Pay for 2257 info?

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by Toby

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]

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

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]

Originally Posted by serenity

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]

Originally Posted by serenity

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]

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

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
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.

[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]

Originally Posted by RBC

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.

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

Originally Posted by DOJ communique

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.

Originally Posted by DOJ communique

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[Ramster]

Originally Posted by serenity

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]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Ramster

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

[Chop Smith]

Bye, Bye ugly wall paper

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

[amadman]

Great! Thanks chop!

I am downloading that now.

[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.