Sponsors using content providers as 3rd party 2257 custodians?! - GoFuckYourself.com

HCBabes · 03-18-2009, 09:34 AM

Posted this on another board and I wanna get the input of the GFY fam also...

IMHO The whole 3rd party custodian was a very progressive move by Big Brother. The beauty is that it makes it easier for freesite owners to comply with 2257... Even if it does take a little work on the part of us smalltime webmasters, it is a good thing because it actually makes it possible for freesite owners to specify their sponsors' custodians as their 3rd party custodians. Hell... It should even make sponsors breath a sigh of relief due to not having to release to model ids to 1000's of webmasters... Some who may not actually be real webmasters. ;)
This system would work, as long as the sponsors have an actual custodian and are not trying to use the regs to their own advantage and passing the buck onto their content providers or the primary producers as their own 3rd party custodians... and I've noticed that alot of them are doing this.
This is where I get pissed off. Why would a sponsor not have his own custodian of records? I can understand having a 3rd party custodian who knows your sites, content used on each site, your affiliate ids and websites, but passing the buck to content providers or primary producers is rediculous. The content provider has already given up the the required docs when the content was purchased. If he didn't then you shouldn't use the content.
This practice leaves affiliates bare assed when it comes to compliance and any sponsors who have compliance pages that pass the buck to primary producers and content providers need their asses kicked. What happens when a content provider or primary producer refuses to provide inspectors document for images on a site owned by someone he never sold content to and has no idea who owns? Simple answer... A small-time webmaster gets a knock on the door from pissed off inspectors and ends up going to prison.

I don't know how many sponsors I have dropped recently due to this idiotic policy and anyone who doesn't do the same is gonna get caught with their drawers down when an inspector visits their sites.

Paul Markham · 03-18-2009, 09:39 AM

Let's get a signature in now.

HCBabes · 03-18-2009, 09:52 AM

Here's what I'm tired of seeing:

PornSponsor is not the primary producer of any of the content appearing on this website. All content is licensed from the third-party content providers.

The records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 and C.F.R. 75 are kept by the custodian of records of the content provider (primary producer) at:

Content Shooter LLC
Custodian: Jerk Meoff
1234 Fuck Affiliates Way
Cant, Touchme 54321

Paul Markham · 03-18-2009, 09:53 AM

I have never understood this part of the porn industry's reluctance to use 2257 as a positive thing. The only reason I can see against it is the possibility of a visit, which can happen anyway if the suspect you of a crime. And filing the records. Let's face it being in business is also about keeping records.

It's positive points far out weigh the negative ones.

It goes a long way to proving the model is over 18. Yes not 100% but better than nothing.

It shows me who the shooter was.

It should help prove the person selling the content has the right to sell it.

None of the above are 100% but better than nothing and as a person who has had 6 coppers going through his house and studio with a search warrant and the threat of being sued by a model, I can tell you it's far better than telling them "I'm exempt because I'm on the Net." Tell that to your new friend in the bunk bed above you. Or in your bed and above you. LOL

HCBabes · 03-18-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Tell that to your new friend in the bunk bed above you. Or in your bed and above you.

JP-pornshooter · 03-18-2009, 10:28 AM

freesites and tubesites will always have this problem, gray area legitimacy at best.
prolly why they prefer not to list themselves as 2257, would open them up to inspection of documents they dont have and cannot provide to the feds..

HCBabes · 03-18-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

freesites and tubesites will always have this problem, gray area legitimacy at best.
prolly why they prefer not to list themselves as 2257, would open them up to inspection of documents they dont have and cannot provide to the feds..

Exactly... This is why sponsors who own paysites should always have their own custodians of records... especially when they have affiliates using their content to promote them.
Take me for instance... There is no way I can get 2257 docs for the images I have on my freesites because I don't own or have any licenses for the images. Alot of sponsors who do own or hold the licenses for the images won't give me any of the 2257 docs so I can't comply. My only option is to list my sponsors as my 3rd party custodians, but the fucked up part is... Instead of having someone at their company be their custodian of records so I have someone to specify on my own compliance pages, alot of them would rather sit on their hands and shift the burden off to their own content producers (See post above).
I obviously can't do the same thing they did because, why would I as a freesite owner list a content provider on my compliance page when I know he is not gonna produce docs to inspectors on my behalf? he didn't sell me content. He sold it to my sponsor.

03-18-2009, 09:34 AM	#1
HCBabes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: In A Nutshell Posts: 136	Sponsors using content providers as 3rd party 2257 custodians?! Posted this on another board and I wanna get the input of the GFY fam also... IMHO The whole 3rd party custodian was a very progressive move by Big Brother. The beauty is that it makes it easier for freesite owners to comply with 2257... Even if it does take a little work on the part of us smalltime webmasters, it is a good thing because it actually makes it possible for freesite owners to specify their sponsors' custodians as their 3rd party custodians. Hell... It should even make sponsors breath a sigh of relief due to not having to release to model ids to 1000's of webmasters... Some who may not actually be real webmasters. ;) This system would work, as long as the sponsors have an actual custodian and are not trying to use the regs to their own advantage and passing the buck onto their content providers or the primary producers as their own 3rd party custodians... and I've noticed that alot of them are doing this. This is where I get pissed off. Why would a sponsor not have his own custodian of records? I can understand having a 3rd party custodian who knows your sites, content used on each site, your affiliate ids and websites, but passing the buck to content providers or primary producers is rediculous. The content provider has already given up the the required docs when the content was purchased. If he didn't then you shouldn't use the content. This practice leaves affiliates bare assed when it comes to compliance and any sponsors who have compliance pages that pass the buck to primary producers and content providers need their asses kicked. What happens when a content provider or primary producer refuses to provide inspectors document for images on a site owned by someone he never sold content to and has no idea who owns? Simple answer... A small-time webmaster gets a knock on the door from pissed off inspectors and ends up going to prison. I don't know how many sponsors I have dropped recently due to this idiotic policy and anyone who doesn't do the same is gonna get caught with their drawers down when an inspector visits their sites. __________________ Get $30 for each free cams signup you send.

03-18-2009, 09:39 AM	#2
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Let's get a signature in now. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

03-18-2009, 09:52 AM	#3
HCBabes Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: In A Nutshell Posts: 136	Here's what I'm tired of seeing: PornSponsor is not the primary producer of any of the content appearing on this website. All content is licensed from the third-party content providers. The records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 and C.F.R. 75 are kept by the custodian of records of the content provider (primary producer) at: Content Shooter LLC Custodian: Jerk Meoff 1234 Fuck Affiliates Way Cant, Touchme 54321 __________________ Get $30 for each free cams signup you send.

03-18-2009, 09:53 AM	#4
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	I have never understood this part of the porn industry's reluctance to use 2257 as a positive thing. The only reason I can see against it is the possibility of a visit, which can happen anyway if the suspect you of a crime. And filing the records. Let's face it being in business is also about keeping records. It's positive points far out weigh the negative ones. It goes a long way to proving the model is over 18. Yes not 100% but better than nothing. It shows me who the shooter was. It should help prove the person selling the content has the right to sell it. None of the above are 100% but better than nothing and as a person who has had 6 coppers going through his house and studio with a search warrant and the threat of being sued by a model, I can tell you it's far better than telling them "I'm exempt because I'm on the Net." Tell that to your new friend in the bunk bed above you. Or in your bed and above you. LOL __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

03-18-2009, 10:28 AM	#6
JP-pornshooter Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: westcoast usa Posts: 4,007	freesites and tubesites will always have this problem, gray area legitimacy at best. prolly why they prefer not to list themselves as 2257, would open them up to inspection of documents they dont have and cannot provide to the feds.. __________________ "Obscenity is whatever gives the Judge an erection." -- Author Unknown