Pay for 2257 info?

[Robbo]

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.

[RawAlex]

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

[RBC]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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)?

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.

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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

[tickler]

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.

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by amadman

In my quest to get straight with new 2257 regs I have come across content producers that want to charge for the proper docs of previous purchases.(or flat out will not give it)

This seems pretty cheap to me and kind of pisses me off that they would try to take advantage like that.

I really can't see myself paying for this or any other content from these providers.

Am I wrong to feel this way?

Feel the way that makes you feel the best, but you have a buddy that can help ease the pain and he will not charge you a penny. During the last 2257 scare and before RBC was sold Matt posted a link to a zip with 2257 docs. I searched the board but could not find the thread, but I know someone that has the zip file.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

Feel the way that makes you feel the best, but you have a buddy that can help ease the pain and he will not charge you a penny. During the last 2257 scare and before RBC was sold Matt posted a link to a zip with 2257 docs. I searched the board but could not find the thread, but I know someone that has the zip file.

I grabbed that zip from the website when RBC put it up. To be honest I haven't looked at it much because I need to sort through it so I am not sure what level of editing it done on them. Ah, dang it I will get it out now and look.

[serenity]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

Feel the way that makes you feel the best, but you have a buddy that can help ease the pain and he will not charge you a penny. During the last 2257 scare and before RBC was sold Matt posted a link to a zip with 2257 docs. I searched the board but could not find the thread, but I know someone that has the zip file.

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.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by serenity

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.

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.

[Sarah_Jayne]

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.

[cd34]

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.

[Sarah_Jayne]

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.

[RBC]

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

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.

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.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by RBC

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.

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.

[RawAlex]

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

[Adult Law Esq.]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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

[Chop Smith]

Bye, Bye ugly wall paper

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

[amadman]

Great! Thanks chop!

I am downloading that now.

[Bare]

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

[Toby]

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.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by Toby

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.

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.

[RBC]

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.

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.

[Chop Smith]

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

[Toby]

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?

[DangerDave]

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

[Toni 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.