content provider/2257 problem

[Ramster]

Tommy
Good point. We should start a thread on June 24 that does nothing but list content providers that DO NOT provide docs or charge for them. No other posting in the thread at all, just post saying I bought from provider.com and they never gave me the docs or they charged me for the docs.

guitar riff
I ain't pulling shit (other than some from my paysite if needed) since I'm in Canada and feel this will not reach me here.

Originally Posted by Ramster

Tommy
Good point. We should start a thread on June 24 that does nothing but list content providers that DO NOT provide docs or charge for them. No other posting in the thread at all, just post saying I bought from provider.com and they never gave me the docs or they charged me for the docs.

Will I be listed for charging people who I gave the documents to in the first place and when asking for me to replace them didn't have our order number, the right name or email address to help us find their order and in one case was a content thief trying to get documents?

Trying to marry up some of the buyers with their order tookus hours and all becasue they threw away documents. These were the documents that proved our teen model was over 18.

It's not all a one way street.

[spookyx]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Will I be listed for charging people who I gave the documents to in the first place and when asking for me to replace them didn't have our order number, the right name or email address to help us find their order and in one case was a content thief trying to get documents?

Trying to marry up some of the buyers with their order tookus hours and all becasue they threw away documents. These were the documents that proved our teen model was over 18.

It's not all a one way street.

I think that it's more than fair to charge a reasonable fee in those cases.

[gigi]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Will I be listed for charging people who I gave the documents to in the first place and when asking for me to replace them didn't have our order number, the right name or email address to help us find their order and in one case was a content thief trying to get documents?

Trying to marry up some of the buyers with their order tookus hours and all becasue they threw away documents. These were the documents that proved our teen model was over 18.

It's not all a one way street.

Well paul, I'm sure your hands are full giving unblocked ID's out to all those who have purchased your content in the past....or, are you going to continue giving out blacked out contact info in the IDs?

Originally Posted by gigi

Well paul, I'm sure your hands are full giving unblocked ID's out to all those who have purchased your content in the past....or, are you going to continue giving out blacked out contact info in the IDs?

Can you show me where in the law, new or old it states removing an address of a Next Of Kin is not allowed?

Or even the address of the model?

[gigi]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Can you show me where in the law, new or old it states removing an address of a Next Of Kin is not allowed?

Or even the address of the model?

No one needs NOK info...but addresses seem to be in debate....

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Can you show me where in the law, new or old it states removing an address of a Next Of Kin is not allowed?

Or even the address of the model?

Actually I asked a lawyer this question on another forum (I won't post the name of the forum out of respect for GG&J...if you want I can pm you the link Paul) and also asked my lawyer. Both told me that they would be wary to use id with anything blacked out. Not that it necessarily is written definitively in the rules, but it's a grey area and both told me that if I want to be 100% compliant with no doubt that I should use content with nothing blacked out.

Trust me I didn't want to hear this, lol, because I'll be losing over 100 sets because of it. So, I've decided to sit on that content and buy another $1k in content from providers that don't blackout any info.

[Mr. Blue]

Another content provider:

ZIPCONTENT.COM WILL BE BACK IN JULY 2005!

In response to the new Federal USC 18 Sect. 2257 regulations, we will NOT be providing the model identification and release documents. We realize these are tough times but after careful consideration, we simply cannot jeopardize the model's privacy and personal information in any way due to the many other risks involved.

Furthermore, we have decided to implement some changes to our service that will enable us to keep providing quality adult content such as softcore pictures, toons and erotic stories with respect to the new regulations. We are looking for sensible solutions that will enable us to keep doing what we do best despite this very difficult period. Please stay tuned.

We wish everyone the best and thank your for you time and understanding.
Don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns.

Most of their stuff is softcore as is, I doubt it would even raise to the level of sexually explicit, but I'll most likely pull their sets as I'll be the one left twisting in the wind if the DOJ decides they are There goes 20 more sets.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

Actually I asked a lawyer this question on another forum (I won't post the name of the forum out of respect for GG&J...if you want I can pm you the link Paul) and also asked my lawyer. Both told me that they would be wary to use id with anything blacked out. Not that it necessarily is written definitively in the rules, but it's a grey area and both told me that if I want to be 100% compliant with no doubt that I should use content with nothing blacked out.

Trust me I didn't want to hear this, lol, because I'll be losing over 100 sets because of it. So, I've decided to sit on that content and buy another $1k in content from providers that don't blackout any info.

I know what it says in the law and some lawyers are going by what it says in the comments.

Point is I'm not giving out documents with addresses of models or their relatives in the case of a UK passport which has the next of kin on the facing page to the holders details. The law does not require it so they can't prosecute you for it, full stop. Comments are not law.

The Czech one does not have this so it's not a problem.

[Mr. Blue]

NOK wouldn't be needed, but I'm going to take what my lawyer and another one said regarding blacked out id.

I know lawyers have debated minutia in some areas and there's a lot of grey areas. Ask different lawyers you get different answers, but what mine said made sense. It's far cheaper for me to buy new content that I know for fact will be 100% compliant then pay for a lawyer to defend me against the DOJ if they decide blacked out ids aren't good enough.

[gigi]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

I know what it says in the law and some lawyers are going by what it says in the comments.

Point is I'm not giving out documents with addresses of models or their relatives in the case of a UK passport which has the next of kin on the facing page to the holders details. The law does not require it so they can't prosecute you for it, full stop. Comments are not law.

The Czech one does not have this so it's not a problem.

If I were in your place, I'm not sure I would give out contact information, either.

Then you should be okay, Paul....in one of the other (many) 2257 threads here someone actually called the DOJ and apparently only ONE ID is necessary.

BTW, you are not alone with giving out blacked out IDs. I have many sets from several different companies who have been giving out blacked out IDs for years...

However, according to an AVN article I read yesterday, the FSC's lawsuit states:

" That last point, as well as the prohibition on foreign performers, points up the fact that the new regulations appear to violate several international treaties.

"By excluding foreign-issued identification cards from the list of approved documents to verify a performer’s age and identity, 28 C.F.R. §75.1(b) eliminates the ability of foreign nationals to create expressive works depicting sexually explicit conduct in the United States," the lawsuit argues. "In addition, by requiring the disclosure of personal information without a performer’s consent, 28 C.F.R. §75.2(b) violates the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the European Union Data Protection Directive of 1998."

Link: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=231124

It really is confusing as hell, I tell ya...