Web Legal & 2257 Real or Hoax?
 

I found this on AVS friendly.

Is it for real or a hoax?

It seems this is real. Didn't Dave Clark come here and tell us he keeps all the 2257 documents?

The shooter is now saying Dave has not seen any for two years from him.

If they bought the content, they should have the 2257 information on their page in the form of the name of the contact, and their address. That is how lightspeed uses their bought content.

Dave is referring to the fact that he doesnt have the model releases himself, rather relies on the "producers" 2257 releases. That may be a far bigger issue, in that if he hasnt seen them, he may have put a lot of webmasters in jeopardy. If he has seen them, and just doesnt keep the model releases himself (which he doesnt have to if he doesnt produce the images) thats acceptable.

However, I do think it is in the webmasters best interest to at least see the release and photo ID, even if they dont have to keep it on file. CYA.

It seems to me, the webmaster is being asked to trust a guy he has never met, who is trusting a guy he has never met.

Who is hoping no one ever asks for them.

Total screw up.

interesting......

it would be bizarre if a broker didn't actually have the id's and releases on his own premises. i can't believe this Clark doesn't have them.

I always thought the argument Clark had was that he doesn't think it's necessary to routinely provide the ID's with every product he sells but will provide them if a webmaster insists or needs them.

there is no way around it, there is always going to be some trust involved in shooting/buying content. A photographer could create fake documentation, a model could do the same.

This was on AVS Friendly

So it's all right Dave checked it all out two years ago.

And Dave is making sure of it first. :helpme

I guess this is a warning to all who buy content.

Charly I agree which you that is crazy :eek7

If what compdoctor is saying is true then Weblegal could have illegal content from dubious suppliers and not even know it.

You have to assume every supplier is dubious. Then get the things that cover your arse.

What annoys me is Dave Clark came here preaching that he was the best qualified to check the documents and he did not think the webmaster should do it. It now seems he does not have them all.

Dave Clark at web-legal is as straight up as they come.
He's said before many times that he checks the model releases and ID's for every set that he sells.

He provides 2257 info with every product on his site.

This 2257 is pretty fucked up.

The Gov wants producers, webmasters, amateurs housewife webmasters and so on to keep records and provide them to whoever will publish the content.

In other words, a jackass that opens a 4.00 month site buys a set from me and gets the name, SSN, drivers licence of the broad. This is fucking nuts and dangerous.

Since the US is already in a " big brother" government style, why don't they go a step further:

Documents should be filled to a special gov agency that would verify and certify its authenticity. Against a nominal fee ( they always tax one way or the other), they issue a numbered certificate that webmaster can obtain from the producer or from the gov.

On the website, you could state that all models ... blablabla and list the certificate number only ,either on a special page and/or on the actual page the model is featured.

This protects eveybody and mainly puts a ' firewall" between the stalker and the model.

Or maybe this is just a crazy sunday morning...

Then why is one of his producers saying he is scanning and sending 2257 documents to Web Legal and that Dave has not checked for the last two years. This could all turn out to be a hoax and someone trying to make trouble for Dave but the guy that posted the first one is a regular poster another boards.

Are you saying he now provides it with every product on his site? Well again on another board this was said

"Dave at WL has only recently started his "Records On File" option as a feel good service for buyers."

Nice feel good service. And again if Dave had the records why is this supplier scanning and sending them to him?

How many suppliers in how many countries does Dave deal with?

directfiesta
Agreed 2257 was put through by a bunch of rightious idiots who were trying to hamper the porn business. But if the webmaster is comfortable with you holding the documents then fine. His decision. But 2257 is not why the buyer should insist on having the documents. There are other reasons.

(1) Proof they exist.
(2) Proof of age
(3) Proof the girl signed away ALL her rights when she was paid.
($) Goes someway to prove the guy you are buying them from owns the rights.

You can blur everything but the girls picture it shows enough.

We tend to do an over kill on this, maybe because we are in the teen market. The client usually gets a picture of the girl holding her passport and National ID, we blank out ALL her contact details. Leaving her picture, her name and signature.

If required by the authorities we can supply raw unaltered images.

Charly, I agree with you. I do not do teen , but more kinky " no vanilla" shit.

The point I try to make is that with little knowledge and Photoshop, any content supplier can doctor documents. If it so happens that the girl is minor, shit hits the fan.

Here in Quebec, I distribute movies to vidstores. I have to submit my original contract to a Regie ( gov) that reviews it and certify the legality. From that point, the store can purchase tapes or dvd's safely. The burden is totally on me.

If there is a dissension , it is reviewed by a special board. Works well, keeps us away from police abritrary bust, court cases and so on.

I personnally don't really care about the 2257, because what I shoot is for me, not for resale. Also, being in Canada, it doesn't really apply. The only place it does apply is in respect to the credit card processor if they require it.

I agree that this is blown out of proportion, but the day the US born again Christians in office decides to close down the adult business, that will be their tool of choice.

her name and signature don't seem very useful without her birthdate.

but those blanked out things don't count with the law, do they? they only count inasmuchas that if they show good faith with the producer.

there have been a fair amount of girls under 18 who were perfectly willing to do photos. and there are plenty of photographers who figure the girl looks over 18 and wouldn't check i.d.s on their own. what would you have the law do about that?

Which is exactly why this thread is bashing him. He has claimed in the past that he has all the docs on hand now for all his people. But here is this guy who indirectly is saying otherwise.

After the fiascos I've had with certain brokers, I would never buy content from anyone but the source, and not without having a copy of, at the very least, blacked out/censored copies of the model release & ID's.

Even if I felt very very comfortable with the original producer, if that guy gets hit buy a truck... all my content from him is worthless, and for some people this could be a considerable investement lost.
:2 cents:

Considering where all this is heading, that's almost a good idea :)



:thumbsup

So why was this posted on another board?

Do you see what I mean?

Best you say nothing because you just said he checked then left it to good faith. How many producers do you know on a well enough basis to know how well the keep 2257 documentation?

Best you stop posting before you bring down the house of cards.

My mistake, we leave that in as well.

(Sigh)

Ah, I see "Charley", Mr. Paul Markham, is at it again. Is it just my imagination, or does he just have a vendetta against me for some reason?

This _exact same issue_ keeps getting dredged up by Mr. Markham every few months... I suppose when things are getting a bit slow for him, and he feels that he needs to lie about someone in order to try to drum up business. That's all that I can figure, because every time, he's coming up with the same tired story, the same falsehoods, the same warped stuff.

Here's the facts, period:

[1] Before we deal with anything else, the law in question, 18 USC 2257, is very specific about who must have the records... and if you are not involved in the hiring or procurement of models, you aren't one of those people. The "Secondary producers" clause of Federal Regulation CFR 75 has been struck down in court, so as of the last that I had heard, we are still left only with 18 USC 2257's definition of who must keep those records. If anyone is aware of any court rulings that change that, please e-mail me and let me know about it.

[2] All producers that sell through me have to prove that they have good records before I will let them list anything with me, it's as simple as that... and that is going beyond the requirements of the law, as 18 USC 2257 specifically states that those that are not required to have the records are not required to check for the existance or validity of the records. I do it, not for 18 USC 2257 purposes, but for the purposes of making sure that I am dealing with the actual owners of the material in question. With created works, I'm requiring actual copyright filings, for example.

[3] Because of number of customers out there that seem to be jittery about the matter, as a measure of good faith, we have initiated what we call the "Records on File" program at Web-Legal. All new publishers are required to particpate fully in it, and all existing overseas publishers are required to be in it, as well. Existing publishers that are US soil based are encouraged to particpate, but not required to, as they are already fully "under the gun" to be 2257 compliant without any encouragement from me. Such publishers still have to prove to me that they are 18 USC 2257 compliant, they just don't have to have the edited records on each and every product sold. The Records on file project is very simple: Publishers, when they give me new titles, have to provide us with digital copies of the 2257 records for that title, and we keep unedited copies here (as a backup, not as a Custodian of Records), and place "edited" copies on the products, as proof that such records exist (but again, not to work as records for a Custodian of Records). This provides the best of all worlds, in that the customer can see that the records do exist, and then then have TWO places that they can go to get the real records, should there be a legal issue, not the one that is required by law.

Customers are still supposed to list the appropriate Custodian of Records on their sites, and said information is provided with every title told, in a file called 18us2257_update.html, located in the "root" directory of each title sold. This information is also available in the "title info" page in the samples enabled directories, so you can see it up front before you purchase.

The Records on File project has been very successful so far, with over 1000 titles currently listed as having Records on File with us, and that number is growing every week. It even has it's own section on Web-Legal.com, so that customers can shop for those exclusively if they so desire.

However, it's apparent that the facts of the matter mean little to Mr. Markham. All he's trying to do, is to tear me down for some reason (probably financial), and the facts have little to do with the matter. Either that, or he just has an incredibly bad memory when it comes to details, because he keeps pulling the same things out over and over and over again...

If anyone wants any further information on how the Records on File project works, or anything else about Web-Legal, please let me know. You can e-mail me at [email protected] if you like.

And, of course, from Mr. Marham, I expect only more flaming BS... I would be a fool to expect otherwise.

Wow, this is amusing...

I just looked at the original Thread on avsfriendly.com that apparently started all of this, and it's amazing how Mr. Markham "picks and chooses" what he wants to quote, ignoring anything that doesn't support whatever BS he's throwing today.

Lets' define a couple of things:

"Custodian of Records Information", versus "The records that the Custodian of Records is required to keep". There is a world of difference between those two items, as even a cursory examination will provide.

"Custodian of Records Information" is what is required to be placed on every product featuring adult material out there. This is the name and address of the person functioning as the Custodian of Records for the material being used, along with pertinent product information (in the case of content, the name and ID number of the product, and the date of release). Absolutely nothing more is legally required. This is required of all products produced after 1995... products originally produced before 1995 only have to have an exclusionary statement on them. Currently, we do not carry any products with such an exclusionary statement.

"The records that the Custodian of Records is required to keep" is an entirely different matter. You need to have a signed and dated model release for each performer (showing when the material was shot), and a photo ID showing date of birth for each performer (with a clear face photo, one that is recognizable as the model involved). Secondary forms of ID are encouraged, and are required should the principle form of ID not have a recognizable photo. One of those cute little "model holding up the ID's" photo is a good thing for matching up records, but is not spelled out as being required by the law. Next, the producer needs to have a list of all titles that they have produced, along with a list of all models performing in each of those titles, with the intent being that the publisher can locate all titles featuring a particular performer in a timely manner.

Here are the facts, independant of Mr. Markham's selective quotes:

[1] Web-Legal.com has always required all publishers to provide proof that they were properly 18 USC 2257 compliant, and that proof was that they had to send us records for products, so that we could examine them. These records were on paper, not digitized, and they were filed away after we checked them for accuracy. The agreement that we had with our publishers, is that those records were for our own verification purposes only, and that they would not be distributed to the public. This practice was specifically done to make sure that we were dealing with the legitimate owners of the material in question, and that they knew what they were doing when it comes to recordkeeping.

[2] Web-Legal.com has _always_ had the "Custodian of Records information" as defined above, on every product that we license. It's as simple as that... since I don't like violating Felony level Federal laws, I've made certain that we have that on every product that we put out for licensing. All products since day 1 of operation has had Custodian of Records Information available.

[3] Web-Legal.com is now working with the "Records on File" project to both provide a backup of records for the Custodian of Records, and to provide tangible proof of support for customers who are worried about the availablilty of records in the event of a legal challenge. This does NOT change the "Custodian of Records information" as defined above at all, it simply provides the customer with a secondary source to get the information should there be an issue.

You know, the one thing that people keep forgetting about, is that 18 USC 2257 is set up specifically so that the government, should they have a question about the legality of a piece of content, knows where to go to ask about it. That's what it's all about. If the FBI wanted to find out about the age of a model in a magazine being sold at a convenience store, they aren't going to shake down the owner of the store, asking to see the model releases... that's silly. They are going to go to the Custodian of Records, because that's where the records legally have to be, no where else.

Mr. Markham's game appears to be "scare people away from using others, so that they will come to him". I believe in treating people honestly and fairly, and that people will respond to that. I don't lie to make a point (or a sale), and I won't twist words or take statements out of context.

Just one other thing:

Following the thread on avsfriendly.com, Compdoctor has posted an absolutely on-target writeup of the whole CFR.75/Sundance case, as published by Attorney J. D. Obenberger in YNOT. It very clearly states where the "secondary producers" portion of CFR.75 was struck down, and why. Anyone interested in the _facts_ of this should go and read it, so that they are working with the truth of the matter... not the BS being slung by people with vendettas to carry on.

The following link should take you there:

http://www.avsfriendly.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5158

Webmasters are not "secondary producers" required to maintain model records. There ARE no "secondary producers" under current law and court findings... the only people required to keep model records are those who were involved in the hiring or procurement of models. I don't think that it could be more clear than that.

Here's my opinions:

1. It's great that you are now doing this 2257 filing stuff in house. Congratulations.

2. Historically, you sold my content that someone stole from me. When I contacted you about it you told me to take a hike and the only way you would stop selling my content was if I contacted the person selling it through you. After a couple days, you had it pulled. Why? You sold many copies, where's the 2257 on that? Maybe you ought to consider buying it all back before one of your customers gets in trouble. Plus we send out C&D's to anyone we find using it, and I have no trouble DMCA'ing anyone using it that got it from you. I have done it in the past and I will continue to do it in the future.

That makes you Web Illegal doesn't it? Don't think for one second that I would forget the kind of operation you run. I've been doing this for 8 years now and do not recommend you to anyone.

Sir, I have _no_ idea who you are, or what you are talking about. Could I get a bit more information from you besides a alias name? I cannot address this matter until I know who you are, and what you are talking about.

Agreed. The only content providers I would ever use are ones that provide model id's and releases. If I don't see them... how could I trust the person who is selling the content?

OK, I think that I may have figured out what your angle is... You are Michael Kobrin, right?

As I recall (and I have yet to pull all of my notes up on this), you made a purchase of material from Mike Hammer and/or Anthony Coviello, material that had already been out on the market and had been licensed before. The terms of the agreement were a bit of a bone of contention between you and the publisher, and you thought that you then had exclusive rights _period_, and that all previously licensed copies had to be removed from play, whereas the photographers thought that simply taking the title out of new licensing at that point was sufficient for the terms of the agreement.

If it's some other matter, please let me know, but this was NOT a case of me selling "stolen images" in any way, shape or form... it was one of you purchasing images and then disagreeing what the terms were to be.

And this is _exactly_ why I have initiated the "Records of File" project at Web-Legal.com... because, despite the evidence to the contrary, some people just want to have something in their possession.

There are over 1000 titles now covered by the Records on File Project, and more being added every week. So, if having that information is a prerequisite for you, there you go! :)

You could try searching your old emails for VirtuCon. Why don't you remember me? Have you screwed over so many photographers that they all blur together?

Apparently, you didn't bother to read above before you wrote that, eh?

Quite to the contrary, such claims of malfeasance on my part are so rare around here, that when someone makes a claim like that I have to go research it to find out what the _real_ story was... exactly as what happened here.

Oh, so you DO remember me. Turns out that I was right. VirtuCon has the chromes. VirtuCon has the ID's. VirtuCon has the releases. VirtuCon owns 100% of those images. So why were you selling them? Why are they still outstanding?

And in fact, you started selling VirtuCon's images MONTHS after they were ours. And furthermore, you refused to stop selling them once ownership was proven by me.

The licenses you refer to about being sold before were sold by VirtuCon and not by Coviello or Hammer. Any outstanding copies of this content unlicensed by VirtuCon are being dealt with as discovered.

Did you think I was just going to disappear? Because that is another mistake you made.

I do not doubt that you have cromes and ID's and releases... but who was the photographer again? WHO SHOT THE FILM?

My publishers, as I recall, did sell you rights... but you took those rights to mean things that they didn't intend. You are trying to make a contract dispute between you and the photographer out to be some sort of "Dave Clark is trying to screw me" episode, but even a cursory examination of the facts shows that this is not the case.

There were no sales after I was told by the publishers that the rights had been transferred, it's as simple as that... and I would like to see any proof that you have to any other effect. As I recall, you never did offer any proof, you just e-mailed a customer of mine with a lot of invective, and I was the one that followed up on the matter with the photographers.

As far as any sales that occured before we were told by the publishers of record (who again, and proven their legitimacy with me beforehand, and from whom I have lots and lots of paperwork showing their legitimacy), that is, as we discussed before, a matter between you and the publisher, because it's a contract that you two had put together, and I wasn't involved at any phase of the negotiations. You need to work that out with them, if you feel that they did not live up to your expecations of what the contract stated.

Oh, one thing that I'm a bit confused on...

This just doesn't make any sense. If you purchased the content from Coviello/Hammer, how could you license the material to others before you obtained the material yourself? How could you have licensed the materials to others before Coviello/Hammer (the photographers) were licensing it? The timeline just doesn't make sense...

Unless, you are trying to tell me, that by some quirk of fate, I was sending out licenses identifying YOU as the publisher... and that's one that I would like to see. That's the only way that your above statement seems to make any sense to me... and that is most certainly not the case.

As far as my making a mistake in thinking that you would just "go away?". No, I didn't think that you would just go away. Perhaps I was hoping that you would wise up a bit and realize that what you are dealing with, is a contractual issue between you and the photographer that you purchased the material from, and that it didn't involve me in the slightest bit, but I suppose that reason is a bit too much to ask for, isn't it? (sigh).

Lets start this at the beginning: Who shot the film in question?
Just answer that, and we will follow the chain to find out what happened here...

Several flaws with your argument:

1. You don't seem to know what a publisher is. This is problematic in that

2. You obviously never saw the paperwork. If you did you would understand the situation. For you to comment on documents that you have never read is absurd.

3. You don't remember telling me you didn't care about anything I had to say. You also don't remember me offering you a copy of the buyout and you refusing to look at it because of a reason to the extent of "I don't know you I don't care what you say I only deal with them".

4. You didn't enter the situation until months after we had been licensing the images.

5. What you did was in fact sell rights to images you never owned. When that was pointed out, you continued to offer them for sale. As a broker with a reputation to worry about, you made several bad decisions here. And the fact that you still have not recalled these images shows that you are not acting responsibly.

The bottom line is:

You don't have any legal compliance. You don't have any hope to get legal compliance. You are in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. You are violating 18.USC.2257. You are conspiring to violate DMCA and 18.USC.2257. And you are defrauding your customers as well as putting them at serious risk.

If I were you I would go try to buy back all the licenses you sold and get your customers to remove all the existing copies of our content. And I would pray that this situation goes away before it escalates.

How many webmasters have met the person who is selling them content? Definitely less than 10%, probably less than 1%, maybe less than .1%. How many of your online (not magazine) customers have you met?

If your standard is that people need to personally know the person they are buying content from, you're dreaming.

You know, I don't see a shred of truth to anything that you are saying here. Can you support even a single one of these charges?

Lets take this one at a time...

[1] I don't know what a publisher is? How on earth can you make that statement with a straight face? That one is just too ludicrous to even bother with...

[2] I "obviously" never saw the paperwork? Which paperwork are you referring to... the 2257 records that the publishers (or perhaps you would prefer them to be called the original photographers) provided me, showing that they produced the material, or the contract that you made with them afterwards? You know, the contract that you never did send to me to "prove" your contention?

[3] You are making charges that I didn't want to listen to you... well, tell you what, why don't you dredge up those e-mails and send them to me at [email protected]? I would really like to see how I went so far out of my normal character there... if you had paperwork supporting your position, I _always_ want to see it. In fact, I would like to see it now, since you brought up the matter.

I will say this: I won't take down content from a known and respected publisher, one that has provided me with all legal documents asked for, on the word of someone that comes in, spewing invective, and doesn't offer any proof of their claim whatsoever. If someone has a legitimate issue, I will research it with the publisher, and see what there is to find out... but until then, nothing happens, because there are far too many cases of mistaken identity, partnership misunderstandings, and, lets face it, people just plain lying out there. I want proof before I put products up, and I want proof before I take them down.

[4] You say that I didn't enter the situation for "months" after you had been licensing the images... if that's the case, where did I get the images in question? What was the path that brought them to my door? And under whose name were they being licensed under?

[5] "What you did in fact was sell rights to images that you never owned". I believe that the technical term for that, is "Duh!" Of course I sell the rights to images that I do not own... I'M A BROKER! Apparently, the definition of "Broker" is something that you are not familiar with. A Broker is a person that acts as a facilitator between the seller (licensor) and the buyer (licensee) in a transaction. By definition, I don't own the images. Duh! I work for the publishers and/or photographers that bring their legal works to me, licensing out their materials for them.

The bottom line:

You are making a LOT of totally baseless and completely false claims, period. You accuse a lot, but you don't have any facts to support the matter. Everything that you are saying, to be honest, is libelous. Care to put it in writing on hardcopy?

You are making a lot of serious charges... now try making one of them stick. I don't think you can... because I haven't done any of the things that you are accusing me of.

Charly quotes: "the courts have ruled that a web master is not a secondary producer either"

Really? I'd like to see that ruling.

There is a good writeup of this over on the avsfriendly.com board by Compdoctor, where he is quoting J. D. Obenberger on the matter. Rather than quote it all here again, here's the URL:

http://www.avsfriendly.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5158

The really pertinent line is "The court struck down that part of the regulation that reached publishers who had no contact with the performers and had not contracted the work to be produced".
That sounds like it includes Webmasters to me, so long as they did not shoot the material, or order a custom shoot.

I have read that decision at what you have to understand is that is only controlling law in that one Federal District. (10th circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming)

You are correct as far as you are going, but there is another angle to the matter, and that is of "existing case law". If the matter was brought up in another jurisdiction, the existing case law regarding the matter would be used as the basis for making the new ruling, and unless there was a significant reason why the first ruling was incorrect, it would simply be used as the new ruling as well. This is probably why there have been no new cases brought to prosecution since 1998... why bother, when it's just going to be struck down anyway?

This is why "first cases" are so important, and so argued about... they set the precendent for all cases following.

Mr. Clark,

I have just finished scanning purchase agreements. As it happens, I am right. Exactly right.

I have sent documents to you, I would encourage you to disappear from this thread.

Otherwise, you may find yourself answering questions like "If I was wrong, why are you not selling those sets anymore?" and "How much would you be willing to settle for?"

People also may begin to notice that their "reputable" content broker might just not be the gentleman they thought they were working with.

No my standard is.

Do not trust the guy, trust yourself. Insist on getting the 2257 documents or don't do business with him.

I got it from my lawyer.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/18usc2257-2.html

The thread is an attack on his company, why would he disappear? :1orglaugh

This whole business was started by one of Dave Clark's suppliers who said he had finished scanning the 2257 documents and now clients of Web Legal can now get them. It was also stated by this supplier that Dave trusted the supplier to maintain and keep these document after an initial examination by him.

Also stated on other boards is that Dave only started to have 2257 documents at the beginning of the year, so why is a supplier just sending them 7 months later.

It now seems and I say seems, that Dave Clark sold content that he had no rights to.

A couple of years ago there was a thread on this board about a model who looked 14 and Dave Calrks refusal to supply IDs. He eventually showed us these IDs which were so obviously a fake they were an insult to our intelligence.

TOTALLY FORGET 2257 FORGET IT

This is why buyers need to insist on documents when buying PORNOGRAPHY

(1) Shows the documents exist.
(2) Shows the age of the model.
(3) Shows the model signed away her rights.
(4) Goes some way towards showing the seller has the right to resell.

None of these are guaranteed. But better to have them than not have them.

If you ever get need to have these documents. You can go to your filing system to produce them or go to the supplier who it now appears may have to go to his supplier. A long chain.

Dave this is not personal you can do business any way you see fit. But do not think I cannot show people how you do business. And you can do the same with me.

I send 2257 documents with every set or video we supply. We get the girls to supply two forms or ID, which we photograph her holding next to her face on EVERY set we shoot of her. We also have a model release in the models native language and in English. On the documents we supply webmasters we block out all contact details, we also recently started to put a semi transparent watermark across the documents, to stop others supplying it.

Now our clients can file these documents or they can use them to start a fire that is their choice.

Dave has recently started to get these documents from suppliers, how long has he been in business? How many suppliers has he had over the years? How many of them still deal with him? How many of the sets that hs has does he actually have the records of? How many of his suppliers are Russian, Ukrainian, Yugoslavian or any other country where standards are not so high?

Jeez, I love going over the same tired dog & pony show on two different boards...

You just love to twist things around.. as per usual.

There are two different issues here... our Records on File program, and what we required our publishers to do in order just to list products with us. CompDoctor was stating that he was working with our Records on File Program... that has nothing to do with the legal proof that he had to show in order to get on our listings. Did you get that? Or is that too complex for you to figure out?

I wouldn't hold onto that "seems" thing too long... the facts show what happened. The matter was a partnership issue, and we were not at fault, as we had done nothing wrong.

You still love to lie about that "Model looking 14" thing. You know that the model ID was NOT FAKED... it never was, the publisher had simply tried to be cute and edit the pertinent info out of the record before he sent it to me (a mistake on his part, to be certain, but one of his trying to protect his model). There never was anything fake about it, so if your intelligence was insulted, that's your own issue, not mine.

I love the fact that, now that it's become apparent that legally speaking, 2257 "Secondary Producers" are NOT the issue, that you are taking the same tack, just saying "it's protection for you". Well, that's what the Records on File project is all about... giving the customers what they are asking for. That's why I started this up... not because it was a 2257 issue, but because customers were asking for it.

Mr. Markham, you claim that this is not personal, but I think that your belligerance and your twisting of things belie that stand, and I think that it belies it for anyone looking in on this thread. You take every opportunity to try to pester me, and you know it... it's hard to claim that you don't have a personal interest when you look at what you are doing.

You end your message with one of your famous twists... trying to imply that I've only recently begun asking for documentation from my publishers, when in fact I've been doing it from day one. The only difference now is, that I'm getting that documentation in a digital format, and providing edited copies to the customers, as opposed to filing it away here. That's it.

You ask how many sets actually have the records on them? Well, I can answer that the Records on File project currently has 1022 titles in it, with more being added in the next 24 hours.

You ask how many of my suppliers are non-US? You mean, like Czech Republic? (smile!) Well, one of the reasons why I have always required all publishers to provide me with records before I begin selling for them, is to make sure that their documentation is up to US standards... because _I'm_ the one that might be talking to the law enforcement officers about the matter, being their US representative. It's pretty simple when you think about it that way... I don't feel like being dragged into a nasty situation if I can avoid it.