FOSTA-SESTA laws
The congress needs to mind their damn business. Causing so many issues with my hobbies and my friends livelihoods.

AMEN NO WAY THIS SITE OR ANY SITE GOING TO GET MY ID LMAOOO HOLD ON TO THAT DREAM!

Is anyone aware that tube sites are USC2257 exempt UNDER US law? Jesus, you couldn't write this in a novel. I've now got a legal friend involved in what I have to or don't have to show to the letter of the law, and so far I don't have to show a bean! I'm responsible for the records and my ID. I only need to show it by LAW if MM has a legal issue with any videos I sell. Which, he can't have as I don't use this platform. As for trailers; if MM thinks they are shaky by all means send me a list and we'll discuss if removal is required.

regards,

Andy and the team.

I really don't understand why anyone would have an issue providing ID to MM, he's probably one of the most trustworthy people any of us are ever likely to meet.

In this case he's looking to keep one step ahead of the requirements of the billers by asking for ID from anyone who has a store, and/or who uploads nude/explicit content. As a private business UMD is perfectly entitled to do that, makes a lot more sense to do it early in advance of new rules than to wait till one of the billing companies foists it with a week's notice and having to shut down a load of stores until they comply in order to keep those that do operational.

Looking wider, if everyone has to provide full ID before they can upload content across the tube sites, then hopefully a side effect will be a significant reduction in piracy. Yes, in theory at least people could use fake or stolen IDs, but even having to do that is a barrier or sorts - it makes it a whole lot more complicated (and potentially illegal - using fake IDs would probably count as fraud) than just uploading your porn stash because you can, or to impress your mates.

The tube sites brought this on themselves. Long ago they could relatively easily have tackled both piracy and people uploading under-age and non-consensual stuff by implementing systems to identify and block all further copies of a scene once it had been flagged - so once the original was taken down, no further copies of that file could be uploaded. Sure, bad actors would have tried to get round the blocks by editing scenes but it would have massively reduced the scale of the problem, and anyone repeatedly uploading bad content could have been further banned. Nothing is perfect but make things harder to do and the majority of people will stop doing them.

Just to clarify, the exact wording of USC 2257 says

"Under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2257, producers of a "visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct" are required to keep records showing the ages of the models".

So that means this law only applies to media that contains "sexually explicit conduct" so if your media does not meet that criteria then you are exempted from that law.

As far as Tube sites go viz 2257, those Tube sites that do NOT contain sexually explicit media (i.e. Youtube) are indeed exempt, but those Tube sites that DO contain sexually explicit media (i.e. Phub) are indeed subject to 2257 requirements.

Also if you read the full texts of 2257 as it pertains to Producers being "required to keep records showing the ages of the models". If you go to the section on 2257 Record keeping and Custodian Requirements, 2257 law only requires that you maintain such records for 7 YEARS, after which you can dispose of old records. So....no hosting company can ask you to provide proof of model releases on scenes shot more than 7 years ago, because you can simply respond to say that 2257 law only requires you to keep those records for 7 years, and you have the right to discard your old records. So 7 years is the Statute of Limitations on model release records.

Of course this is U.S. law which is not applicable in the EU, and EU has different laws to the USA. But as I am based in the USA and my server and hosting is in the USA I am going to follow U.S. laws and ignore any edicts from the EU.

MK

No Sir! I am not an idiot! Of course there are no microchips in the Vaccine, jezzzzz. But Nanites are in there for sure...... LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanorobotics

Phil

With all due respect here, every crook has people saying they are "one of the most trustworthy people" you're likely to meet. That's how they manage to fool people.

I will make clear: I'm NOT suggesting that MM is a crook (of course) - but I'm simply saying that someone vouching for the trustworthyness of anyone running a site of ANY kind is not assurance in any way whatsoever - and shouldn't be taken as such if people want to use the web safely. We should all be constantly aware of any possible scams, even when they are from sources we already trust.

UMD is, of course, entitled to do whatever it wants. We use the site for free in the main, and so are hardly in a position to complain. But I really do see this as a repeat of what happened with the UK govt trying to change the laws on porn access. There was much concern here on UMD, but in the end the UK govt realised that it couldn't enforce anything because there were too many ways around it - plus most sites are not based in the UK anyway.

And this is a problem with this new action. Using fake IDs might well count as fraud, but who can be prosecuted and by whom? The people here are dotted around the globe and so it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to be hauled in front of a judge for false ID on an internet site of this nature. What's more, if the ID is false, how do they know who you are and where to find you?! A rather basic question, but a pertinent one, I think.

And how does the photo ID prove anything? Photo ID is for when you are out and about and have to prove age etc, and that you're the person in the photo. Nobody sees us behind a computer, and so it can't be checked. It's pointless.

Most photo ID doesn't have an address on it either, and so it can't really get linked to a credit card anyway. And will sites now want a credit card for anyone wanting to upload nudity or explicit images, even if they're not selling them? Even that makes more sense than a photo ID on a platform where faces can't be seen. And uploading photo IDs to MM )or whoever runs a website) is going to get very problematic if you're also asking for addresses, too. What happens if the site is hacked? Uploading photo ID is not the same as uploading credit cards, which can be done securely. Uploading to whoever runs whatever website (whether this or another one) is not as secure, quite clearly.

Has anyone actually seen this move by "billers" as a news story? I've searched the web for it and not come up with anything?

There is much here that doesn't make sense. Uploading photo ID on a site this small is obviously manageable. But how would, for example, one of the big porn sites do it, where there are thousands upon thousands of users? If photoID can't be uploaded in a secure manner (and I don't know if it can), there is going to have to be a lot of trust going on on the internet, and I don't see the majority having that trust that their data and their photos are safe.

I don't think I was very clear. I don't believe that sites like UMD will be required to actually send the photo ID's to any bank or government agency. We just have to review them and keep them on-hand just like we already do with Custodian of Records info.


Those are not government agencies. Free speech doesn't apply there and they should be able to moderate their platform however they want. Maybe we should have a thread about that! (Also, diversity needs to be part of any political platform.)


You can't not make a rule because you think people will break it. You make the rule and then if somebody breaks it, it becomes that person's fault. These rules indemnify the CC companies and place the onus on billers and site operators like me. And by the way it may actually stop a child porn or two, and also cut down on piracy from randos who wouldn't be bothered to even upload a fake ID.


As far as I know, I won't be required to upload anything to any company. All W9's, 2257's, photo ID's, and other sensitive information is stored on an encrypted drive network in our physical office, not on UMD's server. If somebody was able to hack UMD tomorrow they wouldn't really get shit because I don't store sensitive info here.


I think it's going to apply just to people who upload content to the store because they are concerned about what they are billing for. That said, I'm not so sure that the compliance officers who occasionally review our site would make the distinction: If there is sexual material here on a site that they otherwise do billing for, I could conceivably be asked to maintain age verification info for that person.


I don't know what those sites are doing or what's required of them. I only know that OUR biller told us that new Visa and Mastercard regulations are coming. With a high-risk adult merchant account comes extra red tape and scrutiny and yes it's completely unfair. But don't shoot the messenger


That's something I won't be able to control. Regulators do seem fond of trying to make things retroactive which sucks. But on the real, I won't be able to get out of a jam by just declaring that the content is old, so it'll probably be retroactive by default.


Mind if I bite your idea?


I really hope this does not end up being the case. Having to collect photo ID's from my producers is already the most cringeworthy thing I've ever had to do on this site. And I think asking for your model releases is crossing the line: You are supposed to collect them for your OWN records, stored somewhere safe in the off chance that you need to supply them in a court case or something like that. You really shouldn't ever have to give it to me, a bank, nor any government.


Not sure what to make of that comment? Credit cards are the way this site bills for everything. If we don't comply then that's it for us. What else could I do, just say no?


Maybe they don't care enough to give their users a heads up. But this is real information that applies to any adult site that takes credit cards. It's not like I'm making this up for my health. Do you think I enjoy having to sit here and check people's ID's like some bouncer at a nightclub? I do not yet know if I'll have to ask for your personal details before you upload a trailer, but if you're frustrated about this you're preaching to the choir.


You don't know zero. We've been working together for over 15 years so I would hope that counts for something. I've never violated your privacy and I outline exactly what happens with sensitive information that you upload. If there is any step that you're not clear on, I'll be happy to clarify it.


This site uses https which means your transmissions are encrypted both ways just like your bank web site. That doesn't stop it from getting intercepted (you can't help that) but it means that anybody snooping in will just see gibberish. Sensitive info is stored on our server in a non-web-accessible holding area until I'm able to review it and take it offline altogether. It is stored on an encrypted storage, offline.


It absolutely is a plus. It's one of the reasons our chargeback ratio is way lower than even normal retail stores. Maybe one every couple months. I'm very proud of that. It's one reason we can take certain payment options while others can't.


I'll let you know for sure once the rules come out. But right now we are accepting a driving license, passport, or any other government-issued ID because I think they will be acceptable forms of identification (I could be wrong).


There's always going to be fraud but that's not a reason to not make an attempt to collect the good information. And anyway, this is likely just as much a means to indemnify the CC companies as it is to put a damper on illegal content and incidentally, piracy.


This ain't the government this time. It's a private CC business covering its own ass, and don't forget that they already shut down Pornhub et al, so who are we?


They do need to mind their business. But this time it's not congress.


Several people have chosen already to not host their content here and I completely understand that! But for anyone with content here, please realize that you are technically licensing it to me to host and present to the world, and that *I* am the one on the hook for all yall's stuff. The legal exposure becomes my own because I am the one technically selling all your work, and it's up to me to make sure the documentation is tight.


2257 law states that tube sites must have Custodian of Records (2257) information on file for anyone who uploads explicit videos, which we already do. That doesn't mean you have to send the records themselves to us or anyone else. But you do have to send your Custodian info which is just a name and address of whoever DOES hold that information. And you're right: You only have to show the information if law enforcement asks you, and I only have to divulge your Custodian info is law asks me for that. Anyway, this situation involves private companies making decisions, not a new law that came down.


That's like saying there's no point in running a trustworthy company if you can't take anyone else's experience or advice into consideration. I've been doing this 23 years now and nobody can say I ever screwed them. I'd hope that carries at least some weight.

Of course it carries weight, and no-one is accusing you of being untrustworthy. But someone who's your friend saying you are (as happened here) means nothing. WE know you are trustworthy because of the time we have spent here and our interaction with you over the years, not because one member announces you are. That trust is built up over time and experience, and someone who has been here only recently, for example, might not have that trust, and for their own safety probably shouldn't have that trust on any site of this nature until they have had experiences there. There are far too many scams out there.

I hope that makes sense, and there was/is no intention to be offensive.

All of that said, though, I'm not sure I want copies of my photo ID (if I had any) being stored in a non-secure environment because any site could be hacked. And I'm sure the real names and photos of many people here going public through such a hack could cause lots of people lots of problems within their families and work etc. There is good reason why many here are anonymous.

As for Pornhub, it is alive and kicking.

But I'm still confused that credit card companies are making this change but nobody seems to have heard of it on other websites or in news stories. That is what doesn't make sense to me - along with the fact that photo ID online is pointless, and they must know that.

All of this might simply result in less people posting nudity or explicit images here, but I think it's understandable that people are concerned.

I wish there were nanobot technology. It would be so nice to have medicine catered to me and my body so I do not need to take 1 pill for my actual shit. 1 pill because of a side effect of original pill that can cause issues with my original shit. 1 pill because the combination of pills 1 and 2 can cause effect y in case studies etc.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/mastercard-rewrites-rules-for-banks-backing-pornography-sellers
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/mastercard-banks-consent-porn-sites

Maybe that?

If you buy the rights to a catalog from a creator going out of business and do not get the forms, as long as you do not post pictures of the nude content, but there is nude content in the video would you still have to have all ID's ready?

I've done all I could to be transparent and outline the exact flow of your sensitive document while it's in our possession, including its secure transmission and storage. My name is Derek, and I'm 100% responsible for it. When you uploaded your info to open a bank account or something like that, did you personally know who it was on the other end reviewing your info?


This isn't news just yet. As I said in the OP, I got a heads-up directly from our biller that some news was coming, and I immediately came here to tell you guys everything I knew.

When you buy ANY kind of content from another producer, you MUST get model releases for every single person that appears in the content. Otherwise you are susceptible to all kinds of civil lawsuits over copyright and even some legal issues (like revenge porn laws)

If the performance was paid, you need to have a signed receipt from the model stating that they received full payment, otherwise you leave yourself open to civil actions if someone claims they never got paid.

If it's even remotely sexual, you need 2257-compliant records on file (name, address, birthdate, aliases/maiden name used in the industry, and government-issued photo ID)

The smart producer has all of these on the same form so you only have to worry about one piece of paper plus a photocopy of the ID for each model in each scene.

Feel free. Ultimately, I think the whole industry is going to have to start relying on crypto to stay afloat. I added it to the Softokens system years ago because download sales need to be instant and crypto like Bitcoin can take up to an hour for multiple confirmations (I don't issue credit until there are at least 3) on a busy market day. We also accept cash (not recommended) or money orders via snail mail to fund accounts, then the account number can be used just like a credit card.

Been working on adding some other coins like Doge and Litecoin too, but the 3rd-party I use for exchange rate quotes only provides them for Bitcoin. Have to rewrite some stuff to query a different exchange for quotes.

On a semi-related note, i read a series of articles that outlined the problems with this whole situation. the theory and just reasons are right... but they're being waved as a flag by extremists fringe religious groups (like, think backwards hardcore bible-thumping baptists out in the boonies level of extreme fringe) who are on a whole puritan crusade to get rid of porn in it's entirety. the CC companies are greedy enough (and scared of losing money) that they're happy to jump on the bandwagon because of a just cause. Add on the neo-nazi white extremists and incels.... and you have a catastrophic clusterfuck waiting to happen.

Now, i'm all for cracking down on underage content (and other actually illegal content) but this is going way far beyond any reasonable limits. It is not right or just for commercial groups, acting under the influence or cover of radical extremists, to dictate this sort of thing. This is something that needs to be stood up to and exposed for what it really is.

I want to ask those who have expressed support for this ID measure: How aware are you of the real depths and origins of these moves and do you really think it will just end with this?

This is not the way to go about fixing legitimate problems. It's the nuclear option of thinking "hey there's a few bad parts mixed in with all those tons of good parts. rather than working on getting rid of the bad parts, lets just wipe 'em all out to be sure."

now, here's some of the articles i read on the topic:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bj9w/anti-porn-extremism-pornhub-traffickinghub-exodus-cry-ncose
https://www.xbiz.com/news/257520/pornhub-canadian-mps-welcome-anti-porn-activists-as-witnesses
https://www.xbiz.com/news/258964/canada-mp-describes-pornhub-mindgeek-hearings-as-a-dysfunctional-circus



TL;DR:
Underage content (as well as other clearly illegal content) is bad as is sex trafficking.
the puritancal crusade currently going on (as well as it's extreme fringe religious participants, neo-nazi white supremacists and incels) is just as bad.
the reactions by CC companies (and, it seems, parts of both the US and canadian govts) is absolutely horrendous.
People need to stand up against this organized attempt to impose radical puritan censorship on porn, the internet and the world.

This is why, even though Dave has possession of the stuff, MPV doesn't post any of Chuck Lang's old work. People of a certain age still ask about it but don't understand the legalities involved. All the proof passed away with Chuck and there's just no way to fix that.

It's hard to label groups who are anti-porn. You have the far right and actually the far left. Heck there's to sides of feminists - one who believe woman can do anything they want with their bodies and the other side that believe all porn degrades woman.

One thing that will never stop is the battles. Look at this gem: https://thetexan.news/pornography-filter-at-center-of-broadband-expansion-debate-between-texas-house-senate/

One thing that's worth noting is that while the battles will continue, anti-porn groups have lost every major war. Playboy was sued and more famously, Hustler was sued. The gov't lost both cases. Porn is everywhere.

"Porn" itself is actually, and technically illegal is most states. The only reason most major porn companies reside in CA is because of a loophole in the law where the CA Supreme Court upheld that filming porn is legal there.

In other states, you kinda need to be a bit careful. There are very old obscenity laws on the books. I live in SC and this just happened: https://www.counton2.com/news/south-carolina-news/couple-charged-with-filming-sex-acts-for-porn-sites-around-myrtle-beach-area-arrested-again/ - they're nailing them on old SC obscenity laws.

This is why I'm suuuuuper careful when I film anything outdoors. I make sure there's no one else in frame (no bystanders)and that no one's watching.

But back to us winning the war. Porn is everywhere and it's been generally conceded that it's not going anywhere. You don't see any FBI raid on porn studios or even local raid (barring sex trafficking and underage.)

Now, don't get me wrong with this next statement, but since I don't film anything explicit - no sex, not even any nudity (just light fetish) I actually don't feel that any of the porn laws apply to me. Yes, I still get ID from the models. Yes, I still get consent forms signed. I'm not stupid and certainly don't want to be standing in court as the "light fetish" guinea pig.

Hey, let's end this with a question - who want to take a stab at the answer?

1) I meet a hooker, pay her $100, we hit a hotel, we have sex and she leaves.

2) I put an ad out for an adult model. That same hooker answers the ad, comes over to my place, I film us having sex and put it on clips4sale.

What's the difference?

I'm not suggesting in any way that YOU would mishandle our information. Or that you haven't been transparent. It's OTHERS gaining access to it that I find worrying. Banks, online stores etc have (we all hope) secure ways of storing our information. And, to add to that, I've never had to supply photo ID to a bank online or an online store! The only time I've ever supplied photo ID to anyone online is for a disability railcard!

But surely you understand that a website such as this is far more vulnerable to attack from potential hacking of information than a bank? Possible access by hackers, for example, of our photo IDs etc and identities could be devastating for this community. Someone hacking into the bank and getting hold of a name and address is unfortunate, but the money would be protected (what money there is in my account!). Hacking into a website that not only has pictures of our face, as well as name and address, and also the ability to link that info to what this website is all about could utterly destroy someone - depending on their job, family etc. So, I would want to know where these photo IDs going to be held where hackers can't get to them?

And this issue is, of course, also the same for other "porn" websites where this would also have to happen.

Again, I'm not mistrustful of you - but of others. I understand why you are taking the concerns of members as a slight on yourself, but you shouldn't, for these concerns are only sensible in the age we live in. There are very good reasons why we are constantly reminded to be wary of who and what we give our information to online - not because the person in question might misuse it, but because other people can get to it.

Thanks for this. Maybe. But I don't see anything there about photo ID. In fact, it would make much more sense for the release forms for the models to have photo ID rather than this website. Perhaps they already do, I'm not sure.

@wamtec. Here's a copy of a 2257 compliance statement from an unnamed tube site.

All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions.

All other visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

With respect to all visual depictions displayed on this website, whether of actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual content or otherwise, all persons in said visual depictions were at least 18 years of age when said visual depictions were created.

The owners and operators of this Website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 18 USC section 2257) of any of the visual content contained in the Website.

Pay attention to the bottom paragraph. There's the legal cop-out. So this site has just washed its hands of all responsibility for paperwork or photo ID.

Regards,

Andy and the team.

I don't keep any of this information on the web site. It is completely erased from any internet-facing computer.


That looks like an exemption statement and we have one too. That literally means that since we don't produce the content, we have to keep on-file the name and address of whoever does hold the records. That's so that in case some legal trouble ever pops off we know who to contact. That person is called the Custodian of Records.

The way it is right now and we hope it stays is that we don't need the records themselves, only the address of the custodian who keeps them on file. IMO it should be this way with the model photo ID's as well.

MM

Nothing. They are both illegal acts in every state. You can't pay someone to have sex with you whether you film it or not. That's not how the legal porn industry works. To make it legal, a producer has to pay two OTHER people to have sex and either film it themselves or pay an additional cameraman. Both performers have to be paid. Neither one can pay to participate.

Pros who are doing both the filming and the sexing do have a work-around though. A "production company" pays the participants, not a person. The company is typically an LLC or INC, which provides the necessary degree of separation.

Very major difference, in the first instance it's an entirely private consensual act between you both, with (assuminng all healthy and no medical complications) neither having any call or responsibility to each other afterwards.

In the second instance you're gaining her consent to share video footage of the sex act with a potentially unlimited global audience of strangers, so you need her consent to have sex, and her consent to have that sex filmed, and her consent to have that film released to the public with the profits from any sales (or ad revenue) going to yourself, and you need proof of all of these consents, plus proof that both you and the hooker are over 18. At the very least I'd expect her to charge substantially more before agreeing to all that.

Agree about the anti-porn groups covering the entire political spectrum, from right-wing religious fundamentalists to left-wing over-protectionists.

Edit: Also see Soundguy's post, it entirely depends on where it's done. Here in England it's perfectly legal to pay for sex, and as far as I know to film it too.

The other question I have is let's say I'm doing a pie shoot in a hotel. It's a non-nude pie shoot. If the police showed up, would they be able to arrest me and the model? (Probably wouldn't, it's hypothetical.)

Would they be able to call "porn" anything that's done with the intent to cause sexual arousal? This is something I've thought about often since I sometimes shoot in hotels. Every time I've pulled on a state's porn law (including mine, in SC) it's specifically focused on sex acts.

I'd hate to come across as arrogant or ignorant of the law, but I wouldn't think they'd have a case, even if they wanted to have one. I don't think they'd be able to get "lewd" or "obscene" to stick, not for a fully dressed model being pied.

Just another form of government control look around u same crap with this phony virus masks today stamped arms tommorrow im not giving any ids my ip address is enough done said finished!

Nobody's forcing you to do anything, but I can't let the disinformation slide. The virus is not phony and masks do help. This new photo ID thing isn't a government thing anyway (they already have your photo ID)... it's the CC companies changing their terms requiring site operators to check ID. Also I do not give anyone your IP address.

If you want to upload your dick pics to my servers and make me legally liable for hosting them to the world, I don't think it's too much to ask for your ID.

Messmaster

There's a much bigger picture. This: https://umd.net/vip

It has come to my attention that for the last 15 years you have been hoovering up all my pics and trailers and slapping them in your VIP area. To which you have given me ZERO commission. So, are you asking people for ID so you can keep selling their pictures and trailers? (Forced to make it legal?) Once this problem rose its head I started wondering how much producers are actually giving to this Pyramid. This is why my pics and videos have vanished. I am slowly also going through every thread I have ever put on here. You even state on your sales pitch there are 13 years of backdated photos available. I'll give an example. I noticed someone has shared some pics of StickyTara from her previous sessions. She has now retired. Are those now for sale? From yourself? Who owns the paperwork for that? I'll ask outright: If anyone loads a picture onto UMD.net are you Messmaster, Derek claiming the rights to those pictures before selling them?

I await your reply.

That's how VIP has worked for over 15 years. All forum pics go into the Pic Archive, and VIP members get to see the entire archive while non-members can only see the first 100 pages. The pics that are in the archive are still shown in the original forum posts and free for nonmembers if they want to go through all the posts and find pics; VIP members get the convenience of seeing them all in one place.

All webmasters like you have automatic access to the entire archive, even to see pics from forum posts that are now deleted. UMD also supplies webmasters with a link that filters the whole archive to only show pics that you've submitted so you can review what's happening with your own stuff. Here is your link: https://umd.net/picarchive/user_id/8416 It will show you all 11297 forum pics you've submitted since 2009 (thanks!). If you see anything that you'd like removed, just flag the pic or hit me up


UMD monetizes all content because we run advertising next to it. But the reason VIP needed to exist in the first place was because when I first launched the pic browser without restrictions, the traffic actually crashed the server. (There's just so much stuff there.) But you're right that we don't pay commission for non-store content. You also don't pay commission for the traffic we send to your dozen or more sites, but that's OK because in-and-out traffic is sorta this site's game. If you can think of a traffic sharing plan that's more fair, I'm all ears.


I've explained as best I could why I'm asking for the ID's. If you don't believe it and you're cynical about my motives then that means I need to do a better job at explaining I guess.


Everything that is for sale here can be found on the download stores. But if you're using "sale" here to emphasize UMD's monetizing the content by running ads next to it or charging for the convenience of viewing it all in one place, then that is accurate. There is no paperwork for that because the user agreeing to our Terms of Use plus Section 230 and due diligence were always enough to indemnify us from any issues. Pending the new regulations that may or may not be the case in the future insofar as the billers. At any rate, our own 2257 states specifically that we do not own the content.

This sucks for everyone especially since we don't know the actual rules yet. THANK YOU to all the producers who have already sent in their ID's! I apologize for the rude prompt that's showing up for everyone

Messmaster

MM, please remove 1182 threads. That should leave me with ten. Sorry, it ends like this, but that's the way it is. At no time I have signed an agreement, verbal, written or electronic to give you the rights to sell (or act as a seller) for anything belonging to my business including your VIP Store.

I'll speak to my staff then deal with the 10 recent threads. I need their permission (moral more than written) about you being able to put the pics into the VIP area and make money. (I own the rights, hold all the legal requirements and could be a hard ass with them, but not a the moment. There's enough pain in the world.)

Okay. Let me clear a fact up. There are going to be some who will ask why did I not go to DM? If I've got something to say. I'll say it in public or not at all. This is a professional disagreement between MM and I, not a mud-slinging match. (Shit, but there it is.) I want to make that clear. I run my business my way, him his. At the moment our worlds are not aligning. I will still join in on the forums etc. There will be threads in - some form - in the near future. Not sure what form?!? But I'll thash that out in a couple of days.


Regards,

Andy and the team.