|
2005-06-07, 11:33 AM | #26 | |
I hustle for Hustler
|
Quote:
a lot of them are doing that sort of thing..i understand wanting to protect the models (and themselves from legal issues) but i don't want to buy a load of new 'compliant' content only to find it isn't. |
|
2005-06-07, 12:10 PM | #27 |
No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Greenguy County, NY
Posts: 236
|
Blacked out or not blacked out, that is a good question. I own a bunch of RBC content. I`ll email to see what the response and my personal situation is. But of course if anything is blacked out it does me no good. I don`t think the new reg`s allow for that and risking jail time makes reaching a decision easy.
Understand that the outing of information is the gist of the real purpose of these new regs. And hey I gave my credit card and personal info to buy it. Is it too much to ask for the same in model info? I don`t even want thier credit card number. By the way this is not officially law yet. In anticipation people are getting thier ducks in a row which is good. But in the future all content will come with this info if needed or no one will buy it if they can`t legally use it. Therefore the work will have to be done regardless at some point of aquiring the info and compiling it.
__________________
The hardest thing for an intelligent man to understand is stupidity. |
2005-06-07, 12:16 PM | #28 | |
I'm going to the backseat of my car with the woman I love, and I won't be back for TEN MINUTES
|
Quote:
All new content and old content comes with unblocked I.D's. According to our attorney, a former prosecutor in the sex crimes division for the DOJ, what we will block will be enough to protect the model's privacy, but give the DOJ enough info to check all relevant ages etc. etc. When we bought Rock Bottom, we hired attorneys, Becker & Poliakoff that we met at Internext in Vegas. They are really proactive with the new 2257 laws and we are not making any decisions without their legal advice. This is a crazy road for all of us, and we want everyone to be covered. |
|
2005-06-07, 12:33 PM | #29 | |
I've been mad for fucking years, absolutely years, been over the edge for yonks....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: padded room
Posts: 861
|
Quote:
I still feel the same but as I said in my first post maybe I am wrong. The way I see it you guys are trying to get the same amount of money the old rbc ever made in less than a months time. All off the back of past customers. Even at $5/model I would pretty much be buying all the content again. Fair? I don't know. I am sorry I brought this up but I really only wanted to know if others felt the same as I did. And it seemed like many did. |
|
2005-06-07, 01:05 PM | #30 | |
I hustle for Hustler
|
Quote:
I'm in this mode where I have to ask every content supplier very specific questions or they get shady with me on what I am getting. That is why I am asking this again in my own words so I know what is exactly the case. Okay here it goes: I am reading this to say that if I rebought some of this content today as if I was buying for the first time I would get an id, model release, etc in the package that I downloaded BUT that some bits of that id (few numbers, etc) will be blocked out? Am I reading that correctly? Thanks for your time btw..I appreciate you clearing the air a great deal. |
|
2005-06-07, 01:46 PM | #31 |
Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless
|
Mark,
As I mentioned in my first email the responsibility is on Isis Enterprises to provide you with the proper info. I would gladly provide you with the name, mailing address, email address and phone number of Isis. I honestly do not know if they will reply. This is a weird unique situation for all of us. We definitely want to work with the customers who bought from Isis Enterprises but we are not obligated to do so. For our time and to cover our costs $5 per model may or may not be a lot to some. Anyone who ordered after we took over in October is fine and will receive all the docs at no fee, no issue. We did not benefit from your bulk CD purchase. Hell, I had no idea Mat sold bulk CD's to begin with. Regardless of your intent you took this to a public forum without all the facts and with others speculating we are looked at as being the bad guys. As you know rumors spread pretty easily and this was not good spin. Anyway we will work with you, just give us a chance. |
2005-06-07, 01:58 PM | #32 | |
Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless
|
Quote:
Just got the phone with our attorney Brad Gross about this very subject. If you want more info who represents us go here to start KBlogger Article Brad Wrote and Brad's Background Per our attorney we will supply all info unblocked on content that is explicit per the new 2257. The only info that will be blocked will be the model's address on driver's licenses. 2257 stipulates that the ID has to be legible and law authorities be able to track the person. |
|
2005-06-07, 02:01 PM | #33 |
Took the hint.
|
Sorry, I have a bit of a problem with all of this.
RBC, are you the custodian of records for all rockbottom content? Did you purchase the domain, the content, and all the rights that go with it (including taking over as the primary producer)? When you take over such a business, you accept the responsibilities and legal requirements that come with it. You must provide these records to the people who have purchased the content, and this legal obligation since July 3rd, 1995. That the previous owners of the business failed to do this correctly isn't something that the clients can control. Putting the burden of that expense onto the buyer, when it is in fact a failure of the seller is just not a very good business practice. As this renders the content unusable by many people, would you accept that the content is returned for credit? Basically, who is the customian of records for this stuff? Alex |
2005-06-07, 02:03 PM | #34 | ||
Took the hint.
|
Quote:
I don't see how that keep within the DOJ guidelines: Quote:
|
||
2005-06-07, 04:50 PM | #35 |
If there is nobody out there, that's a lot of real estate going to waste!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,177
|
And again it is illegal to distrubute that info in most countries, plus, most older model releases don't even have that option built in to the form.
|
2005-06-07, 05:17 PM | #36 | |
Lonewolf Internet Sales
|
The question here is what is the emphasis on the word require. The way I read the statement below, the DOJ chose not to make it a requirement that the primary producer send sanitized documents, not that they couldn't do so if they wished. This would be consistant with the statement that model ID's have enough information that they can be traced back to the source documents. That statement seems to imply that some information may not be included.
Yet another of those very thin lines that the court will eventually have to decide. Quote:
|
|
2005-06-07, 05:52 PM | #37 | |
Eighteen 'til I Die
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-07, 06:00 PM | #38 | |
I hustle for Hustler
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-07, 06:06 PM | #39 |
I hustle for Hustler
|
okay..in the bundle of ids that i have from RBC from before they nearly all have the model's real name not only blacked out of IDs but out of releases too. Then anything like a social security number or licence number is totally covers. So, useless.
|
2005-06-07, 06:16 PM | #40 | |
I'm going to the backseat of my car with the woman I love, and I won't be back for TEN MINUTES
|
Quote:
If you guys can find that zip file and it has everything you need, that would be awesome. You could post a link to it here and the problem would be solved. We have been trying to get Matt to answer emails for ages, to get a hold of the docs we don't have. It would save all of us a ton of aggravation and extra work. As we have said before, email us directly and we will work with you guys to resolve all of this. The bottom line is we want everyone to have the correct 2257 docs by the deadline. |
|
2005-06-07, 06:19 PM | #41 |
a.k.a. Sparky
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 2,396
|
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.
__________________
SnapReplay.com a different way to share photos - iPhone & Android |
2005-06-07, 06:29 PM | #42 | |
I hustle for Hustler
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2005-06-07, 11:37 PM | #43 | |
Life is good
|
Quote:
Some people now agree with you based on your purchase of the company and some don't. |
|
2005-06-08, 03:41 AM | #44 | |||
Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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 |
|||
2005-06-08, 09:13 AM | #45 |
I hustle for Hustler
|
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.
|
2005-06-08, 10:14 AM | #46 |
Took the hint.
|
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 |
2005-06-08, 11:50 AM | #47 | |
I've been mad for fucking years, absolutely years, been over the edge for yonks....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: padded room
Posts: 861
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-08, 12:19 PM | #48 |
Eighteen 'til I Die
|
|
2005-06-08, 01:30 PM | #49 |
I've been mad for fucking years, absolutely years, been over the edge for yonks....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: padded room
Posts: 861
|
Great! Thanks chop!
I am downloading that now. |
2005-06-08, 08:17 PM | #50 | |
Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|