TCG 2257 Solution? Is this legit or am i missing something ???

[will76]

First of all I am not trying to bash them, I am curious if this is a legal solution.

I've probably received (20) 2257 emails from various sponsors over the last couple days. While I don't promote any of these companies at the present time, I wasn't lieing when I said I have tried most of them out at some point in time.

Again, I am not bashing them, just curious if this will work or not.

---------------------------

On to our 2257 compliant system:
Traffic Cash Gold has enlisted the use of a 3rd party online database system to ensure compliance of our records. In respect of the privacy rights of models, Webmasters will only be granted access in the event of a 2257 investigation. In the event of a 2257 investigation please do the following:
1. Call 1-877.xxx.xxxx which is TCG legal counsel. This number should ONLY be used under the guidelines outlined above and will go into effect June 23, 2005
2. Provide your username and password to Traffic Cash Gold
3. Provide your payee information
4. Provide your email address
5. Provide your address

If all information is correct you will be transferred to a representative from our 3rd party monitoring system. The 3rd party will ask for the credentials of the 2257 investigator at your place of business, once that is satisfied, you will be granted access immediately to all 2257 records, such that the records will be made available for inspection, electronically, at your place of business, as allowed for by the regulations.
Once access has been granted you are able to query by these fields:
Real name
Stage_Name
URL

Traffic Cash Gold encourages webmaster to submit their URLS using our new submit form located on the 2257 compliance page in the Marketing Tools Section. We will add those URL's to our database. If you are investigated, you will be able to pull up all URL's you have entered into our system and access the full 2257 records.

------------------------

Ok so if i am reading this right, they hired a company to hold all of the 2257 docs. They are implying that it is ok to continue to use their nude content because if you get investigated they will electronically transfer the docs to you at that time.

They also said " After a careful and detailed review with our attorneys regarding the new 2257 regulations, Traffic Cash Gold will be taking the steps outlined below to ensure compliance of our Reality Sites and other websites, along with providing tools for our webmasters to utilize. "

So an attorney approved this method ? Does this make sense to anyone else here ? DO you think this is an option....

[Manowar]

I don't think they would have done it without consulting an attorney first, they are too big to just rush into solutions that might not hold up under investigation.

One of their staff would be able to give detail probably.

[basschick]

the law was pretty specific. you have to store the i.d. in your own place of business in your own function as custodian. it must be referenced by url and name - which you can't do if you don't know the models' names.

[Jace]

jesus....this is getting fucking crazy...no one knows what the fuck to do other than removing hardcore content...

seriously, this is going to take someone getting popped for everything to come to light and for everyone to know what will happen and how serious the government is....shit, i don't even know...the more I read from articles and sponsor statements, the more I want to pull hair out

[jact]

I thought 3rd party record storage was explicitly ruled out by the new regulations? Though to be honest, I haven't really studied that part of it, I'd rather records on hand, IMO.

[will76]

Originally Posted by Manowar

I don't think they would have done it without consulting an attorney first, they are too big to just rush into solutions that might not hold up under investigation.

One of their staff would be able to give detail probably.

Thats what i was thinking it's a big company so maybe they are onto something the rest of us are missing, or maybe they are missguided by their attorney and leading thousands of webmasters to the slaughter... I really don't know I am sure they pay a lot of their legal team. hmmm

[Kimmykim]

Originally Posted by jact

I thought 3rd party record storage was explicitly ruled out by the new regulations? Though to be honest, I haven't really studied that part of it, I'd rather records on hand, IMO.

TCG is a program name, not an actual company that sends out checks unless I'm mistaken. So if the company -- ie third party -- that actually owns the sites or cuts the checks is differently named than TCG -- then I'm sure that JB has taken the steps necessary to make sure there is consistency between the site ownership and the record keeping.

I'd also guess the simplest way to describe it is just like they did in the email.

[chadglni]

I'm so sick of all sponsors solutions to 2257. Ignorance, misinformation, and bullshit are flying everywhere. Shit on em.

[basschick]

just because a lawyer recommends something doesn't mean he's right. i talked to two lawyers who totally disagree with each other on some points, but sometimes i feel common sense has to be involved. the lawyer won't go to jail if he's wrong, after all - you will. and maybe it's legal for the sponsor to do this, but not for the affiliates.

the bottom line to me is the letter of the law. it says you must have the records at your place of business, period.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JaceXXX

jesus....this is getting fucking crazy...no one knows what the fuck to do other than removing hardcore content...

seriously, this is going to take someone getting popped for everything to come to light and for everyone to know what will happen and how serious the government is....shit, i don't even know...the more I read from articles and sponsor statements, the more I want to pull hair out

A lot of us feel exactly as you do

[Shoehorn!]

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

TCG is a program name, not an actual company that sends out checks unless I'm mistaken. So if the company -- ie third party -- that actually owns the sites or cuts the checks is differently named than TCG -- then I'm sure that JB has taken the steps necessary to make sure there is consistency between the site ownership and the record keeping.

I'd also guess the simplest way to describe it is just like they did in the email.

TCG checks come from Dellwood Holdings.

[Kimmykim]

Originally Posted by Shoehorn

TCG checks come from Dellwood Holdings.

So to speculate, if Dellwood Holdings was the "third party", then all the armchair lawyers would be wiping the egg off their faces lol ;)

[WiredGuy]

Originally Posted by basschick

the law was pretty specific. you have to store the i.d. in your own place of business in your own function as custodian. it must be referenced by url and name - which you can't do if you don't know the models' names.

Thats why I really like NastyDollars solution of providing an encrypted database, the law is pretty clear that the records need to be stored at the place of business, not a custodian of records. I'd feel a whole lot better getting a copy of the records, even if they're encrypted.

WG

[Jace]

Originally Posted by Mike33

A lot of us feel exactly as you do

it fucking sucks nuts

the contradicting information is worse than the law itself most of the time

[Kimmykim]

One interesting thing about this system is that TCG is willing to build your cross index for you if you enter your urls into the system? did I read that right?

[jact]

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

TCG is a program name, not an actual company that sends out checks unless I'm mistaken. So if the company -- ie third party -- that actually owns the sites or cuts the checks is differently named than TCG -- then I'm sure that JB has taken the steps necessary to make sure there is consistency between the site ownership and the record keeping.

I'd also guess the simplest way to describe it is just like they did in the email.

I was talking about the "secondary producers". This definitely does not qualify as them having the documents and meeting 2257?

[will76]

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

So to speculate, if Dellwood Holdings was the "third party", then all the armchair lawyers would be wiping the egg off their faces lol ;)

Who cares what the company name is and who is the actually company holding the docs. The POINT is that you are not the one holding the model docs. So do you think this is a solution to not having the model docs on site. I could give a shit if Jesus Christ was the 3rd party holding the docs. that's irrelivant.

[Hornydog4cooter]

Mainstream is lookin oh so good

[BT]

TCG is fine!!!

[will76]

Originally Posted by BT

TCG is fine!!!

Thanks, I am sure all of their affiliates feel better now.

[WiredGuy]

Originally Posted by BT

TCG is fine!!!

That's great BT, but its the webmasters who are a little uneasy right now... I'm sure you guys have your records in tip top shape, its the little guys who are a little worried...

WG

[jimmyf]

Originally Posted by will76

Thanks, I am sure all of their affiliates feel better now.

[BT]

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

That's great BT, but its the webmasters who are a little uneasy right now... I'm sure you guys have your records in tip top shape, its the little guys who are a little worried...

WG

Your right

[Jay]

...good questions, unfortunately I really do not know the answers myself. If you want to email me at jay1 at netmgt dot com I will do my best to get answers for you tomorrow when I am in the office.

[basschick]

the regs say we have to have everything cross-referenced in our place of business. how can we do that if we don't even know the models' names till the inspection?

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

Thats why I really like NastyDollars solution of providing an encrypted database, the law is pretty clear that the records need to be stored at the place of business, not a custodian of records. I'd feel a whole lot better getting a copy of the records, even if they're encrypted.

WG

[WiredGuy]

Originally Posted by basschick

the regs say we have to have everything cross-referenced in our place of business. how can we do that if we don't even know the models' names till the inspection?

NastyDollars' solution does provide such information at your place of business, except its encrypted. Its a similiar comparison to having the records stored in a safe and you need to call to get the key. At that point, once the credentials of an inspection are verified, the safe is unlocked and the inspector can go about. This solution of an encrypted database to me satisfies the 2257 for both webmasters and sponsors.

WG

[Paraskass]

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

Thats why I really like NastyDollars solution of providing an encrypted database, the law is pretty clear that the records need to be stored at the place of business, not a custodian of records. I'd feel a whole lot better getting a copy of the records, even if they're encrypted.

WG

i totally agree

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

Thats why I really like NastyDollars solution of providing an encrypted database, the law is pretty clear that the records need to be stored at the place of business, not a custodian of records. I'd feel a whole lot better getting a copy of the records, even if they're encrypted.

WG

Actually YOU are now the custodian of records.

What TCG doing is not correct and will get their affilaites in trouble because

A) 3rd party record storage is not allowed

B) The feds want thie shit NOW. They are not going to go for "Wait let me make a call to get the records". The DOJ expects you to have the records ON HAND when they arrive. And they aren't going to tell you in advance they are coming.

[Paraskass]

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

NastyDollars' solution does provide such information at your place of business, except its encrypted. Its a similiar comparison to having the records stored in a safe and you need to call to get the key. At that point, once the credentials of an inspection are verified, the safe is unlocked and the inspector can go about. This solution of an encrypted database to me satisfies the 2257 for both webmasters and sponsors.

WG

i love you
ND rocks

encrypting records was a fabulous idea

[WiredGuy]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Actually YOU are now the custodian of records.

What TCG doing is not correct and will get their affilaites in trouble because

A) 3rd party record storage is not allowed

B) The feds want thie shit NOW. They are not going to go for "Wait let me make a call to get the records". The DOJ expects you to have the records ON HAND when they arrive. And they aren't going to tell you in advance they are coming.

That's exactly what I said above. The webmaster needs to have the records, telling inspectors to see the custodian will no longer work. And the analogy I gave of the safe should suffice the DOJ inspectors. Telling them to wait 5 minutes while you get a "virtual key" should not be an issue. It's much better than telling them to go to a url to a remote location at the very least.

WG

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

Telling them to wait 5 minutes while you get a "virtual key" should not be an issue.

WG

Oh I think that's an issue too. The DOJ will say "Why don't YOU have the key? YOU are the custodian of records."

Say you promote 20 sponsors and all 20 had such a system. Is the DOJ willing to wait for you to call to get 20 keys? And what if you couldn't get anyone on the phone?

[WiredGuy]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Oh I think that's an issue too. The DOJ will say "Why don't YOU have the key? YOU are the custodian of records."

Say you promote 20 sponsors and all 20 had such a system. Is the DOJ willing to wait for you to call to get 20 keys? And what if you couldn't get anyone on the phone?

What if you have 30-40 people on staff, I can't imagine every employee would have access to the key. If I was a large company (like a sponsor for example), I'd have the actual records (paper versions) kept in an actual safe and have my attorney keep the key. That way when an audit happens, my attorney will be present. I think providing the actual database of encrypted records should suffice as possession of the records. While its not immediately viewable, it should be enough in my humble opinion. Whether this stands true in a court has not been determined, but its much better than the existing solution proposed by TCG in my opinion.

WG