's a link with only the answers to the Ambush
Ambush Answers

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by NetRodent

2257 only applies to commercial sites. Depending on your license agreement you could make all of the vidoes available for free on a non-commercial website. It would end up costing you bandwidth but you could prevent Redlight from unsaturating their content.

You are so wrong. Show me where it says COMMERCIAL ONLY.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by whorehole

"sort of. See the DOJ has no authority to write new law that oversteps a previous courts ruling. "


you are correct, sir. But of course, if the sundance case sticks, then the whole secondary producer thing is out the window anyway, making this a moot discussion.. ie: boneprone will be able to use that content w/o having to hold records

so either way, that content should end up useable.. just a matter of when it would actually get compliant for the secondary, or when the notion of "secondary producer" goes kaput

Did you read the rest. This would only really protect redlight and those producers that are not giving out docs to their DVDs. The DOJ could check redlight for instance to make sure they are indeed compliant, then bust ever other person using redlight content. The DOJ would have ZERO reason to charge redlight in this instance because it very well could mean the upholding of the sundance case.
Prosecutors do this very often. Why take a case against a company with deep legal pockets, where the downside is not only loosing but having the very law changed. When they can take on a super number of smaller cases that are damn near slam dunks. Often with people who have PD's as their lawyers. Sure they public defender may bring up sundance but chances are they will still loose just setting more and more presidences.

[GatorB]

BTW- as a secondary producer, you are only require to post the primary producers custodial address, and you can take the copies of the records on "good faith" from the primary that they are indeed accurate. I recommend, however, checking them over yourself for anythin obviously fishy, and consider not using scenes that have iffy documentation.

WRONG.

If that's true then how come primary prodcuers HAVE to give seconadry producers the docs as stated by yourself

"Any primary producer who fails to release the records to a secondary producer..............."

[jayeff]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Not really, producers are only supposed to provide due deligence.

True. But "due diligence" means more than just taking documents at face value. Yet in practical terms, exactly what can we do?

The fake ID I spotted only looked wrong to me because this is a tiny town and there was an element in the address (a lot #) which I have never seen used around here. And given the coincidence, I was curious anyway. Otherwise both it and the social security card looked real enough.

One of the things which has me concerned, is that under the previous 2257 regulations, primary producers were required to have proof of identity and age. Granted the new regulations are slightly more specific, but not enough - I would have thought - to cause quite so much disarray. You have to wonder how much of the current concern for models' privacy and safety (which never to my knowledge bothered anyone in the past) is being used as a cover for people who never had documents, or accepted documents knowing or at least suspecting they were not real. Perhaps even did the doctoring themselves.

[NetRodent]

Originally Posted by GatorB

You are so wrong. Show me where it says COMMERCIAL ONLY.

Many sections of the new regulations make reference to this only appling to commercial use. More over, it only applies to commercial interstate/foreign commerce.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce and that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July 3, 1995 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:

(d) Sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release refer to
commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter,
including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations.

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer- manipulated image, picture, or other matter [b]intended for commercial distribution[b] that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

Assuming Boneprone bought the material in the same state it was produced in, and he doesn't distribute it commercially, I don't see how these regulations would apply.