The shitstorm scenario of 2257

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Do you think he would of been more likely to get a conviction on "I do not need to have the documents because of 2256/Sundance nad did not know she was 17" or "I checked her documents which were fradulently obtained but would convince anyone"

So you're saying the Sundance vs. Reno verdict was a bad thing? That because secondary producers didn't have to maintain model records it would be harder to convict a CP? Correct me if I'm wrong, been working a lot tonight and I may be misreading this

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

So you're saying the Sundance vs. Reno verdict was a bad thing? That because secondary producers didn't have to maintain model records it would be harder to convict a CP? Correct me if I'm wrong, been working a lot tonight and I may be misreading this

No what I'm saying is Sundance led to a lot of pornographers publishing porn without seeing the documents. Sundance in that light was bad.

Maintaining and checking records are different things. Because you do not need to maintain records does not absolve you from a CP conviction.

My stand is based on knowledge of the industry going back nearly 3 decades. There are many less than honest people thoughout this business, even in the US. By seeing and checking the records you are making an attempt to verify the existance and validity of the records.

Now whether those records should be handed out to someone who signs up to an affiliate program is a worrying situation which needs a better solution than what Gonzales came up with.

Sundance was a good decision about maintaining records. Some used it as an excuse to not check or allow others to check the legality of porn.