Pay for 2257 info?

[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?

[RawAlex]

They are obliged by law to provide the documents. The law isn't specific about who bares the costs, but obviously the content is unusable without the correct documents. Decline their kind offer, and ask them to refund your purchase of content.

Alex

[Tommy]

no your not, and I bet everyone else feels the same way

you should post their names so we all know who not to buy from in the future

[koolkat]

I understand their point, but they can pretty much count on their business drying up if they require this! Just another way to make a quick $$$ with the 2257 hysteria!

[lassiter]

They are obliged by law to provide the documents.

Not really. The affiliate is obliged by law to have the docs if he uses sponsor content, but nothing in 2257 says the sponsor has to be forthcoming with any data to an affiliate. So some sponsors may possibly be choosing to depend on text links and SEs to get traffic to their sites, since sponsors that choose not to provide the data to affiliates are gonna lose a lot of their income otherwise.

As for grandfathered content licensed prior to the new regulations - well, that's a huge area of ambiguity right now, which may be how DoJ wants it.

[Edit: Oops - I see the original poster is mentioning content providers, not sponsors. Well, I still don't think the primary producer is technically obliged to provide actual docs to a licensee, but the licensee is obliged to have them! Primary content producers will have a damn hard time selling content if they fail to do it.]

[Ramster]

I agree, post who they are and we will NOT buy from them. Tell them this too, that if they do not provide the documents you will be telling everyone you know.

[Mr. Blue]

Post the name. Highway robbery to ask for a second payment for content you've already bought...I doubt any of us would want to do business with them :)

[amadman]

I really did not want to post who they are. Its some bulk content I bought some time ago.

They claim that they have bought the domain name and the content but not the business so they are not the ones that actually sold it to me. And they feel/claim that they are not reponsable.

They give me the option to purchase more content at the costs of the originals then they would give me records for them all. Or pay $5 per model.

[Linkster]

You ought to post who they are so that we all can avoid ripoff artists like that - its not ethical business as if they really bought the stuff from the original producer, then they also bought the obligations to customers - I can guarantee that anyone caught doing that to profit off of this will not be long in this biz

[amadman]

Ok.... It was/is rockbottom content.

I am pretty sure that most do not buy this content any longer any way.

I had bought a few bulk cds from there some time ago and have a bit of it scattered around.

Its not worth paying for again and I don't want any more of it.

[Wenchy]

Well, there goes a bunch of my content. I don't even want the disks on the premises if I don't have the paperwork, so they'll be going out with the trash. Thanks a bundle to RBC for making a bad situation even worse.

Note: Am I the only one who feels that if they bought the domain and the content, they also bought all the associated details that go along with it? Sorry... I keep forgetting how much trouble I get into when I apply logic to some situations. :(

[RBC]

Before banishing RBC to the untouchables, please allow for some facts to be presented. My partner and I bought the URL RockBottomContent.com from Isis Enterprises in October of 2004. All we bought was the URL and the content. We did not acquire any of the debt, nor producer contracts, nor customer contracts nor members lists. We don't sell bulk CD's nor unrestricted licenses.

With the new 2257 regs, we are suddenly getting hundreds of webmasters requesting docs for models that they bought from the previous owner. Even our attorney Becker & Poliakoff re-iterated that the responsibiity to supply and support all the customers prior to October 2004 falls on Isis Enterprise and not us. We are trying out best to provide 2257 docs to everyone as best as we can. We are not trying to screw anyone or take advantage of the situation.

Here is our dilemma, we have had to bring on extra staff to deal with all the requests. We are trying to get the new site launched, shoot new content and market the business. To offset some of our costs, we thought if someone spends close to what they originally purchased, they would get the new content plus all the 2257 docs for their original content. A win win situation. What we have since discovered is that bulk CD's were sold of most of the old content. So then we figured we would charge a $5 administration fee per model to offset our expenses so as not to take a loss.

We don't think we are being unreasonable. We are just trying to make the best of a bad situation. We are not some large corporation, we are a small business owner like most of you. We are certainly not trying to burn our bridges before they are built and with the new 2257 regulations everyone is scrambling with a sense of panic.

All I ask from former customers of Rock Bottom Content is to at the very least provide the information we request so we can expeditiously provide what you need.

Are we being so unreasonable?
I would like to hear some feedback without the bashing.

DB Stuart
RockBottomContent.com

[serenity]

Wow guys, I had no idea how quickly you trash someone before finding out the real facts. You guys are really scary. :( Guess it's really easy to jump on a bashing bandwagon when you're behind a keyboard.

We're not trying to rip anyone off or make a buck off the new laws. We're just trying to figure out a complicated situation so everyone wins. We are not making a bad situation worse. We are in the same boat as you guys. When we bought Rock Bottom, we did not buy all his original content. We only have 2257 docs for the stuff that is currently up on the new site. Hell, it has taken us 6 months to sort through everything and make sure it is all legal and above board.

So, no need to throw out your CD's or get all dramatic. I honestly don't think that charging a $5 administration fee per model is a lot to ask, considering that some of you guys are asking for 2257 docs for over 50 models.

C'mon guys, cut us some slack. ;)

[N J]

Damn I'm glad we are located outside US - I can easily put myself in your shoes...both webmasters and contentproviders.

For RBC, $5 per model sounds fair enough, but if bulk cd's were sold it can be a lot to small webmasters and considering you probably need the same docs for several webmasters you should be able to lower that price, if people bought bulk cd's.

[Jeremy]

I gotta agree with the content guys. A moderate charge per info request to cover admin costs is not massively unreasonable (something similar to this was decided in the UK recently). I'm sure that if webmasters could charge someone for all the extra work they're doing, they would. As it is the cost is a business expense.

It would make for good cumstomer relations however, if the cost charged was discounted against future purchases.

In RBC's case, if the content is mainly fron pre-selected CDs, I'd charge per CD rather than per model. I'd also be trying to recoup some of the costs from the previous owners or directing all 2257 enquiries for their content to them.

[Linkster]

Knowing the full situation now - it does make sense that the new owners would have some reasons to require some sort of payment as the original CDs should have (and I thought they did) come with the basic 2257 IDs anyway - it was, and still is good practice to include that and most content producers did.

[Ramster]

RBC
I still think it is not right. Maybe you need to hire staff, maybe not. Maybe you need to simply allot some time to sorting and emailing IDs to webmasters. Not sure but either way I'm sure there's a cost for you and that is very unfortunate.

But $5 per id? If you think about it I'd bet that each set was sold 10, 20 sometimes 50 times. So for that model ID to each webmaster you're going to charge $5... times the 50 sets? For 1 ID you'll be charging a total of $250 (based on 50 sets)?

I might be wrong and am not attacking you on this and I won't "boycott" you or anything like that it's just that I still think charging is wrong.

[Useless]

Wow guys, I had no idea how quickly you trash someone before finding out the real facts. You guys are really scary. :( Guess it's really easy to jump on a bashing bandwagon when you're behind a keyboard.You have no idea... ;)

We only have 2257 docs for the stuff that is currently up on the new site.Does this mean that webmasters who own older content which is no longer listed are pretty much floating down shit river?

So, no need to throw out your CD's or get all dramatic. If the above is true, it may be necessary to toss the older stuff, since the docs are unobtainable. Or maybe they could sell the cds to offshore webmasters. I'm doubting that anyone knows who owns what. (damn, I'm sneaky)

I feel for both sides in this situation, which is unlike me. Just plain ugly all around.

[Mr. Blue]

Wow guys, I had no idea how quickly you trash someone before finding out the real facts. You guys are really scary. :(

Re-read the sequence of posts...it benefits you that your name was posted here as you were able to present your side of the argument. Far better than having your name quietly go about through the grapevine as ripoff content providers.

As for charging, etc, each person will feel differently regarding this...Future clients of course won't care about it, but you have to be careful as to how many people feel burned for having to pay for something they already purchased. I don't know how much extra cost this is adding to your bottomline right now, but you should consider how much this will cost you long-term.

Will this alienate the original customer base? Will the original customer base buy from you again after having to pay for content twice? Will the original customers tell other webmasters of their experience? How much will word of mouth hurt you long term?

Personally I think you guys are shooting yourself in the foot...Your lawyer has an opinion based on law, but it isn't based in business. You bought RBC so you had an established url, an established base of users, an established platform to expand, but you're throwing that away by alienating your past users. They don't want to know what your lawyer thinks, they just want the documentation on content they already purchased.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Before banishing RBC to the untouchables, please allow for some facts to be presented. My partner and I bought the URL RockBottomContent.com from Isis Enterprises in October of 2004. All we bought was the URL and the content. We did not acquire any of the debt, nor producer contracts, nor customer contracts nor members lists. We don't sell bulk CD's nor unrestricted licenses.

With the new 2257 regs, we are suddenly getting hundreds of webmasters requesting docs for models that they bought from the previous owner. Even our attorney Becker & Poliakoff re-iterated that the responsibiity to supply and support all the customers prior to October 2004 falls on Isis Enterprise and not us. We are trying out best to provide 2257 docs to everyone as best as we can. We are not trying to screw anyone or take advantage of the situation.

Here is our dilemma, we have had to bring on extra staff to deal with all the requests. We are trying to get the new site launched, shoot new content and market the business. To offset some of our costs, we thought if someone spends close to what they originally purchased, they would get the new content plus all the 2257 docs for their original content. A win win situation. What we have since discovered is that bulk CD's were sold of most of the old content. So then we figured we would charge a $5 administration fee per model to offset our expenses so as not to take a loss.

We don't think we are being unreasonable. We are just trying to make the best of a bad situation. We are not some large corporation, we are a small business owner like most of you. We are certainly not trying to burn our bridges before they are built and with the new 2257 regulations everyone is scrambling with a sense of panic.

All I ask from former customers of Rock Bottom Content is to at the very least provide the information we request so we can expeditiously provide what you need.

Are we being so unreasonable?
I would like to hear some feedback without the bashing.

DB Stuart
RockBottomContent.com

Okay, I can understand that. There was a point where I owned nearly ever set on RBC. Now, can you tell me something. If I pay this fee am I getting an un altered ID or is it blacked out? If it is un altered, frankly I will pay it just to make my headache easier because I own so much RBC content.

[serenity]

Mr Blue, you are correct about retaining customers. That is important to us. :) We are not asking people to rebuy original content. Just an equal amount in new content. Win win, no? Some guys don't even know what content they bought, have old invoices and different names for models etc, etc. It is taking us hours just to find the right regs. I don't think $5 per model is a high fee.

We received an email from "amadman" requesting 2257 regs. We sent out a form letter telling him that he could buy new content for the same amount he purchased originally. He came back and said he bought bulk CD's of everything. We then went to $5 per model.

The next thing we know, is he has posted on this forum and is trashing us. How is that fair to us or him or anyone else that owns content. It doesn't solve anything. :(

As I said before, we are trying to sort this out reasonably.

Unfortunately, the previous owner is no longer in the business and won't even return our emails anymore. |angry|

Listen, if you guys have content from Rock Bottom email us and we will work with you. We want everyone to be legal and not have to worry about 2257. We will handle things on a case by case basis. :)

[Sarah_Jayne]

I'm not trying to be an ass...but can we know about the state of the ids (edited or not?). I am just in a bad mood beause a few companies have been giving me headaches today over IDs.

[serenity]

I'm not trying to be an ass...but can we know about the state of the ids (edited or not?). I am just in a bad mood beause a few companies have been giving me headaches today over IDs.


No problem. :)
The only thing that will be blocked out of U.S. I.D's, are: some of the address, a couple of numbers from the drivers license and a social security number if applicable.

Foreign passport I.D's will be unblocked.

[Sarah_Jayne]

forgien ids are interesting..I need someone to tell me the Russian words for various months (i will ask google) so I can acutally read some of the passports.

So, If I buy new sets they automaticlly come with such documents and I don't have to chase anyone?

[Toby]

No problem. :)
The only thing that will be blocked out of U.S. I.D's, are: some of the address, a couple of numbers from the drivers license and a social security number if applicable.

Foreign passport I.D's will be unblocked.The new 2257 regs require that the copies of model ID's for secondary producers have enough info that the DOJ can trace them back to the originals. If you're blocking part of the license numbers those ID's may no longer be 2257 compliant.

[Sarah_Jayne]

The new 2257 regs require that the copies of model ID's for secondary producers have enough info that the DOJ can trace them back to the originals. If you're blocking part of the license numbers those ID's may no longer be 2257 compliant.


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.

[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.

[serenity]

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.


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. :)

[amadman]

We received an email from "amadman" requesting 2257 regs. We sent out a form letter telling him that he could buy new content for the same amount he purchased originally. He came back and said he bought bulk CD's of everything. We then went to $5 per model.

The next thing we know, is he has posted on this forum and is trashing us. How is that fair to us or him or anyone else that owns content. It doesn't solve anything. :(



Sorry, but my intent was not to bash you guys at all. I just stated the situation with out naming names. Then people where wanting the names and I was getting pm's were people were naming you guys so I went ahead and posted the name so it would be out in the open.

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.

[Sarah_Jayne]

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. :)

Okay, again I am not trying to give you a hard time. I have made decent money of of RBC's stuff in the past so I just want to be clear on things. You said they are unblocked but then said some bits are blocked.

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.

[RBC]

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.

[RBC]

Okay, again I am not trying to give you a hard time. I have made decent money of of RBC's stuff in the past so I just want to be clear on things. You said they are unblocked but then said some bits are blocked.

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.


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 (http://kblogger.com/blog/index.php/weblog/unraveling_2257_part_one/ )
and
Brad's Background (http://kblogger.com/blog/index.php/member/58/)

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.

[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

[RawAlex]

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 (http://kblogger.com/blog/index.php/weblog/unraveling_2257_part_one/ )
and
Brad's Background (http://kblogger.com/blog/index.php/member/58/)

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.


I don't see how that keep within the DOJ guidelines:

Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the
records to secondary producers.

Alex

[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.

[Toby]

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.

Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the
records to secondary producers.

[Chop Smith]

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. :D

[Sarah_Jayne]

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. :D

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.

[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.

[serenity]

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. :D


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. |thumb

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.

[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]

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. |thumb

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.

[Ramster]

We received an email from "amadman" requesting 2257 regs. We sent out a form letter telling him that he could buy new content for the same amount he purchased originally. He came back and said he bought bulk CD's of everything. We then went to $5 per model.

The next thing we know, is he has posted on this forum and is trashing us. How is that fair to us or him or anyone else that owns content. It doesn't solve anything. :(

That's not true actually. He originally came here to ask everyone's opinion. And the general consensus was no content providers should be charging for docs now needed by law.

Some people now agree with you based on your purchase of the company and some don't.

[RBC]

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.

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.

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

[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.

[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

[amadman]

That's not true actually. He originally came here to ask everyone's opinion. And the general consensus was no content providers should be charging for docs now needed by law.

Some people now agree with you based on your purchase of the company and some don't.

Thank You Ramster |thumb

[Chop Smith]

Bye, Bye ugly wall paper

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

[amadman]

Great! Thanks chop! |thumb

I am downloading that now.

[RBC]

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.

[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. |cheers|

[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

[Adult Law Esq.]

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

[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

[tickler]

Buying assets and not liabilities always leaves a bad taste.

[Sarah_Jayne]

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.

[Sarah_Jayne]

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. |cheers|

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. |angry|

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[RBC]

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.

[Sarah_Jayne]

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]

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 |thumb



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

[Mr. Blue]

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

lol, well don't stop posting.

I haven't had any dealings with RBC, so I'm not talking about them either, but a few other content providers have quickly gotten on my personal blacklist.

There's some good ones and I'll make sure to recommend them the next time someone asks for a content provider. Hopefully word of mouth advertising will help out the ones that were considerate during this time. I don't like doing the negative drama stuff, so I'll show my support for the good content providers instead of bashing the bad ones.