What do you know about AMVC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PornTeam

I don't think that they take a "cut" of the AEBN sales. If they are setup like we are they are one of a few Brokers that AEBN has and makes their money from the AEBN side of the sales.

Chris.

---

From allen: Chris is absolutely correct in his statement.

From David: The arrangements we have to get the AMVC-listed films onto AEBN does not reduce the studios' AEBN revenue at all. In fact, our using AMVC as a portal to our GroovyMovies AEBN theater site has probably done quite a lot to boost the studio revenues from AEBN. Unfortunately, the other streamers where we currently submit DVDs (HotMovies, for example) did not offer a broker relationship. We always ask for a broker relationship where we do not get an percentage of the producer's commissions, but only AEBN set one up for us. Over the years we've worked with several other streamers but discontinued those relationships when we felt they were no longer in the best interests of AMVC or the studios we were representing. Xondemand, for example, still has not sent us owed money. We pulled all videos from them. Another streamer had 1800 of our videos on their site and told us we only made 20 dollars....so we dumped them too. No streamer that we're aware of has ever nixed us. We have nixed them, however, and we lost a LOT of money in payroll, shipping, etc. to get setup with a streamer only to find they were no good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickbaer

He came on here a month ago or so.

In 2003, he destroyed my relationship with NaughtyBids by claiming I was selling one of his exclusive titles. Turned out we both had bought the "exclusive" rights from the same schmuck, and he eventually acknowledged that to NB, but the damage was done.

He flipped me off in Spring 2005, so I went with AEBN, HotMovies, XonDemand, then XTube, BadPuppy on my own.

For every door that slams, another 5 or 10 open up.

Aaron Lawrence (here) I believe has the most/longest history.

I still would like to sell (some of) my titles as tangible DVDs through a service like that or PornTeam. My non-sexual nude DVDs do well on Amazon, after 4 years on the charts.

---

From David: We were both burned by the cameraman who double-sold us the exclusive rights to "The Brian Sessions" all those years ago and my recollection is that we were both amicable about it in the end. You even expressed interest in joining AMVC afterwards. As for the 2005 situation where you again sought to join AMVC, my email threads show that the 2257 statements on your DVDs did not contain all the required information and you never resubmitted them with new custodian screens. Had you done so, we would have been very happy to list your films on AMVC. I always thought our passing contacts were friendly ones and the resentment evidenced in your post here is surprising. I hope you will retract it.

Here is the email thread regarding being "flipped off":

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jody Williamson"
To:
Cc:
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:23 PM
Subject: Your Film for Release


> Hi Nick...
>
> I have received all of your films however there are a few issue's I need
to
> bring to your attention.
>
> The film "8 Inches of Dylan Jordan" has a repeat of the first jack off
> scene right after one another. I take this was not intentional so it
> should be edited out and fixed.
>
> Also...is the title going to be "8 Inches of Dylan Jordan" or "Dylan
> Jordan: 8 Inches of" ?
>
> All of the films need the 2257 compliance fixed and changed because we
must
> have the actual persons name as the custodian of records and not just the
> company name. Please fix this and send me new films for all of your
releases.
>
> Do you want me to send the ones I have now back to you?
>
> Please advise...the sooner we get this rectified the sooner we can
schedule
> your films for release.
>
> Thank you and have a great weekend...
>
> Jody Williamson
> Operations Manager
> AMVC
>
>
>
>
> Peace~
>
> Jody Williamson
> Operations Manager
> www.amvc.com
> 1-877-861-6951




At 2/18/2005 04:58 PM, Nick wrote:
> Gee, Thanks.
>
> I spent 4 days making those titles, and just spent 2 days and another $5
> mailing you 5-6 more an hour ago, based on this instruction on your
> website...
> a.. Wording: The actual wording of the statement is not spelled out, but
> here is what we use on our films --
> All performers appearing in (place film title here) were eighteen (18)
> years of age or older at the time of filming. The records required by United
> States Code Title 18 Section 2257, with respect to this graphical material,
> are kept by the Custodian of Records: (show custodian's name and complete
> street address here). Dates of Production: (list filming dates here).
>
> If you are going to require me to spend 4 more days re-making these titles,
> and another $10 in Postage, how about fixing the wording in your
> instructions above!
>
> I sent previous e-mail regarding the Dylan Jordan title. Do I need to
> repeat that also?
>
> I am very distressed and unhappy. What a horrible way to end a long week.
>
> - Nick



> ----- Original Message -----
> From: AMVC
> To: Nick Baer
> Cc: Jody Williamson
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Your Film for Release
> Nick...
> I'm guessing you did not read everything on our website.
>
> http://www.amvc.com/producers/faqlegal.shtml
>
>
>
>
> The film must contain a 2257 Compliance Statement in the film itself. This compliance statement must meet several criteria:

1. Content: The statement must list the title of the film, the name of the person who is your custodian of records (a company name is not allowed), the complete street address where the records are stored (a p.o. box is not allowed), and the dates of production for the film (typically this is the dates on which each session was filmed).





Even the item you quoted says "custodian's name and complete address here".

We'll need your 2257 screen to be correct to list the films on AMVC.

David
AMVC






At 2/18/2005 05:41 PM, Nick wrote:
> 2nd request
>
> Please call me
>
> xxx-xxx-xxxx
>
> or reply with a direct number to reach you.
>
> - Nick



----- Original Message -----
From: AMVC
To: Nick Baer
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Your Film for Release
Nick...
I'm actually on vacation. I'll be back in the office on 3/1
Also, we prefer to keep all communications in email.
David
AMVC



At 2/18/2005 06:29 PM, Nick wrote:
> I need to discuss WHY you sent the previous e-mail, in response to my citing a section of your website instructions, which I feel I followed.
>
> I feel I have a legitimate concern for needing to re-do 4 days of work, and your responsees are hurtful at best, and not helpful.
>
> I am trying to understand how your company works, and disappointed that that is not happening.




Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:27:21 -0800
To: "Nick Baer"
From: AMVC
Subject: New Producer Inquiry was Re: Your Film for Release
Cc: JODY -- OTEC

Nick...

Thanks for the email. The reason I sent you the quote was to show you that it does indeed say that a person's name is required and that even the quote you used said a name was needed.

My responses have been totally non-emotional and business oriented. The law (which is also linked on our site) says the name of the custodian and the street address of the custodian and the dates of production are required information.

Its a cut and dry situation with no room for negotiation.

We are always available by email to answer any questions you have on this matter or any other.

David
AMVC

From David: As for not changing the site in a decade and being the "bulk barn"...guilty and guilty. Nothing I can add there.

From allen: We've always maintained our amateur/homemade look. We considered changing to the cookie-cutter scripts/shopping carts that saturate the web, but decided to keep our look.

On a side note....our new site we've been building for (what seems like) forever, will have a brand new look, new venue, new branding, etc. but AMVC.com will probably remain the same....until, of course, DVD's continue to disappear like the 8-track tape :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amvcdotcom

From David: and you never resubmitted them with new custodian screens. Had you done so, we would have been very happy to list your films on AMVC. I always thought our passing contacts were friendly ones and the resentment evidenced in your post here is surprising. I hope you will retract it.
AMVC

---

Not at all. What you left off in your selective editing, was that after I fixed the wording, your staff said NO, David cancelled your contract. Surely someone who keeps 12 years of e-mails, also keeps his staff's e-mails??

So I partnered with legitimate VOD companies, directly, no split commissions, with professional straightforward businesslike methods.


Also:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amvcdotcom

Hi Nick,
David just pointed out that I should have replaced your phone number with x's in this post. I apologize for missing that and hope/assume you as admin can edit that: http://forums.gaywidewebmasters.com/...7&postcount=18

Thanks,

allen

---

I am NOT the Admin. Lee is.

YOU had the ability to edit your own posts, and to know better than to publish that kind of info.

This just goes to show the world that you are not good Net Citizens, and that you are abusive in your practices to perceived competitors as well as Clients.

How much more public damage are you going to wreck upon others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickbaer

Not at all. What you left off in your selective editing, was that after I fixed the wording, your staff said NO, David cancelled your contract. Surely someone who keeps 12 years of e-mails, also keeps his staff's e-mails??

So I partnered with legitimate VOD companies, directly, no split commissions, with professional straightforward businesslike methods.


Also:



I am NOT the Admin. Lee is.

YOU had the ability to edit your own posts, and to know better than to publish that kind of info.

This just goes to show the world that you are not good Net Citizens, and that you are abusive in your practices to perceived competitors as well as Clients.

How much more public damage are you going to wreck upon others?

---

I made the mistake, David found the mistake, I immediately alerted you to the mistake, I immediately alerted admin to the mistake and it was immediately fixed as you can see. Self-editing posts is only allowed for a moment....one second later that the ability to edit is removed. Again, I apologize for missing that. It certainly wasn't intentional.


Nick, I'm sorry that you see and remember things differently than we do. It appears that everytime we bump into each other, it becomes a crash. It's very odd....and defeating. I just don't know what else to say.

My question is why doesn't David post himself.
i have had dealings with AMVC and since this is brought in the public arena of GWW... AMVC has a shady side. They are a good company yes. But business development is poor. The re-edit of the films are poor quality. The boxcovers are the same basic template and as an affiliate promoting others products through VOD I would not tough AMVC's product even if it were the last adult product on earth. I would rather be jobless.
AMVC was the one that tipped off "Feds" about films. JT Video for one was one of those studios. JT's films were shot in the early 90's to late 80's before Record Keeping went into effect and AMVC tipped them off. Of course JT Video passed with flying colors.
http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece....all&q=jt+video
Other producers were investigated as well and it's funny that many of the ones who were had dealings with AMVC.

Yes, everything I said in previous posts are true and accurate. yes, they are good at paying on time. yes they do distribute nicely. I would not deal with them. They seem a little shady. If I were a producer, I would not let anyone market my product as they do. They are cheap and I don't think AMVC realizes boxcovers are what sells the product otherwise they would be done a lot better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amvcdotcom

From David:

---

Again, why cant David post? Who is talking here, David or Allen. I had to grab my reading glasses to follow this one. :crazy: :smoke: :fucked: :specs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PFLJayden

My question is why doesn't David post himself.
i have had dealings with AMVC and since this is brought in the public arena of GWW... AMVC has a shady side. They are a good company yes. But business development is poor. The re-edit of the films are poor quality. The boxcovers are the same basic template and as an affiliate promoting others products through VOD I would not tough AMVC's product even if it were the last adult product on earth. I would rather be jobless.
AMVC was the one that tipped off "Feds" about films. JT Video for one was one of those studios. JT's films were shot in the early 90's to late 80's before Record Keeping went into effect and AMVC tipped them off. Of course JT Video passed with flying colors.
http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece....all&q=jt+video
Other producers were investigated as well and it's funny that many of the ones who were had dealings with AMVC.

Yes, everything I said in previous posts are true and accurate. yes, they are good at paying on time. yes they do distribute nicely. I would not deal with them. They seem a little shady. If I were a producer, I would not let anyone market my product as they do. They are cheap and I don't think AMVC realizes boxcovers are what sells the product otherwise they would be done a lot better.

---

From allen: We weren't sure if we could have two accounts, that's why. As a non-shady company, we didn't want to break any rules :)

What do you mean by this statement? "AMVC was the one that tipped off "Feds" about films." Did I misread this or are you saying that we called the feds on someone?? Please clarify!

You've made it clear that you don't want to work with us. Our business model is not for some producers, yet is perfect for others. I don't understand why you have to be so hateful.

BECAUSE DAVID FUCKED ME OVER TOO! I sent films to you guys, the contract said not to ship them to vod, you did and ESPECIALLY XonDemand after it was clear in the contract for you not to. the contract was only between AMVC and I, not other VOD providers AMVC and I. i asked you to use our boxcovers, ya'll said okay we will IN WRITING. Instead you used your cheap boxcovers anyways. You guys requested more than what is required by 2257 such as the Three ID's. 2257 only asks for ONE. You guys edited my 2257 spreadsheet and changed the date of births to false ages of the models even though it was clear on their IDs. I did receive payment on time. I pulled out because shadiness was going down.
There's nothing more to discuss on this further. You know you screwed up. It took me 3 months to fix everything AMVC did. Perhaps contract law may not be your specialty.

It's very funny that AMVC is written all over the Press Release. It's very funny that other producers who were investigated had dealings with AMVC.

I am not bashing others movies, I am bashing the boxcovers. They aren't the best. Only a template with the boxes filled in. That's why I won't promote your product. Point blank.

I have nothing bad to say about payment or royalties. I have nothing bad to say on the way you distribute. I think some of your dealings could be dealt better.

You are correct, AMVC is not for some but great for others. I strongly believe you should give the producers at least some say so in the products they own and spend so much money on.

I think AMVC would do better in Homemade Only movies.

Hi Everyone....My business partner and co-owner, Allen, got permission from Lee for us to have two accounts, so here I am....David from AMVC. Lets see what I can do to answer your questions and salvage AMVC's reputation here on GayWideWebmasters.

Aaron...Hi, howdy, good to see you on here. I really miss talking/emailing with you and hearing about all your wonderful trips of days gone by. Anything new on the travel calendar?

Nick...I'm sorry for the goof up on the post. My fault really as I should have edited that personal data out. I'm not a bad netizen...just a sloppy emailer. I'm sorry too that we never managed to get the association between you and AMVC past that initial bump. I will check my staff's computers to see what emails they might have sent after that last thread ended (posted above). If we did turn you down out of hand, I apologize.

PFLJayden...I really want to look into my files and see how I messed you up so badly, but I cannot figure out which studio you were when you were listed on AMVC. Can you help me out? I really work hard to be nice and professional and above board and fair with everyone...customers and studios...but I'm human and I make mistakes...sometimes big ones. I do remember a situation (again, I cannot recall which studio it was) where they specifically asked me not to send their films to streamers and I said I would do as they asked...and then I completely forgot to tell my people to not send the films. There was no malice, there was no criminal intent, there was just a lapse in memory and action. I was WRONG and as soon as the studio told me about it I 'fessed up, beat my head on the desk for being an idiot, and got it fixed as quickly as possible. I know there's no second chance to make a first impression, but I really hate making mistakes and it eats at me when I upset someone with my own forgetfulness. I am sorry.

As for model IDs...for the record, we have never asked for or required three IDs on any model. We ask for one clear and legible and complete and not-expired ID and for the signed and dated model release. If the ID we were sent was not clear or legible or complete or if it was expired at the time of filming, then yes, we would have asked for a replacement ID. And if that ID had a problem then we would have asked for another. The docs we keep on file are just as liable for inspection as yours and we want to make sure we have good copies.

That brings us to that 800lb Gorilla a few posts back...that one that said AMVC was tipping off the FBI for records violations. I really cannot think of anything more ridiculous. It's not like we had John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales on speed-dial :) What we do have is one of the largest collections of amateur producers all in one tidy little place and if the FBI wants to find a "scapegoat" they're going to look for someone they think doesn't have the time or the know-how or the resources to follow their Byzantine regulations. To the FBI, AMVC must look like a barrel full of fish just ready to be shot.

Since you brought up the JT Videos inspection, let me put out a few of the facts as I got them directly from JT himself. The FBI called him up and said they were coming out in two weeks to look at his records. He notified me and I emailed him a copy of the index file we keep on every film on AMVC. Two days later (the FBI did not wait 2 weeks), when he got home from his day job, the FBI was waiting for him. The films they wanted to look at were two films they bought from AMVC's web site. We do not run a background check on the customers who buy from us. The FBI, the CIA, or your grandmother's church group, can all buy DVDs from us without a hiccup. The films they inspected were shot in 1997 so they were not grandfathered in the pre-July 1995 period. The feds looked over the records...asked for his index file (the regs require you keep an index file and luckily he had the one i sent him)...and they wrote him up for 2 violations...he used a drop box for his custodian address and he did not post his business hours. There were NO documentation problems and neither of the problems they did find had anything to do with AMVC. JT and I discussed why we had a 2003 date on our oh-so-tacky DVD covers ;) and I told him it was because that's when we created the DVD covers with screen captures from his videos. The 2257 regs of the time were a little murky on what "date of production" actually meant and we made a cautious interpretation. I don't think JT blames us for any of that incident, since he remains a producer on AMVC. However, we did not "tip off" the feds and we made every effort to see that he was prepared for the inspection.

So...anything else I can do to put smiles back on everyone's faces? I really don't like all this upset and bad feelings from former producers...I want to make it better if I can.

David
AMVC

Im not aware of any of the past history being discussed in this thread however, it does seem like AMVC is willing to work with those of you with potential issues to overcome them.

That being said, please keep in mind where you are posting, i understand discussions like this can get heated very quickly, but please, try to keep them amicable and if you have any heated things you would like to discuss, do them in private.

If you are looking to have a heated discussion, throwing out accusations about each other, whether true, false or otherwise, please do a Google search and find one of the more drama orientated gay boards to post on, i really would like to keep GWW focused on business, being done by business professionals, in a professional manner.

We haven't had drama on GWW for close to 2.5 years and id like to keep it that way as it leads to a much better environment for everyone, those participating in the discussion and, more importantly, those reading them.

Regards,

Lee

As the person who started this thread I'd just like to thank David and Allen for joining into the discussion. In my opinion they have addressed all of the concerns brought up in a very professional and business-like manner. I am not a producer for them yet but now feel better about working with them once I get a video completed.

The only unanswered question seems to be regarding the issue of box covers. I was just curious why you don't give the image size and format specs to producers so they can create a custom box cover that meets your requirements. It seems like this would be a simple thing to do and it might make a lot of your producers happy.

SC32803...I'm very happy that we're coming across as professional and business-like, because that's how we strive to operate.

As for the covers, I'm happy to give some info. The covers we make for the DVDs we sell all have a standard look that identifies them as a product coming from AMVC. We make them in-house and while they're not "professional" they have improved greatly over the years.

We use the same covers when we submit the films to AEBN or other streamers. You can see examples of the style here... Well, I tried to post a link but since I'm a newbie here I'm not allowed. So, go to AEBN's site and do a studio search for Maverickman22 Productions.

If a studio wants THEIR OWN cover images used at AEBN and other streamer sites then we are happy to do so. We've gotten much better at making sure Studio covers are used at the streamers whenever we are given appropriate art. When sending in cover art for this use, we need a front image and a back image. Each image should be at least 380px wide by 540px tall. Larger is fine, as long as the proportions are the same. Smaller is not as good because it can lead to pixelation when enlarged.

Here is an example of a studio we submit to AEBN with their own cover art...Same linking problem, so go to AEBN's site and do a studio search for The Great Canadian Male.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PFLJayden

AMVC was the one that tipped off "Feds" about films. JT Video for one was one of those studios. JT's films were shot in the early 90's to late 80's before Record Keeping went into effect and AMVC tipped them off. Of course JT Video passed with flying colors.
http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece....all&q=jt+video
Other producers were investigated as well and it's funny that many of the ones who were had dealings with AMVC.

---

Allen, I want to thank you for taking the time to walk through this with me. I apologize for this. I was wrong and I am sorry. Thanks for clearing up all of the misunderstanding. I am still new at this stuff and I am quickly learning believe nothing of what you see on the internet, only the actions that follow.

Have a great week Allen and David.