Luckily even the old law before the revisions requires that a business that goes out of business must maintain the records for 5 years, so, it should be a very simple process.

well, like I just said the version of that bundle that I have (it was available for download on the RBC main page for a bit last year) doesn't even have full model names on the IDs or releases.

That's not true actually. He originally came here to ask everyone's opinion. And the general consensus was no content providers should be charging for docs now needed by law.

Some people now agree with you based on your purchase of the company and some don't.

We signed a contract with Isis Enterprises to purchase only the web presence and the content Isis legally owned and a some 3rd party content that was transfered.
We did not acquire the corporation nor any debt, nor any producer contracts with other brokers nor any customer purchase records or anything else. The contract was reviewed by our attorney and this very issue was discussed.

Are you an attorney working the US?
Are you an expert in digital media licensing and copyright law?
Have you been on a governors task force to deal with e-commerce?
Are you an expert on internet and computer fraud and have prosecuted anyone for eCrimes?

Until you tell me you can answer yes to ALL of the above. I think I will stick with my attorney and take his advise.

How can we give a customer credit when we never took their money in the first place?

If this was as simple as uploading one big zip file with all the unblocked model IDs or even a web page with links to each models IDs it would have been done but there is a serious problem with this.

We cannot give out any (personal info) model IDs on the internet that customers are not legally entitled to have, that is the law. Nor can we store the IDs on a web server for the general public to download. In order for us to provide any 2257 info we need to receive a copy of the receipt and license agreement to cover our ass. We could get sued for sharing personal information on the internet to someone who is not rightfully entitled. Anyone who has their house in order will have supporting docs to provide us.

In Sept/October when we purchased the web presence and content we spent as much money on attorneys and legal advise knowing the new 2257 was coming down. We did not want to speculate or rely on webmaster boards for legal support that is why we hired Becker & Poliakoff.

This is not about nickle and diming to squeeze some money out of old customers. The admin fees cover the time spent to cross reference the content they have and provide a customized zip file with all the model IDs specific to the client that is either emailed or uploaded to a server for the client to download.

On the other hand if anyone rather do it themselves and save on the admin fees and contact Isis Enterprises and/or any of the original Custodians of Records that were on the old site I will gladly give the contact info I have. If you are a customer who bought content prior to October 2004 email me and I will forward these.

Alex, this is certainly not a black and white issue and not everyone is going to agree with our stance nor is it my intent to be disrespectful to a fellow Montrealer. You actually raise some very good points that allow me to clarify our position.

Respectfully,
DB Stuart
RockBottomContent

okay..but even if we re-purchase the set part of the details we need are going to be blacked out, right? That is how I read what you said earlier.

DB Stuart, you purchased and accepts to take responsbility for the content refered to as "RBC".

You became the primary record keeper for the RBC content.

New regulations under 2257 require (not just suggest, but require) that you provide fll model IDs and other information to licensed users of the RBC content.

New regulations discuss the subject of blacked out, modified, or editing model information, and state it is not only not required, but can hinder model identification, which could render the 2257 documents you give to the secondary providers useless. This could put those secondary providers in violation.

I would highly recommend that you contact a lawyer that is fluent and has a clear understanding of 2257 law. this isn't an issue of copyright, ecrimes, or some governors panel on internet fraud. This is a very specific issue germain to our industry.

It is my opinion that your lawyer(s) either did not clearly understand the intent of this new rule clarification, or did not read the discourse that accompanied the publication of these new rules.

No, I am not a lawyer. But I have told more than one where to go and won.

Alex

Thank You Ramster |thumb

Bye, Bye ugly wall paper

http://www.choponthelake.com/2257_rbc.zip

Great! Thanks chop! |thumb

I am downloading that now.

Sarah with the okay from our attorney the address is going to be blacked out on US drivers licenses. The new law clearly says the IDs have to be "be legible so as to track the person." legible can be defined in many ways.

The question is can a federal law enforcement officer find out the address of a model from her drivers license that includes her full name, DOB and DL#? The answer is unequivocally yes. A federal law enforcement officer would have access to DMV records just as a police officer does?

One would think with all the information unblocked on a drivers license wouldn't a federal law enforcement officer confirm the ID via the DMV database?

The only advise I can offer you is this, spend the money and speak to an attorney that specializes in this industry. Trying to cut corners and save a few bucks for the sake of your sanity is not worth it.

Chop Smith you're my hero! Thanks so much!

I downloaded the zip file and took a cursory look at a couple dozen of the files. I'm of the opinion that some of the info on the model ID's can be blacked and still be valid within the new 2257 regs, but in most of the cases Isis Enterprises has blacked out nearly everything but the model's name, photo and DOB, and sometimes even the last name is blacked out.

I don't think the info will be of much use if the rest of the model ID's are of the same caliber as the sampling I viewed.

Still way above and beyond the call by Chop Smith. |cheers|

Thanks Amadman, Bare and Toby. Just a way to give back to the Greenguy and Jim Community. I included individual folders for those that I think will comply with the 2257 regs. Just my opinion. I am not smart enough to give a legal opinion and Useless Warrior is my legal adviser

Ok Everyone, Let's Settle Down.
 

Hi Everyone (and, hey, you too Alex).

Let's start at the beginning. Everyone is upset with the 2257 laws. Alex, I understand your frustration. I probably represent upwards of 2500 adult websites across the world and all of my clients--yes, all of them--are very concerned about the new rules. So, I want you to know that I have read your prior comments, and can appreciate the fact that you feel strongly on this issue. What your spirited comments show me is that you want to comply, and you are running up against the brick wall of 2257 regulations. I feel for you, and everyone in your situation. (And that is NOT a facetious statement).

Now, let me set the record straight about Rock Bottom Content, becasue there is a disjoint between what RBC has been saying, and what some of you think RBC is saying.

A while ago, there was a company called Isis. Isis sold licenses to lots of content and, apparently, Isis sold licenses to you too Alex. Isis operated under the name Rock Bottom Content.

Now, for some reason that we are unaware of, Isis (operating as RBC) did not provide you with all of the 2257 information that you now need.

Years later, Stuart from the current RBC (which I will call "Current RBC") approached Isis and said, "We want to buy (not license, but purchase) your content. We also like your name--we want to use that too."

Isis said, "Fine."

And so, Current RBC began its operations, using the name RBC and possessing the content it purchased form Isis. Isis, to the best of anyone's knowledge, continued to exist as a corporation. We are not sure what they are doing today.

Current RBC, which is a separate and distinct company from Isis, did not purchase or receive any of the contracts between Isis and its customers. It merely became the owners of content previously held by Isis, and received the right to use the name "RBC" which was previsouly used by Isis.

Now, Alex, you are asking Current RBC to provide you with a plethura of information because, as described above, Isis failed to provide that material to you.

Stuart is saying, "Look, that is a ton of work, and Current RBC did NOT sell you anything. Isis did. We feel for you, and want to do the right thing, but we need to hire staff to help you, and that is a cost that we can not shoulder alone."

Alex, you are saying, "Hey--Isis, RBC,--same thing." But, in reality, they are NOT the same, and never were. They are different entities, with entirely different owners, officers, etc.

Put another way, Current RBC did NOT merge with Isis. Current RBC only received some images, and got the right to use a name. That's all.

I have read many posts on this thread that have agreed with Stuart that the price charged by Stuart is not a lot to charge for that kind of work--and I agree wholeheartedly.

I understand that this might have confused some people--especially since Isis was using the name RBC, and Current RBC is using that name. But rest assured, the company from which you bought your pictures is NOT Stuart's company, and it never was.

I hope this helped clear up this issue. I know it is frustrating for everyone, but hang in there.

At one time I was the prosecutor in South Florida who prosecuted people who engaged in filming underage models--in fact, I started the special investigation unit that oversaw such investigations in the Miami Dade State Attorney's Office almost 7 years ago. I know how the government works, and I know about the government's zeal to stomp out child exploitation. I think that the 2257 rules serve a great purpose, and some new rules were necessary. Nonetheless, the rules are somewhat ambiguous, and we must live with them for now. If you have questions, let me know.

I also suggest that everyone attend the Cybernet Expo June 13-15 in San Diego. I, along with a colleague of mine (Eric Bernstein) will be addressing the 2257 issues, among other things.

Good night to all, and thanks for reading.

Respectfully,

Brad Gross, Esq.
Chair, e-Business & Digital Content Practice Group
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
BGross@becker-poliakoff.com

Brad & DB, with all due respect you're missing one very important point that has absolutely nothing to do with law and everything to do with the realities of being in business. While Current RBC may have no legal obligation to the former customers of Isis, in the real world part of what Current RBC purchased when they bought the rights to use the RBC name is the customer familiarity and goodwill that came with it. In order to keep that goodwill, it's probably going to be necessary to provide the missing 2257 docs to those former Isis customers.

Is it beginning to sink in yet?

I agree with Toby here.... legal reasons aside, this is about karma, customer support and webmasters long memories...

I also agree with Ramster - 5$ per model per webmaster is extortion IMO - I dont care if your/a lawyer thinks it's "reasonable"

There was(and could still be) an opportunity to display to webmasters that the "new" RBC wants to be a valued player in the biz.. but from what I have seen you have lost far more customers than you have gained from this thread. Me included.

As I see it RBC sells "content" and trying to make the selling of 2257 info a 'profitable' venture could possibly do you irreparable damage.

Supply the 2257 info at a truly "reasonable" price?
Make it free for customers who return and buy new sets?
Make it free for WM's that refer new customers?

There are endless possiblilities..

DD

Buying assets and not liabilities always leaves a bad taste.

Okay BUT wasn't it said that you were blocking out some numbers of the driver's licence number? If I am going to pay money (a second time) I want to know what I am getting.

if it is the same file I have pretty much none of the releases or ids even give me the full name of the model.

Damage Control Central
 

I only asked my attorney to contribute so as to put to rest the legal issue.

The business issue is an entirely other matter as a few of you pointed out.

I do agree, we absolutely do need to provide what we have at a reasonable fee or some other form of compensation such as affiliate promotion, or other creative ways of compensating. We just haven't explored them yet since this is all uncharted territory only a few days old.

The initial idea of compensation was based on a customer who purchased approx. 5-10 models under $50, since the content was so cheap. We thought if you buy new additional content, none of which the same you previously bought and spend close to what you originally paid, we will throw in the additional unblocked IDs with the new purchase. This was before we discovered Mat sold bulk CD's. We just thought there would be plenty of additional content to chose from making this a reasonable way to obtain all the info. amadman was the first to email me about the bulk CD's, thus his discontent and wanting some feedback here. |angry|

I agree with what a few of members have said here, that we need to have a reasonable flat fee for the bulk CD's. I just have no idea how many CD's were sold and what was on those CD's. As more customers come forward I should be able to tell how many CD's were sold and if they are the same. It could be 5, 50 or 500 I don't know. It could be as little as $5 for the CD at this point but I can't say for certain.

As far as the name RockBottomContent and keeping it, Toby is correct that there is some name recognition and familiarity associated with it built by Mat and Isis. That was part of our business plan from the outset. As far as it being our responsibility to customers of Isis and karma, I just don't buy it. We could have easily opened up shop under a different name and brand ourselves from scratch or taken the content and develop our own affiliate program and/or keep all the content in house as we develop other sites and content. If that was the case, who's responsibility is it to supply the 2257 in question?

We didn't realize this would be what it is. Being what it is we do want to do the right thing but not get buried in the process. Good will is important and the positive ideas of compensation Danger Dave mentioned are all good and we encourage options, that's what makes webmaster forums invaluable.
The only issue is the details of compensation and how many customers we are dealing with here. At this point its too soon to tell.

Again I encourage anyone who has purchased content from Mat to contact us or visit the website. I will be setting up a web page to help better serve this issue.

I don't have your content & have nothing to gain or lose in this, but I know a lot of folks who do. But after reading this thread the buying of the name & the content WITHOUT the IDs from the former owners while knowing of the becoming 2257 changes, leads me to believe one of two things:

1. That you obviously didn't think it through (regardless of how many lawyers you have). It is not very smart to sell content that you don't have the model info for.

2. It was just away to scam $ when other webmasters expected you to proceed the info. And of course you protected yourself legally, like all well thought out scams do.

I'm personally leaning to #2.

ps. Your lawyer didn't help your case, because we all know that 2257 won't be used agianst the scum of the earth who produce c.p , it will be used against honest webmasters since the Bush adminstration is so Christian and has to keep his bible-thumpers happy.

I ain't got a dog in this here race.

If someone remembers Mat's board username perhaps we can find the thread from a year ago. Even as he was going out, he made great efforts to satisfy the 2257 issue. He certainly was ducking the issue and in no way was he trying to charge for the documentation.

Once again, one benefit to the 2257 scare is that the ugly wallpaper will disappear. There is not any documentation for that stuff.

RBC, while I appreciate having your lawyer come down here and repeat the same advice he gave you, it is my feeling that he has missed the most important point.

You purchased outright the content from RBC. You became the custodian of records for that content, and as such, accepted all the legal rights and liablities that come with it.

You own lawyer admits that "old RBC" perhaps didn't fulfill it's obligations under the law the provide valid and usable 2257 information to all license holders. I understand that "current RBC" doesn't want to spend man hours and make efforts to provide the documentation now. I also understand the law says you have to.

Isis as a company doesn't appear to have any obligations in this situation, as you have taken over the responsbility of record keeping and such for all of these images. You became the owners of the images, and took the 2257 job over at that point. had you only purchased resale rights and allowed Isis to remain the primary producer on these images, they would be responsible for 5 years after they close (or could be 7 now...) to maintain a custodian of records office. You as a secondary producer would only be required to maintain the records for sales going forward (your clients).

The difference lies in what you purchased and the responsilbities that come with that purchase, even if you were not clearly aware of them at the time.

Your lawyer has provided you advice that, IMHO, will not only mean that many webmasters will not be able to use your content going forward, but also that those same webmasters going forward won't want to do any business with you in the future. Further, it is my feeling that failure to provide this documentation willingly without strings may leave you in the position of yourselves being in a position of being in violations of the DOJ guidelines.

I wish you luck with the road you have chosen. It makes it much easier to chose the road I will take.

Alex

All due respect, I am not sure where you get that we bought the name and the content but not the IDs from Mat. All of the content that we purchased include the IDs. We just don't have all the content that Mat sold. Let me clarify this we do not sell what we do not have. We only sell that which we purchased and are entitled to sell.

To reply to your two scenarios.

#1 Yes, we did not think this through with regard to customers who bought from Isis and the new 2257. For that we are guilty as charged. We only sell content on RockBottomContent.com that adheres to the new 2257 regulations. We do not sell any content we do not have the proper docs for.

Even if we were to say, okay here you go, have at it this is all the models we have from Isis we are still not going to be able to provide all the docs to those that bought the bulk CDs or the bulk of Mat's content. We can only supply what we have. We do NOT sell or have most of the brokered content Mat sold from other producers. We purchased the transfer of content from three producers and we have a list of twelve producers from the old site. If Mat did not own it he could not sell it. To the point, there is still going to be a sizable hole to fill for the remainder of the content that people like sarah_webinc and amadman purchased. As I stated in my reply to any on who has made an inquiry by email; I will gladly provide to any customer who bought content from Mat the primary producer contact info that was on Mat's website.

#2 The reason we hired an attorney in the first place was not for 2257 at all it was to have legal contracts such as content license agreement, exclusive and non-exclusive content purchase agreements, model releases/work for hire, 50/50 brokerage and affiliate program agreement. To make sure we were compliant from the begining. Yes we knew the new 2257 was coming and we took advantage of our attorney providing us legal advise but not as diabolical scam plan to cover our ass as you might think.

I really do not think it is fair to offer such a devious opinion without all the facts. As I will mention again any one who purchased from Mat can contact me.

Yes, I often wished their was an ugly wallpaper fetish.

rbc isn't the only company wanting to charge for info - I think it's becoming the norm. (as a note- i don't believe I have RBC content and have never spoken to them)

my bottom line is - if they can't supply me the docs I need - then I'll never buy content from that producer again. What kind of blackmail is buying the content AGAIN so that I can get the docs?

Maybe it won't hurt them (by them i mean any producer that doesn't come through) - but if enough take the same stand it will.

Please read all the information before speculating!
 

Hey Gramma,
I would hope that if someone took the time to post a comment here about what we are doing at the very least they would read ALL the posts so they know what the facts are.

Please do not lump us in with anyone else since we are taking the time to explain what the hell is going on.

I take offense to your comment that we are blackmailing anyone.

Comments like this just prove the point Serenity made yesterday.

if you notice - i said i do not have your content nor i have talked to you.
that was my disclaimer that i wasn't talking about you |thumb



and now it comes back to me why i quit posting on message boards about 3 years ago.

lol, well don't stop posting.

I haven't had any dealings with RBC, so I'm not talking about them either, but a few other content providers have quickly gotten on my personal blacklist.

There's some good ones and I'll make sure to recommend them the next time someone asks for a content provider. Hopefully word of mouth advertising will help out the ones that were considerate during this time. I don't like doing the negative drama stuff, so I'll show my support for the good content providers instead of bashing the bad ones.