Custodian of Records Service - Is this available?

[Red Ezra]

I am interested to see if there is someone offering a custodian of records service - brick and mortar with office hours out there already - let's hear it

[tony286]

its against the regs

[baddog]

you really should read the regs before asking questions like that

[inthestars]

You have to keep the regs where you do your business. If you work out of your house, you have to use your home address.

[DWB]

Please tell me where in the following regulations it says you can't have 2 offices? If you appoint a person as your custodian of records and you list the address where the records are, so be it. Put him on the payroll, use that location as a second office, another place of business and your good.

You people need to think outside the box. Here it is word for word:

"Sec. 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records available at the producer's place of business. Each record shall be maintained for seven years from the date of creation or last amendment or addition. If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter. If the producer produces the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) as part of his control of or through his employment with an organization, records shall be made available at the organization's place of business. If the organization is dissolved, the individual who was responsible for maintaining the records on behalf of the
organization, as described in Sec. 75.6(b), shall continue to maintain the records for a period of five years after dissolution."

[DWB]

And yes, there just may be a service coming soon that does this. I have been looking into it, and yes it would be out of the USA. It also doesn't say it has to be in the USA.

[bigdog]

Originally Posted by inthestars

You have to keep the regs where you do your business. If you work out of your house, you have to use your home address.

i highly doubt you will see that

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

And yes, there just may be a service coming soon that does this. I have been looking into it, and yes it would be out of the USA. It also doesn't say it has to be in the USA.

good luck with that. i can't believe you are so shortsighted and immature that you really think the DOJ is going to accept that someones place of business is somewhere 3000 miles away, where they have never been and never go to and never produce content.

you might want to stop and think about the intent of the sentence rather than the semantic games you can play with it.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

good luck with that. i can't believe you are so shortsighted and immature that you really think the DOJ is going to accept that someones place of business is somewhere 3000 miles away, where they have never been and never go to and never produce content.

you might want to stop and think about the intent of the sentence rather than the semantic games you can play with it.

Shortsighted?

The law is the law and it says NOTHING about what country or geographic location the records must be at. NOTHING.

I've got news for you, there are some of us who do play on an international playing field and the DOJ can't say shit about where I choose to do business or who is my custodian of records. It is not their job to "accept" it or not, you are allowed to operate a business in just about any country on earth and that's just the facts.

Many of us hire outsourced webmasters. Many of us travel abroad and many of us have other business besides adult, and some of those business are in fact overseas.

Again... find the part that says we can't do that and I will eat my words. This is not illegal nor am I trying to do anything illegal. I simple choose, as it is my right and yours, where my office it.

If anyone is playing games, it is the DOJ. What they don't count on is some of us understand the rules of that game and do not fear to play it. They will be more than welcome to come to that location and inspect the records, but they will have to go to that location to do it.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Please tell me where in the following regulations it says you can't have 2 offices? If you appoint a person as your custodian of records and you list the address where the records are, so be it. Put him on the payroll, use that location as a second office, another place of business and your good.

You people need to think outside the box. Here it is word for word:

"Sec. 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records available at the producer's place of business. . . .

You had better look up that definition and requirements to meet it.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by baddog

You had better look up that definition and requirements to meet it.

They do notine "place of business" anywhere in the regs. They define everything else in Sec. 75.1 Definitions.

The dictionary defines it as this:

"place of business

n : an establishment (a factory or an assembly plant or retail store or warehouse etc.) where business is conducted, goods are made or stored or processed or where services are rendered"

Find any law that says United States citizens can not have a place of business outside of the USA and I will file the next suit against the Government myself and add you free as a plaintiff. They can not regulate where your office is or how many of them you have. Anyone who does international business already knows this. There are even special tax laws for living abroad and earning foreign income.

Personally, I have one office in the USA and one I just set up in Colombia. I will soon be setting another up in Asia. My records will be where I choose and nobody else and listed on my sites exactly where they can be found. I will be compliant and that office will be open for inspection between 9am - 5pm five days a week.

If one were so inclined to rent office space from another and put a person at that location on the payroll to be the custodian of records, how is that illegal? I'm all ears.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Shortsighted?

The law is the law and it says NOTHING about what country or geographic location the records must be at. NOTHING.

I've got news for you, there are some of us who do play on an international playing field and the DOJ can't say shit about where I choose to do business or who is my custodian of records. It is not their job to "accept" it or not, you are allowed to operate a business in just about any country on earth and that's just the facts.

Many of us hire outsourced webmasters. Many of us travel abroad and many of us have other business besides adult, and some of those business are in fact overseas.

Again... find the part that says we can't do that and I will eat my words. This is not illegal nor am I trying to do anything illegal. I simple choose, as it is my right and yours, where my office it.

If anyone is playing games, it is the DOJ. What they don't count on is some of us understand the rules of that game and do not fear to play it. They will be more than welcome to come to that location and inspect the records, but they will have to go to that location to do it.

my point was simple.. you are not on to something new and its not something that wasn't already addressed. if you are comfortable with playing semantics with the DOJ.. then fine. but anyone with any amount of common sense would know that putting themselves in the line of fire to test your "great idea" is stupid.

"Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that
records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that
the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to
possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and
inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location
where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled. For
example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third
party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically,
producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law
enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship
would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim
any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or
be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the
records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would
thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party
custodian could guarantee the accuracy"

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

"Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that
records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that
the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to
possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and
inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location
where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled. For
example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third
party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically,
producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law
enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship
would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim
any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or
be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the
records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would
thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party
custodian could guarantee the accuracy"

Comment0wn3d

[Pleasurepays]

the DOJ is not going to be impressed with Tiffany Teen or whoever suddenly claimng that her primary place of business is Antigua.

[Pleasurepays]

If anyone is playing games, it is the DOJ. What they don't count on is some of us understand the rules of that game and do not fear to play it. They will be more than welcome to come to that location and inspect the records, but they will have to go to that location to do it.

Sec. 75.4. For the purpose of this
part, ``normal business hours'' are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time,
Monday through Friday, or any other time during which the producer is
actually conducting business relating to producing depiction of actual
sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that the producer does not
maintain at least 20 normal business hours per week, producers must
provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which
records will be available for inspection, which in no case may be less
than twenty (20) hours per week.


this does not sound like the description of a 3rd party office in the Isle of Man to me. it sounds like the intent of the section is to describe the actual place of business where you are creating content and running your business - i.e. your moms basement or the public library.



but go ahead. you are not afraid of the federal government and the fact that you can be arrested, charged, tried, fined and imprisoned and be stuck with 100,000 - 500,000 in legal fees... because you have it all figured out.

i admire that. in recognition of both your courage and boldness, i am going to call you General Custer from now on.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

"Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that
records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that
the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to
possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and
inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location
where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled. For
example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third
party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically,
producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law
enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship
would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim
any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or
be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the
records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would
thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party
custodian could guarantee the accuracy"

I'm not talking about a 3rd party. I'm talking about hiring someone, as an employee to be the custodian of records in another office that you rent. That is not 3rd party. That is hiring a custodian of records.

If someone were to have an office building they were willing to rent space in, and/or even supply a service to help hire the new employee, that is still not a 3rd party holding the records. That employee would work for you and only you, get paid by you.

Now it would be a third party if say YOU paid ME to hold your records and I had nothing to do with your company.

BTW... I never said it was a "great idea", I said I was looking into it. Personally MY records are getting moved off shore because that IS where I do business and will be living in 4 weeks. THAT part is indeed a great idea.

[baddog]

Thank you Pleasureplays, I was almost going to waste my time explaining to him, but you did just fine.

[pornguy]

It clearly says that the files must be in the SAME location as the work.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

but go ahead. you are not afraid of the federal government and the fact that you can be arrested, charged, tried, fined and imprisoned and be stuck with 100,000 - 500,000 in legal fees... because you have it all figured out.

i admire that. in recognition of both your courage and boldness, i am going to call you General Custer from now on.

For what it's worth, no I'm not afraid and have personally filed suit (and won) against the city of Cincinnati a few times on various adult related issues, and had law changed because of it. I've spent countless dollars doing this over the years and would fight the DOJ myself if it came down to it. I don't roll over and take one in the ass from anyone without a fight. I have yet to fight the Gov, but if I had to I would. My current attorney is one of the guys who is fighting it for the FSC. Box me in a corner and I will fight if I believe in it.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by pornguy

It clearly says that the files must be in the SAME location as the work.

Place of work? Some of us work all over the world. Even in the US you may shoot in one location, do computer work at another and have files and paperwork yet at another.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

BTW... I never said it was a "great idea", I said I was looking into it. Personally MY records are getting moved off shore because that IS where I do business and will be living in 4 weeks. THAT part is indeed a great idea.

you might want to do some homework to learn what tests the government uses to determine/define what your primary place of business is instead of relying on websters.com and thinking that you can unilaterally define it on your own with semantics. most likely, this is also addressed in the tax codes.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

you might want to do some homework to learn what tests the government uses to determine/define what your primary place of business is instead of relying on websters.com and thinking that you can unilaterally define it on your own with semantics. most likely, this is also addressed in the tax codes.

I have been doing business internationally for a while. Trust me when I tell you I know what I can and can not get away with. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Many laws can be worked around if you apply the time to find out how to do it. OR... you can just roll over and take one in the ass because that's what your told to do.

As far as helping others, I only said I was looking into it, I didn't say it was set in stone and guaranteed. As far as taking care of myself, I am 100% compliant here in the USA and will be 100% compliant when I move in 4 weeks. My primary place of business was never in the USA in the first place. The DOJ can come and visit my office abroad when they want to see my records, during normal business hours just as they require.

[Mutt]

you are a danger to yourself i'm afraid DWB. if i were you I'd go to the Yellow Pages and look up 'Uniform Shops' or 'Uniform Manufacturers' and order a spiffy looking orange jumpsuit - just to get comfortable wearing it - never hurts to be prepared.

as PleasurePays said - you want to get into a game of semantics with the Federal government - don't pass GO ...................

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Please tell me where in the following regulations it says you can't have 2 offices?"

Here you go

Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled.

For example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically, producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party custodian could guarantee the accuracy of the records, would act as a legally liable agent of the producer, and would raise other administrative issues as well.



Keep trying to be cutesy with these rules and see what happens to you.

[bigdog]

does the goverment think that small tgp webmaster just doing galleries is going to follow these rule and put his home address

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Mutt

you are a danger to yourself i'm afraid DWB. if i were you I'd go to the Yellow Pages and look up 'Uniform Shops' or 'Uniform Manufacturers' and order a spiffy looking orange jumpsuit - just to get comfortable wearing it - never hurts to be prepared.

as PleasurePays said - you want to get into a game of semantics with the Federal government - don't pass GO ...................

You know I do wear one of those football helmets with eye guards so I don't poke my eyes out...

In all honesty, I don't want to play a game with anything. I'm just saying than anyone can have an international office if they choose. That is not illegal.

So according to what all of you are telling me, even though I am no longer going to be living in the United States and will have a foreign office and state my records will be at that office, I will still need to rent an office here in the USA to keep my records and call my primary place of business. Not a chance and the DOJ knows it. To add to that, all US citizens that already work and live abroad will have to come back to the states to do the same? Do you here what your saying?

I'm not trying to downplay this or play games... but there is no way the DOJ can stop anyone from opening up shop abroad.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Here you go

Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled.

For example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically, producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party custodian could guarantee the accuracy of the records, would act as a legally liable agent of the producer, and would raise other administrative issues as well.



Keep trying to be cutesy with these rules and see what happens to you.

Gator,
I like you. I really do. But that says nothing about having 2 offices. It is about using a 3rd party to hold your records and that is NOT what I am talking about. No where in this thread do I say anything about a 3rd party.

You guys are missing logic on this one. It's not that difficult and it is not breaking the law.

Example: Gator owns XXX company. Gator is a larger company and can afford to set up another office in another location. For arguments sake, this office is in Brazil. In this office Gators company employs full time a custodian of records. he may even employ another webmaster to submit galleries for him full time. maybe, maybe not. It is up to him and how large an office he would like to have. Or maybe he will just hire a guy, or maybe use the same man who is the custodian of records to also answer his customer service e-mails. Again, this is Gators office, he can hire as much staff as he would like.

This office is open during normal business hours as requested by the DOJ. All 2257 records are kept at this office and it states that on every site, DVD or any other media form produced by Gators company.

This is not a 3rd party solution. These are employees who work for Gator and just happen to be located in another country.

< end example >

Please explain to me like I'm 3 years old how that is in violation of anything? It's not. I will say it one last time, it can't be a 3rd party because he is your employee. You are allowed to have as many employees as you can afford, from almost any country you want, anytime you want, in what ever business you want. Why do you think all these US companies are moving their data centers OUT of the USA? Because they are allowed to do this and it saves them money.

And to answer your "keep being cute and see what happens" remark. I am a paid member of the FSC. I will not be inspected until this is sorted out just like the rest of the FSC members. At that time, IF that time comes I will no longer live, host, bank or process in the USA. I would like to see what happens to me very much because I can assure you it will be nothing. The USA does not have international jurisdiction to enforce this law across the world. Though US law applies to all US citizens regardless, that is fine because until they actually inspect me and until they can actually find a violation, I will not be in violation of anything.

All of us first have to be inspected before we are in violation of the regs. Just working out of the country does not mean your automatically in violation of the law.

This really is not as difficult as you all make it out. No games, no cute anything. If they want my records, they will have to make a little extra effort to get them, that's all. NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING is going to happen because there are no laws broken. I am in full compliance and will continue to be no matter where I live.

[NemesisEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Red Ezra

I am interested to see if there is someone offering a custodian of records service - brick and mortar with office hours out there already - let's hear it

Yes, there is a service. Last time I looked their rates were: $ 150.00/year for custodian of records and $150.00/year plus $2.50 per mailout plus postage for business address with mail forwarding. If you actually want to occupy the office space daily the rate starts at $ 350/month. There are other rates depending on what you need to prove that your business is based at the location, i.e. business license, telephone, etc.

Are you in need of such service or just asking? If you need it, I will get their info out of our files on Monday.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by NemesisEnforcer

Yes, there is a service. Last time I looked their rates were: $ 150.00/year for custodian of records and $150.00/year plus $2.50 per mailout plus postage for business address with mail forwarding. If you actually want to occupy the office space daily the rate starts at $ 350/month. There are other rates depending on what you need to prove that your business is based at the location, i.e. business license, telephone, etc.

Are you in need of such service or just asking? If you need it, I will get their info out of our files on Monday.

Oh God, they are going to let you have it now. Good, take some of the heat off me for a few hours while I het some sleep.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

You know I do wear one of those football helmets with eye guards so I don't poke my eyes out...

In all honesty, I don't want to play a game with anything. I'm just saying than anyone can have an international office if they choose. That is not illegal.

So according to what all of you are telling me, even though I am no longer going to be living in the United States and will have a foreign office and state my records will be at that office, I will still need to rent an office here in the USA to keep my records and call my primary place of business. Not a chance and the DOJ knows it. To add to that, all US citizens that already work and live abroad will have to come back to the states to do the same? Do you here what your saying?

I'm not trying to downplay this or play games... but there is no way the DOJ can stop anyone from opening up shop abroad.

oh that's different - if you're going to change your legal residency to another country than the DOJ can't do shit to you. I know of companies who have set up all kinds of offshore companies for their adult business but their offices, server etc and most importantly their homes are in the U.S. - they're totally wrong if they think their offshore setups will protect them should they draw the short straw and are inspected.