If you Sell Porn, you should read this Thread!

[basschick]

yet if there is a site that the DOJ doesn't care for, they could still prosecute. higher profile sites or sites in niches they want to get rid of might easily still have problems. and of course, again, the fbi told all those producers that their records looked find but their report said only 1 passed inspection.

besides, inspections have only just started happening. i do not believe that you, i, the fbi agent or anyone else really knows how these will turn out as not one case has had time to even lead to further investigation.

chip, i agree that if you convince a jury that an fbi agent said these things, you are very very unlikely to be found guilty. but not that many people can afford the HUGE amount it would cost to pay a legal defense team enough to get them that far in a trial. most people would have no choice but to either plea bargain or plead guilty with the agreement of less or no jail time.

the mike jones case has convinced me that you neither need to look guilty nor be guilty to be prosecuted in adult.

[SPACE GLIDER]

Good looking out

[shelmal]

Thanks so much Chad. This was very helpful. I always love it when i see you started a thread cause i know ill learn something i need to know.

[gaybucks_chip]

chip, i agree that if you convince a jury that an fbi agent said these things, you are very very unlikely to be found guilty. but not that many people can afford the HUGE amount it would cost to pay a legal defense team enough to get them that far in a trial.

We are in complete agreement. My point was that unless Justice specifically wants to go after site so-and-so.com, they are going to go after somebody else if they run into a situation where the site owner was basically in compliance and relied on what an agent or Justice official said, simply because Justice knows that it would be hard to sell a jury on convicting someone who was making a good faith attempt to comply. They will most likely pass on prosecuting that case and go after a different one that's an easier sell. The "low hanging fruit" theory.

But if they want you, they will charge you and make it so painful that you will take a deal... and they can do that no matter how perfect your records are if they really want you, because the regulations are so Byzantine that they are nearly impossible to comply with 100%.

[kcwebwerks]

Great info Chad! Thanks for sharing!

[Madame0120]

I should think the DOJ is looking for that one company that they can take to trial and set a president. 2257 is a way in your door and like seat belt laws, something to tack onto what ever charges they need to beef up.

I could be wrong, but common sense says .... wait, never mind - the topic is Law ..
:dolt:

[chadknowslaw]

But if they want you, they will charge you and make it so painful that you will take a deal... and they can do that no matter how perfect your records are if they really want you, because the regulations are so Byzantine that they are nearly impossible to comply with 100%.

Actually, I think they ARE impossible to comply with 100%, not just "nearly".

I also stand firm in my belief that a website or producer that makes a good faith effort to keep good records, has all records indexed, and has all model ID's for the content they actually shot, the likelihood of prosecution is nearly non-existent. Prosecutions, particularly federal prosecutions, are not for single minor offenses that could be a hard sell to a jury. Federal prosecutions are multiple count indictments that are usually so strong there is really no point in taking the case to a jury.
The danger lies in the producer that does not make any attempt to comply with the record keeping requirements, does not have all ID's and does not make an attempt to get ID's, has missing ID's for models that appear underage, has underage models, has tax issues, has previous convictions for any offenses, has tried to hide behind a foreign address or PO box, or something that just pissed off the wrong prosecutor. It is a standing joke among prosecutors [and us former prosecutors] that we had the power to indict a ham sandwich. (that means charge a ham sandwich with a crime ) They really do have that much power to make your life hell. However, I think that towing the "fear fear fear" line that has been regurgitated by a lot of otherwise intelligent people is incorrect.

[Lee]

The danger lies in the producer that does not make any attempt to comply with the record keeping requirements, does not have all ID's and does not make an attempt to get ID's, has missing ID's for models that appear underage, has underage models

Interestingly enough Chad, i have literally just gotten off the phone with one of our lawyers and she said pretty much the exact same thing.

I have changed our 2257 page for the time being listing all addresses of the primary producers of the content we're using in the Condom Cash paysites but this weekend im going through everything again with a fine toothcomb just to make doubly sure we have all of our ducks in a row.

Any of the World Wide Content DVD titles that dont have 2257 docs with them at the present time ill be scrapping, along with a few of the Ounique sets we have based on her reccomendations. It will be interesting to see if WWC or Ounique allow us to 'replace' the content that we're inevitably going to be trashing because it doesnt have any docs on record.

The other interesting thing she mentioned was that we can actually list a 3rd party address as long as all records can be found at that location should the feds come a knockin'.. PO Box, Mailboxes Etc, Attorneys office, the only stipulation is that the records must be there 24/7/365 and be fully accessible.

One other thing she said was about content used on paysite tours, after checking through our current DB she noticed that we didnt actually list a couple of the newer 'tours' as a location of content so i need to go over all the images used on these tours and list the root domain on each of them as a 'location' also, i was pretty sure that had been done but i guess it wasnt

I was also told to keep all correspondence with content providers about getting copies of IDs, even if they tell me i cant have copies, this shows due diligence on our part in wanting to comply.

Regards,

Lee

[Madame0120]

It is a standing joke among prosecutors [and us former prosecutors] that we had the power to indict a ham sandwich

Of course you do, ya'll wrote the rules and the lauguage.

Roy explained how laws work to me, with salt and pepper shakers. It's really not about the salt & pepper shakers, but how to prove they are salt & pepper shakers.

Reading legal papers backwards helps too!

[chadknowslaw]

It is a standing joke among prosecutors [and us former prosecutors] that we had the power to indict a ham sandwich

Of course you do, ya'll wrote the rules and the lauguage.

Roy explained how laws work to me, with salt and pepper shakers. It's really not about the salt & pepper shakers, but how to prove they are salt & pepper shakers.

Reading legal papers backwards helps too!

Well, it about the ketchup bottle too and if a prosecutor wants to make life hell for the ketchup bottle, he calls it a salt and pepper shaker and makes it defend itself to prove that it is NOT a salt and pepper shaker.

[Madame0120]

Well, it about the ketchup bottle too and if a prosecutor wants to make life hell for the ketchup bottle, he calls it a salt and pepper shaker and makes it defend itself to prove that it is NOT a salt and pepper shaker.

And what of the butter dish, who was in a former life a well-known shaker?

Is there not just cause to sue said pepper and salt for copyright infingment? Not to mention pain and suffering - all this drama has made him go soft and unable to perform his duties.

:fucked: