50 BIATCH!

No shit. Where's the fucking proof huh? :Graucho

You have received a message!
http://www.buy-film-ready.com/

finding out more the content he was selling for them THEY were giving out for FREE!@#$

as you can see from their free CONTENT area http://www.buy-film-ready.com/free.html

he was selling shit that was allready to be given out for FREE!@#$

If I told you once I told you a hundred times.

If you publish adult content get the 2257 documents, if the supplier refuses to give them change to another supplier. I even went out and paid a lawyer who knows about this stuff and is prepared to put it in print on the net.

The Law #1

The Law #2

The lawyers opinion

There are many reasons to get the documents and check them yourself. You can see they exist, verify are correct, the model agreed to be sold, the models are of a legal age. If the content provider goes out of busines, retires, dies or for some unknown reason falls out with you, you are still covered.

So if you bought content and did not get the 2257 or pay a lawyer for his opinion, I'm sorry I have no sympathy for you. You are in the adult busines and if you do not know we are targets for harrassment, you should not be in it.

A thread not so long ago on this subject was about a guy who set himself up as the "Authenticator of Records" when he posted up the ID (he had checked) and was shown it was an obvious fake, he had to ask for more IDs.
Or the guy who said he was best qualified to check a US ID, more so than his clients. What kind of ID are his models using, US driving license, Social Security Card?

You buy from clowns like that you deserve what you get.

Hey tom :) wasn't he brokering for Max Candy too?

you know at first I was going to say FUCK YOU cock smoker,
but then I re read it and ya know you are 100% right, this is nobodys fault but mine. I have read your post about this before never even gve it a 2nd thought, allways thought of you as a wanker. Now I wish I would of read and took what you said and used it, only person I can blame is myself. I trust too many damn people, I never thought it would happen to me. what a big wad of shit that was dumped on my face.


Thanks charly my thinking of ya has changed a little ya still a wanker but at least ya nothing like me :helpme

again Charly Thanks for opening my phat eyes up

TOM

mn i have no freaking idea anymore, I can show all my logs of our talks he tells me he shot it all, then says he only shot the blk chick, then says he didnt shoot any of it that somone else he knows, hell from the other post about him nad his company ya can see he said he even TALKED to yuil etc... I was being played all along and didnt catch on. What a smuck I am :feels-hot

But they do not supply 2257 with the set, you have to go cap in hand to them.

They also deal with lots of Russian and Ukrainian photographers. Your call.

Aaron, I will tell you about the time I met a broker in Vegas last year. He had 20 of my sets and to date had sent me $100. We met in his penthouse suite.

His excuse for not selling more was he did not have enough of my sets.

On what he made on my stuff if that was the average he got he could not afford the Greyhound bus fare to Vegas.

Did he shave? Who knows.

Heh, back in October he asked me for a loan of $50 because his friend got busted and he needed cash for bail. Glad I didn't give him the money....I have to strongly worry about anyone so strapped for cash they have to start asking their clients to borrow money.

Damn I forgot all about that he asked for 150.00 I almsot did it too. damn i forgot about that... I have left him a message on his voice mail Told him the id's and shit better be here by tomorrow or i will c all the local police in his town a lawyer and go after him any way i can.. Just hoped this would of been avoided ya know. DAYMN :BangBang:

No problem.

I may come across badly, but you have to remember the years I been doing this.

I've been dealing with some magazine companies for over 20 years, does that give me the right to submit material without IDs and MRs.

NO

The fact that someone posts on the same board as me does not make him my friend and in no way gives me the idea I can trust him. Some of you guys still act like we are all campus buddies.

Some of you guys still act like we are all campus buddies
OH how so true. I guess when ya naive or how ever ya spell it and to trusting you will get it hard. I know this has caused me alot of heart ache I like to post stupid shit and see how others react and get a laugh out of people this shit like this thread is tearing me up... This type of shit ruins people and I am not into ruining peoples live, BUT daymn im not goign to trust NO ONE but a few that has stuck it out with me over the few years I have been doing this well april will be 2 years argh#$% im going to go and work on virginia I been talking with a great friend and have a great idea just hope the signups WONT drop thanks again


TOM

Damn str8.
Let me hear it from the horses mouth.
As you can see taking other people word/vouches gets you in trouble, because most of the time like charly said...people just don't know the facts.

I'm glad I hadn't deployed any of the material yet.

:Graucho

well, where is the pic? I want to see what your talking about.

Will do Tam, I will hit you chat with you just as soon as I hear something. I just put in the form today...waiting on a response.

Andy

shit... if it isn't one thing it's another. sorry to hear about the prob va2k.

it looks like honesty and a handshake to seal a deal is way out of fashion.

the moral to be learned i guess is trust no one and cover your ass 10 different ways from sunday.

as the saying goes 'just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you'

Hey don't let this damn thread get burried, I want this cock smoker to be seen for a few days and nights. :feels-hot

Charly, yes that was my point, Web-Legal is one of the companies I checked out. Webmasters buy content through them from countries of dubious ethics and morals. From what i saw it basically looked like they'd take biz from anybody from anywhere who signed a piece of paper declaring they own the content and supplied ID's. Well anybody who ever bought fake ID as a teenager knows how easy that is.

Nobody can be 100% positive that the ID provided by a model is legit. Good fakes are not that hard to come by.
I forget the details about the Traci Lords case, but she must have shot for literally hundreds of video companies and photographers, many i'm sure with great reputations, but she got by all of them for years with some kind of fake ID that everybody accepted as real.

His long diatribe about why he doesn't supply photocopies of model ID's was very strange to me, i didn't buy his argument.

As for brokers shaving sales on photographers, i've seen nothing on the two broker sites I've poked around that would give the photographer any assurance that it can't be done or isn't being done.
The Net is a vast place, photographers/videographers are usually way in the background, the easiest people to fuck over.

Hi Mutt
Yes his argument was that he was trying to protect the annonimity of the girls. Like girls in Russia and the Ukraine, after they have had their pussies all over the net.

The ID he checked and verified was from a photographer who suplied him with lots of work. From which I asumed that ID matched all the others he had, therefore that was faked so the others must be as well. Or tha faked ID was so different his method of checking was flawed.

He also said he had advise from 4 different lawyers who said his system was right. Can't understand a lawyer saying that.

Now I have put the links on my front page to letters from an attorney who clearly states webmaster are publishers and required to have the 2257 documentation on their premises.

Webmasters, you are in an ADULT business. So act like adults. If you do not have the 2257 documents. You are relying on luck, fate and a strangers honesty to keep you out of trouble.

fuck anonymity. they know what r they doing and get money for that.

person's ID is a MUST. no ID - no deal.

btw why would someone buy 'legal teens' that look underage?

:2 cents:

Is Alien007 actually Lovematch?

They have (or had) the same:

1. cheap content
2. web site name
3. icq name (ie: magicman)
4. tragic family stories
5. proclivity to use the term 'dude' in every sentence

...just wondering?

This topic about 2257 models ID´s and so on has been up to god damn many times to even count anymore.
Still people keep buying undocumented content and every now and then we see them getting screwed or even worse, into legal trouble!

I couldent have said it better then AaronM:
Do some research into who your dealing with and find out if they supply ID´s of the girls for which you are buying content!!!

I think posting about "your" problems is a good thing as a shitload of webmasters read GFY and that brings awareness, but you shouldent have been in this spot in the first place!

IF you do not know the legal info about this topic i suggest you read charlies posts more thurrel.
And if you are in doubt ask your provider if they hand out the ID´s for the models.....

because underage sells. Sad the kind of society we live in

The guys who do teen content will tell you what sells--

an 18+ woman who looks like a 12 year boy with a pussy.

pretty fucking sad, but that is the reality.

Jeezus...

When Pornbroker mentioned the name Lovematch, I just got a flashback.... Is this the same guy who was offering Max Candy plugins and fantastic deals and was having so called problems with his business partner... also claiming that content providers were scared because of the deals he was offering?

* IF * it is, he was offering a plugin with Japanese models which was legally questionable in my opinion. I have no written proof, so I will have to be careful what I write here, but the phone conversation I had with this guy around a year ago was enough to convince me not to do busines with him and end the conversation. He has tried to contact me on several occasions since, and I do not want any communication with this person whatsoever. I would not trust him in the slightest. IF it is him, I would not use any of his content and get a good wiping utility, if you do use it, it's your choice.

Wish you the best of luck.

Yea well im wiping my shit clean if the guy you talked to said his name was TOM davis then yes that is him screw him YA HEAR THAT TOM DAVIS YA OWNED! Ya day will be comming soon cock smoker :feels-hot

va2k,

sorry mate, I genuinely can't remember the person's name. I can remember he said 'dude' every 15 seconds which was frigging annoying if that's any help. I only have his ICQ handle and business name, and they are on our blacklist.

LoveMatch isn't Tom Davis.

So, did anything else ever develop with this? I notice his site no longer exists.

nope not yet!!

So did he own the content or not? I see it all over the place...I bought it after he posted at Tuna Fish Bitch...thought I was being nice. I actually gave him $500(!) so I could give out this content as free content for an amateur pay site I was putting together. I never got around to using the content...still on my hard drive somewhere.

I took his content down, just to be safe.

I noticed a couple of months ago his domain was up like normal under www.xratedstudios.com/dirtydog or something like that.

I didn't post it again, because I didn't want to give the fuck any more publicity.

His dog ate his website as well

or maybe his girlfriend got towed again and he sold the site

I bought that piece of shit's content
deleted it

I'm a little confused here. Why would anyone even purchase, never mind post galleries with girls that you then question (after purchase) if they are of legal age.

It doesn't matter if the girls are or aren't 18. To the surfing customer, they appear underage..which should be just as wrong as posting REAL underage girls.

I usually don't have anything to add to a "pissing" post but I gotta say here:

1) What content provider doesn't have model release and photo ID on File? WTF?!!!!

2) Don't buy content where they don't give you some proof of age.


For those of you wondering what law applies:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html

(Sigh).

Charley, Charley, Charley... why are you lying?

Or did you just forget? That ID was NOT faked, and it never was. You got pissy about it, because the photographer had edited the image sent to me, taking away the embossed ID number. THAT WAS IT. There was nothing wrong with that ID other than the fact that the photographer was attempting to protect the model himself.

Is business this slow for you, that you have to go beat the drumhead again?

Here's an original idea for you: Why not try to drum up business by offering people good service, rather than by trying to tell tales out of school about your competition? Especially when you have to lie about it in the first place.

Or, is this just your idea of entertainment?

Wow, you are on the roll today with the forgetfulness, aren't you?

I just read over your posted lawyers opinion, and you know what? It still didn't change a darn thing. Your paid legal opinion didn't address the issue of CFR75's "secondary producers" provisions being STRUCK DOWN by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the only known case that the government has ever brought using the secondary provisions (the court determined it to be far outside of the scope of the original act, and as such, the Federal Regulation involved couldn't possibly be an interpretation, and was struck down). It also didn't mention the fact that, without CFR 75's secondary producers provision, 18 USC 2257 quite clearly does NOT require anyone but the original producer to maintain those records or be a Custodian of Records.

It's the same old, same old. Nothing new here.

MagicMan is fucking AWOL, bastard owes me a $250 refund and also money to many others.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on that. Far from the "only needing a signed piece of paper", we require complete 18 USC 2257 documentation from new publishers, so that we can confirm that they know what is going on, and how they are to comply with the law. I don't want to be listing someone that is going to fall through in the pinch. I find it amusing how many people express an interest to be a publisher, and then disappear when I require them to provide paperwork before I get started with them.

I'm happy to report that there hasn't been one incident yet where a customer asked for paperwork for a legitimate purpose, and didn't get it sent back to them post haste. Period.

Oh, by the way, I love that "countries of dubious ethics and morals" bit. Everyone in the country gets painted with one big, broad brush, eh?

Well, I don' t know how far you "poked" into mine, but the fact of the matter is, we give publishers three different ways to have licenses issued, one of which is to have THEM send it out themselves. The other two both involve paperwork coming back to the photographer that was sent to the licensee by us. Any of these three methods would seem to make it a bit more difficult for us to "shave" anything, and option #3 makes it totally impossible, as the publishers can only send out the paperwork after they have been informed about the sale.

That would, of course, explain why we have never had anyone claim that we have shaved them. :)

One last thought: as far as the photographers being the easiest people to get the better of, I have to disagree. In my position, there are just as many photographers that play games, as people that play games with photographers. The most common things that I see in that regard are partnership breakups (where both sides claim sole ownership of all material), and photographers that sell "exclusive" rights to multiple people.

Could not resist it.

I think I've told you once and maybe even twice.

NEVER BUY CONTENT WITHOUT THE 2257 DOCUMENTS.
FUCK THE LAW, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SUED BY A GIRL SHOT BY A BOYFRIEND OR UNDERAGE.

Let me guess, this guy was offering a deal?

Wow, I don't recall ever quoting ANYONE such numbers. Could you shoot me out a copy of that e-mail? I would really like to see where I said anything of the sort.

Don't I remember you posting up a picture of a Ukrainian passort that was so obviosly forged it was a joke. You took it down pretty quick when everyone started to laugh at it.

You had to go and ask the photographer, a regular supplier, for a new one. Which made me think; are they all like this or is this a one off? Either way strange.

I hope now you are giving 2257 documentation with all your sets, so the webmaster can check themselves.

However I would like to poing out that I found David very straight to deal with, when we were trying to go via the brokering route. He had about 15 (I think) of our sets and in 2 months send us $75. :)

Are you out of your fucking mind? You want him to post a possibly illegal pic in a public forum? I don't want that shit in my cache.

There other other companies like this -- BIG ones. We just ran into one. They're gonna pay soon. Argh.

All I can say is you better get the ID's from your content provider (Matrix Content style) and if the company is a broker between the photographer and yourself, that broker better have enough faith to maintain records locally in the event that the photographer skips town. That, or you go directly to the photographer & get copies of the ids & original release forms -- I know this exposes the models some, but fuck it.

WE are the ones who are ultimately feeding them, and these photographers decide they don't want to be in adult & anymore then we are left holding the questionable bag.

Hey, lets repeat this _again_, since you didn't get the clue.

NO, there was no forgery, and YOU KNOW THAT. The ID simply had the embossed number edited from it, and YOU got out the drumhead and started beating on it, claiming that it was forged. I got another copy from the publisher, one without any digital editing, and the ID number was quite clearly there. The publisher also provided a college ID to go with it, as I recall.

There never WAS a forgery, period. You like to keep trying to make it sound as if there were, but you know that there was not.

Find a new way to drum up business, would you? You are getting a bit old with this routine.

I'm honored, a backhanded complement from Charlie!

I can't dispute the low sales that your products generated. I do wish to point out that you only listed with us one time, put up a batch of products that were rather overpriced compared to the average sales price on my system, and had names on them that would bore people to death, with no publisher descriptions that I can recall given. When no one noticed after a couple of months, rather than try to revamp the content by giving the customers some descriptions, you elected to pull the product, which of course, is your right.

And now you have, the other side of the story. :)

Sorry I appolagise for getting it wrong. I'm some kind of fool.

I understand now. You are taking content from producers in countries like the Ukraine and they are altering those documents (I assme on all of them) by removing the girls embossed number and leaving her name on the Passport and the model release to preserve her annonimity. Thanks for clearing it up.

Are you giving out the documentation to the webmasters now when you sell the set?

(Sigh). You are still warping things, and you know it. First, leave out your silly assumptions. Second, I can't tell you why the publisher did that, but I already read them the riot act over putting me in that position. They apparently thought that they were doing it right by sending it that way. Why, I cannot say, but the documents passed muster, and you know that.

Logically speaking, if the documents _had_ been forged the first time, how on earth would the photographer have been able to produce the unforged ones the "second time around"? Sheesh. THEY NEVER WERE FORGED, YOU JUST DIDN'T LIKE THEM, BECAUSE IT WAS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO DISLIKE THEM. Period.

I also found it interesting that the person that brought up the matter in the first place, did so after "consulting" with you about the matter. Coincidence? I'll let people come to their own conclusion on that.