is your content provider a scumbag?
 

18 USC § 2257 provides: ?[any primary or secondary producer] shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises?

28 CFR § 75.2(b) provides: ?a secondary producer . . . may . . . to create and maintain records . . . [accept] from the primary producer . . . copies of the records.?

28 CFR § 75.2(b) further requires that: ?a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.? Note the words "also" and "copies".

28 CFR § 75.4 requires that ?Any [primary or secondary] producer . . . shall make such records available at the producer's place of business.?

Those four clauses, taken together, require you to maintain copies of the records at your place of business. Specifically, as a secondary producer, you must keep records ?at [your] business premises?. Though you need not create the records yourself, you still must get ?copies of the records? ?from the primary producer?. Additionally, if you get copies (as opposed to create records yourself), you have to ALSO keep ?the name and address of the primary producer? on file.

This is pretty clear.




so my question is this. Why are 50% of the content providers out there not willing to give up this info required by law?

bizump

Because it is not required by law yet.

did you not read my post? I just quoted the current fucking law.

where are the content providers?

hiding

:1orglaugh

based on the ones we've been dealing with the answer would be an astounding no, for them being jokers that is. all depends on who you go for.

charly, aaron, mutt, anyone care to comment? I just want a straight answer from a contetn provider.... and nobody seems to agree on anything

english porfavor?

I have the releases signed by the models along with copies of their ID's and the licence for 99% of my content. The other 1% was just recently purchased so I don't have that yet....but I will get it.

I know many of the content providers are having difficulty giving up the model ID's because many of the girls don't want their real names known.

No idea what recourse you have if you can't get what you need.

Current/unrevised version was very unclear on whom a secondary producer was. It went into ad nausem about hiring, securing, filming and such of models when the definition was explained.

try reading it again, just a quick tip. :)

unfortuntaly, I am going to have to delete a ood portion of my database because of this..

Just wanted to thank all the content providers for being stubborn bitches and making things easy. You sure lost my business in the future

right, I understand its somewhat unclear, but if you take those 4 quotes i posted, what is unclear about those?

This would probably be the best explaination you are going to get. Maybe AaronM can give a better one later or so, but i am sure this is one of the main reason.

I am using the whole code, not just the quotes.

What are you doing about your affiliates that you supplied free content to?

not my responsibility, its thiers.. if i am not hosting it, then i am not responsible for it. I didnt produce the content...the best I can do is send out an email warning everyone... what else can I do? nothing.

Does anything in the current law require primary content producers to hand over records to anyone other than the attorney general?

Well its not just the AG, its law enforcement for the most part.

Sure, but primarys are not necessarily required by law to share records outside of LE and AG, right?

awsome

still at square one

My content provider gives me free sausages so I'm statisfied.

p1mpdogg what makes you think you were a secondary producer to begin with?

Well answer my fucking question then.

They could be required to share with secondaries, if indeed they had a secondary.

trey i'm not an expert on this because i'm only selling exclusive content and customers get all the documentation, so we've never had to debate whether the customer should have the documents.

charly is the guy who can answer your question - charly's had a fight for years with one of the big brokers - he agrees with you, that licensees(secondary producers) should have always been given the model id's to comply with 2257.

and yeah, i'm afraid for the companies who are going to try to comply now alot of content is going to have to be dumped.

Lovely how the same things that qualify someone as a secondary go ahead and disqualify them in later clauses.

well i am not worried untill i get a visit by the feds i will not sweat it

That is the law for you, and why lawyers are ussually well off.

great answer

I see you are continuing to provide great answers as well.

well number one, it's not law yet.. it's still proposed.. if it goes into law lets say next month. You still have 30 days to become compliant.

When you look at the implications at what is at stake, I can't blame them for not handing the info over until the law is in affect.
First off I believe this law violates the models right to privacy and I can't see it being upheld. John Asscrap has a history of trying to pass un constitutional laws.

Why on earth would a content producer want to put himself at liability for giving out a models personal information with out written consent? They may have written consent to sell the pictures and videos but it if very unlikely, any have written consent to hand over the models personal info. I see this entire fiasco as a major lawsuit waiting to happen.

his quotes are from 2257 as it is now, not as it's proposed to be.

When I sell content to others I give them all the documents required by law, including ID.

I don't have a clue why someone wouldn't do that. But then again, I've never sold anything but Exclusive content.

you obviously did not read the current 2257 and the 4 quotes i posted from the current regs.

donny see this thread

http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...hreadid=334301

im serious.

yup. a lot can change in those proposed regulations between now and later.

the proposed rules for adult material in the CAN SPAM ACT changed.

*okay, that's the current stuff? i need to read that shit again.. my statement still stands. the proposed NEW rules can change.*

if you were to sell non-exclusive, would you have a problem giving the docs?

First he talking about current law not the proposed one.

Now onto what you said.
I have been to a few lawyers regarding these revisions. I am also located in California. As many will know California does have some of the strongest privacy and anti-stalking laws in the US, on top of the Federal privacy act.
1. If you model or put yourself out into public view for profit. You have less of a right to privacy. (take it as what it is)
2. In CA one can not share personal information with a 3rd party without written authorization. UNLESS you are doing so to comply with the law.

So in reality a provider in CA could share information. Be fully covered by the law and not need written consent to share the information. Not saying this is safe nor what we will do, but it is how it is.

I don't know because I've never done it. I think, for the model's protection, that I'd be very picky who I let buy from me. It's kinda scary that anybody can go to a content store, spend just a few dollars, and get a copy of the model's ID, address, phone number, etc.

But since I only sell exclusive to a handful of people I've been doing business with for YEARS, I don't hesitate to provide those docs.

We are in process of digitizing ALL our 2257 docs and ids and then categorizing them into folders that correspond with product IDs of the scenes. But now I will give out the required docs when webmasters ask for them. .

I have no problem signing a nda or whatever insuring that her info will not be givin to anyone other than law enforcement if requested

how much for everything you got? consider we have bought from you before.. I want the id's release and website license.. make me a deal and you have it sold.

icq 141588569

Why now? having the id's correspond with projects etc, was always required. Not stiring up shit, just curious.