Which Content provider is allowing documents to be given to affilaites?
 

This new law has a very worrying aspect to it. The distribution of models IDs to basically anyone who asks.

There is a risk attached to giving out IDs and by knowing who we sell to we can see the person and make a small check. However if that person is allowed to give out IDs to anyone who registers with an affiliate the problem is multiplied a 1,000 times. In fact that is a low estimate.

So which content providers allow models IDs to be given out to affiliates?

This is exactly why the law needs work

We don't allow our content to be given out to affiliates, so that's not a problem for us. We do however give out all the necessary 2257 docs to customers

There are hard choices to be made.

Giving out documents to affiliates will be tough. It could mean the supply of content dries up, will models work for an industry that distributes their IDs, will shooters break the laws of their countries? Some will and they will be the bottom of the barrel, quality and quantity will go down, prices will go up and conversions will plummet.

Or cut off free content to US affilaites, I know it's tough that you will have to buy content, could be the answer. Some will close, some will carry on. But will we lose a single surfer or signup as an industry?

Maybe we just need to obey the law, protect those who take their clothes off so out customers can wack off, and use our collective heads for something besides a place to hang our hat.

There are plenty of alternatives.

I have talked to some players... I know, I'm new and a small fish... but some will give you information if you ask them.

What is wrong with text links... fhg, softcore galleries.

I love it!! People are closing their sites!! No more fucking free porn and maybe now those who know how to obey the law, and have a business plan will be making more money in the long run!!

So, my vote is to keep the juicy stuff out of the hands of the affiliates. Make thm earn their pay. Shit, they get 50% or better...

Drive traffic creatively!!

Very good attitude Lifer. What no one will realise is this could be good for us on some levels. Takes out a lot of the free HC porn, makes pirating content a little harder and gets rid of a lot of dead wood.

The result could be more sign ups and more money in the business.

If you're business model revolves around giving free HC content to US affilaites then you need to rethink it quick. Those who do will survive.

Paul, at this point I'm at a wait and see point with this issue. I think it could be a turning point for programs... It could be just the thing they/we need to cut down on alot of the free hardcore porn out there. The whole point of giving free porn is to tease the customer into joining a site. Show him that you have the kind of girls he likes, and what quality your photos & vids are. This can be done with non sexually explicit content. Anyone that thinks they need to give more than that away for free is just kidding themself, or they are just dumbasses...

I know I'll have 50 who say they can't do that... because the guy's overseas will still be giving it a way... and they will be getting all the traffic. And this may be true to a point... But, if the program owner... put some pressure on them and don't supply them with the content... this could be over come also... Besides, it's to there advantage to make more sales too...

I think everyone will admit, there is to much free hardcore out there, let's hope this can be the breaking point, and the return to the good old days... When $$$$ were better from selling sex on the net!

WOW, This was my 1000th post!

The biggest problem with every tom dick and harry having access to the ids, and what most people don't know, is that if something happens to the model, either her identity is stolen, or she's killed... whoever provided that information is also legally liable under the law simply for being the one to have distributed that information. It's a catch22.

the risk to models isn't as bad as people are making it out to be - read the law again - you are under no obligation to give out anything more than a picture ID card with her legal name on it - that's it. any other information does not have to or should not be given to a webmaster. so for any weirdo out there amongst the thousands of affiliates all he would have to work with is a legal name of the girl and what country she is from.

What Mutt said..

if the model is a US-citizen, then they will see more than her legal name, they will know her address and possbily SSN along with her legal name. A quick lookup in the white pages, and you can give her a ring.

I can't find my passport right now, but there is some revealing info in there.

A driver's license issued from a foreign country will have address, etc.

Imagine an affiliate getting Aria Giovanni's driver's license?

What's the harm? plenty...



Fight the Stalkers!

"Any primary producer who fails to release the records to a secondary producer is simply in violation of the regulations and may not use the excuse that the records contain alleged trade secrets to avoid compliance."

There is nothing you can do to avoid giving out this info unless the law is challenged and beaten in court.

It's very worrying because we all know that it is simply immoral and wrong to do this. At this moment I am giving unblacked out IDs only to well known and respected companies. At the same time I am hoping this can be brought down in the courts before it gets too messy.

sorry, but personal information other than legal name and photo CAN be sanitized. there is NO need to be giving anybody a state driver's license. read the law again. I noticed this the first real full read i did on the 2257 law and so did AaronM.

Unfortunately though a lot of people won't take the time to do that though, I won't be surprised to see unsanitized docs just being handed out. Remember, it's all about the money :P

it doesn't say that and its quite the opposite... new regs are pretty specific about pictured identification cards, that are unaltered (ie. no blackouts).

JD's AVNonline post relating to this subject:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=228409

A version of JD's comments with some commentary by Connor at:
http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...cle &sid=9454

I still can't find my passport, but i am guessing that the passport will show real name and birthdate, and probably not SSN and no address... so therefore a US passport would be the best thing to handout...... but in reality, how many people in the US have passports? i read the percentage once, it was very low.

I believe another FSC challenge is over this very issue, so if the injunction gets granted, then it would appear that content producers don't have to product this information until the courts rule whether handing over unblackened and personally revealing information over to secondary producers is legal and constitutional.

If they injunction isn't granted, then ya, this is a major nightmare logistically for content producers to deal with.


Fight the handouts!

I think this may be interpreted to allow you to black out the address at least. :2 cents:

Mutt, I know you are stressed about this stuff but you really need to look at everything again. It was specifically asked if you could "sanitize" ID's during the comment session and they specifically saild NO NO NO NO NO.

I was wrong... you cannot sanitize the records for secondary producers:

The new regs specifically say the documents may not be sanitized...

I'm not a content provider, so it's not my place to suggest how you deal with the specific practical and ethical issues which apply to you. The only thing I would say for those who want to wait and see is to remember that these regulations are in force from June 23, notwithstanding any injunctions that may postpone prosecutions and perhaps even inspections. But since copies of changed pages along with the relevant records have to be kept for a period of 5-7 years, unless any challenges are ultimately successful in overthrowing the regulations or changing them, any of your customers who are not compliant from day one may eventually find themselves in a lot of trouble.

That should be an ethical issue for you and it is certainly a marketing issue. There are content providers who already have their models signing privacy waivers or finding other ways to deal with this situation. So unless you want to be selling only to non-US customers or to dummies who choose to ignore the new regulations, like it or not you need to find a way through.

read that again carefully - the commenter's suggestion was for the law to REQUIRE primary producers to store a sanitized version of the documents etc - the government's response, disingenuous of course, was that it would decline/reject that suggestion because it would be unduly burdensome on the primary producers and add another layer of complexity - it does NOT say the primary producer can't take on that 'burdensome' responsibility on his own, just that the primary producer would not be required to do it.

please show me ANYWHERE in the 2257 law where it says explicitly or even implicitly you cannot black out any information other than the information that is explicitly required by the government.

So I can blackout all info except the name as the original producer? Even then the name can be looked up and found, what info can/cant be blacked out?

Mutt, you may be right... maybe we can black out just the address.

The problem with fulfilling that request, is that whatever paragraphs are presented, are subject to interpretation, much like you have your own interpretations based on your readings.

To say, "what does your attorney think about your question" is a quick cop-out answer, but even with that, attorneys also seem to have differences of opinions based upon their own interpretations.. and while you certainly would respect your attorneys opinion, in the end, you are still responsible for your actions, and whether he is right or wrong and you get tapped, you have to be able to prove your compliance with the law

The touchy situation for both primary and secondary producers, is what do you do between now and June 24th? Will FSC's injunction be granted? What if it isn't? Will there be inquiries on the first day?

Content producers will have alot to review on their own, because many don't have proper model ID and documentation, that automatically cause webmasters who use their content to be in jeopardy.

For the content that does have proper identification, then to your point, what is given to the secondary record keeper? The spirit of the new regulations is the distrust of content producers being around at point of inspection. That before, the 2257 regulations were written such that the webmaster just needed to point DOJ to the correct content producer, which they will then get a knock on the door.

The DOJ comments to comments about content producers is not held in high regards. So therefore they have shifted the burden to the people who use the images, so that they are able to get the answers immediately.

Here's what they wrote in addressing the issue of no 3rd party custodian of records, and how it was a bad idea, etc.

"Historically, producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law enforcement and tax authorities."

(at the end of Page 29614)



So there is already a distrust towards content producers, so in their minds, they are rightfully justified that secondary record keepers should also hold copies, which means the unaltered versions.

They don't care that models home address, real name, state of issuance, and possibly even SSN might be revealed. To them, it's a business relationship, part of the contract between content producers and their customers to hold the information in trust (no different than an NDA being signed and you hand over confidential information).

The problem that they may fail to see, or just don't care, is that anyone can purchase a set, even just one of their favorite model, and be able to get access to private information.

While I understand the premise for why they are asking for what they are doing, I certainly don't agree with the methods. They are many other ways to secure/encrypt such data, but the DOJ is not open to such methods.


Fight the Headaches!

The last line of their response is what would bother me if I didn't have unedited documents.

"Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the
records to secondary producers."

I believe the requirement to show the documents without obfuscation is implicit, not only because the DOJ rejected the suggestion about blacking out some of the information, but because if anyone asks to see a document without commenting that it may be censored, we would not normally anticipate that they will be satisfied with one that is censored. In this case particularly, where the whole point of the identification is for the DOJ to be able to confirm the age of a performer (and in several places they have commented that they expect to be able to do their job as easily as possible), it is a major stretch to believe otherwise.

In any case, given the severity of the penalty for being in breach of the new regulations, surely we should be asking what the regulations specifically say we can do, rather than asking where they fail to be specific about what we cannot. Anyone who attempts to push the envelope is risking the cost of a defense and the chance of having that defense rejected.

Actually for content producers, I think the issue is even more basic and pragmatic: what are your customers going to expect? Unless you are US-based, you don't actually have to comply at all. But if you are not compliant with the strictest interpretation of the rules, you will lose some business. Your decisions need to be primarily based on what you believe they will cost you.

lawyers always differ in their opinions and in the end their opinion holds no more weight than your own. if you have dealt with lawyers alot you are well aware how often they are wrong. but it's up to everybody individually to decide what they are going to do.

legally i really do think producers are within the law to sanitize some personal information.

Although, the basis of the DOJ objection seems to be a DIFFERENCE in the records kept between a primary and secondary. Nowhere does it specifically say the primary producer cannot sanitize the ID, it simply has to be a 'legible' copy with their name, DOB, etc. If the secondary is then given an exact duplicate of what the primary has on file, the objection is nullified. At least, that's one possible interpretation.

Very good point, however the point of the lawyer who is suing the sponsor and the content provider who allowed it will be;

But he did not tell you to do it with this models ID and it also said softcore does not require documents, plus if you can't comply don't do business.

My advise is ask your lawyer if the license and the model release you hold will allow you to win in court against a model who is suing for distributing her ID. You will find few state the models IDs can be freely distributed.

This is not a stalkers law, it's also a law for ambulance chasing lawyers. How long before the first lawyers ads appear on US TV asking for models who posed for porn and want to make money to contct them.

all i can say is that I am glad my wife is retired out of the biz now, and all the id's people have on file are from california and shit...LOL

They are getting them to sign waivers on work they did in the past or work they do in the future?

Would be nice if you can list who, because I doubt many models will sign it. Only those in dire need of the money and those are bad models.

Good point, would still ask a lawyer.

Do you have the rights to give out models IDs to people you worked for in the past? Does the model release specifically state the client may distribute the models IDs?

I don't see us losing a lot of business over this.

If everyone gives out IDs for free distribution the outcome will be lots of court cases and models running away. So long term it's not an option. I see free hardcore drying up which as everyone says will be a boost to the business.

Surfers will still want good porn those who produce it will still do business.

Dangerous wording. Decide AFTER you spoke to a lawyer.

Would you sue if people were giving out her IDs to anyone who asks?

To date we have not seen too many content providers state they will and can allow sponsors to give out models IDs to any who ask.

I'm sorry, but in the absence of a search engine here, I don't know how to find the relevant posts. But in the past week I have seen two or three content providers make posts to that effect.

When it comes to the economics of your business, you got me. Obviously you have US and non-US customers, individual webmasters buying for their own use and sponsors buying for FHG's (at whom presumably the "free distribution" comment is aimed). I never cease to be amazed at the chances some people will take to earn a few dollars, so maybe your business will not be much affected. I certainly don't envy the choices you have to make.

I posted this thread on a few boards and sent it out via my ICQ. The way some content providers like to spam and watch the boards I would expect one to have been all over them to announce they have the content. Fact is thay are not and without the rights to distribute models IDs sponsors are down to soft core only.

We sell mostly to paysites on www.paulmarkham.com and mostly to affilaites on www.bargainbasementcontent.com. The greater number of our clients sre affiliates buying content to submit.

The most money is from paysites buying content for inside their sites.

you are providing un edited documents? I have a lot of that content - not sure if I got it from you or someone else - and would even consider buying it again from you if it came with the non-blacked out documents.

YARGH! We should talk. That's one of the most intelligent posts I have seen here in a long time.