Pay for 2257 info?

[RBC]

Originally Posted by KatVixen

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.

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.

[tickler]

Buying assets and not liabilities always leaves a bad taste.

[Chop Smith]

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.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

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

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

[Gramma]

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.

[RBC]

Originally Posted by Gramma

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?

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.

[Gramma]

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



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

[RawAlex]

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