»Rob Content«

or another reason

haha

either way it's obvious

__________________

Due

I admit I approved his sites for processing through our phone, sms and debit, I confirm he is not an active client hence I do not know if this affects his volumes or not.

Why ? If one is acceptable so is the other, they where both found on the internet.
Read my last post and tell me you don't agree. As a content provider I would have guessed this would be a high concern of yours.

__________________
I buy plugs
Skype: Due_Global
/Due

Profits of Doom

So we have "fmltube" Melisa, who everyone knows is a guy pretending to be a girl, and a hundred other spineless douche bag fake nicks jumping on Dirty D in that long ass thread, but when people that actually have a face speak out against the angry masses they are the one's to get shit on?

For the record I think Dirty D is 100% in the wrong and should pay Shoehorn his money. I also think that if what he did to whore monger (Cracker Jack) is true, then he really is a fucking scum bag. But holy shit, why do fake nicks like fmltube and all the other shit stirring, no traffic losers always seem to pop up in threads like that and post 100 times, when they have no dog in the fight and have never sent a sale to anyone? Seriously that shit is fucking weak, but I guess when you aren't busy building sites or traffic or sending anyone sales you have tons of time to post...

__________________
“My Free Cams Affiliate Program by CrakRevenue”

NetHorse

That sucks, I would drop and distance yourself from him.. A lot of people came out in that thread about the way that piece of shit does business and how he treats people. As for the illegal accusations; an article was posted, who knows the legitimacy of it, but it sounds terrible anyway you slice it.

It may have originally been between him and shoehorn, but he brought all this upon himself. If he had such horrible relationships and a questionable past one really has to question his judgment to let a public thread like that spiral out of control. He could have paid the money his affiliate earned and it would have never gotten to this point, and I don't think this is the end of it, in my opinion it will get a lot worse in that thread.

__________________
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐
ICQ # 427013273

harvey

well, I don't know if she's a woman or a man, couldn't care less. Couldn't care less about her/him having traffic or not. There's many people that doesn't have a lot of traffic (or even no traffic at all) and have legit businesses in this board. However, I've noticed that she's very opinionated and smart-ass on each and every subject you'd think of, and always with opinions like made to troll threads.

As I said, I didn't even waste any time to read more than 2-3 pages of that long ass thread so I didn't read what she posted either. And frankly, I couldn't care less.

The above being said, she just posted something that was posted before on at least 2 boards, probably more. So I'd choose to keep quiet on the subject, same as I told in this thread to Due and Jenni. And believe me, there were a lot of big webmasters backing up Shoehorn, not only trolls and bandwagoners. See, Marketsmart's quote is perfect, so I'll quote it again:

__________________
This post is endorsed by CIA, KGB, MI6, the Mafia, Illuminati, Kim Jong Il, Worldwide Ninjas Association, Klingon Empire and lolcats. Don't mess around with it, just accept it and embrace the truth

Due

I think you missed the point, my post is not against shoehorn, he did not post those accusations. I seriously doubt he thought things would go to this level when he first started the thread.

It's about people with no face, fake nicks posting serious accusations without evidence and nobody cares and no moderation is done.
Profits of Doom hit the nail spot on

__________________
I buy plugs
Skype: Due_Global
/Due

weekly

Have you ever said anything about this in the past? This ain't the first time its happened and prolly won't be the last. Kind of a conflict when you work for the guy.

Due

Just to clarify, I do not nor have I ever worked for him.

__________________
I buy plugs
Skype: Due_Global
/Due

weekly

Have you ever been paid by him?

Due

Nope....
Edit: That may be untrue, I was an affiliate of multiple programs back in the 90s, HIGR was one of them.
I cannot remember if I ever cashed in any checks from him...
In recent years, the answer is no

__________________
I buy plugs
Skype: Due_Global
/Due

weekly

Fair enough. If you have never received money from Dirty, then your opinion is more credible.

Shoehorn!

Really? Because I've been trying to "handle things" with him for 2 weeks before I started that thread. If he really wanted to make things right he would have paid me when I was first owed money over the summer. Or after I emailed him the first time. Or after I started that thread.

__________________

Shoehorn!

He and Jenni are engaged to be married. He is very biased on the issue.

__________________

harvey

I was talking to Profits of Doom, hence why I quoted him

__________________
This post is endorsed by CIA, KGB, MI6, the Mafia, Illuminati, Kim Jong Il, Worldwide Ninjas Association, Klingon Empire and lolcats. Don't mess around with it, just accept it and embrace the truth

fmltube

The only boat you were put in was defending someone with such accusations out there against them. Your character is judged by the company you keep. At no point did ANYONE imply you shoot underaged models. You inferred that to strengthen your point of the OP. It's no different than someone who continually hangs around someone who constantly finds trouble. It gives an appearance that can be misunderstood by others. Again, your diligent defense of him makes one question your real motives. Would you have started this thread if this was about someone who was not your bro?

Due

Apparently you missed the part in the long thread where I stated I would probably have paid you.
Your current dispute with D is not what this thread is about and my relationship with Jenni have no impact on that neither

__________________
I buy plugs
Skype: Due_Global
/Due

The Sultan Of Smut

Due

You wonder of my motives in requesting evidence ?
You turn around my request for evidence around to be a defense.
Yes I would have started this thread if it was not my "bro" and have done similar things in the past, I used to spend substantial time moderating another board back in the days.

__________________
I buy plugs
Skype: Due_Global
/Due

kronic

I haven't followed the DD drama, and don't know of the underage model in question, but you'd think with all the great minds in this thread that SOMEONE other than myself would have heard the name Traci Lords...and the story of how SHE was able to get a GOVERNMENT ID because of how determined she was to do porn. To the best of MY knowledge, all the producer's of Traci Lords' films did was remove the films from public distribution...the same as DD apparently did.

fmltube

What evidence do you need? Kelsie's birthday is April 6, 1990. The production was filmed end of summer 2007 and placed into rotation December 2007. It remained on his site until last December 2008 when the story broke which Dirty D removed immediately and then claimed to be the victim in all of this. You claim that you cannot trust industry sources such as Gene Ross yet we are supposed to believe Dirty D's story on the very site the story was broke on. You can check the Internet archives and see exactly when her content appeared on Dirty D's site. He thought by deleting her from the site that all traces were gone but he forgot about the "Way Back Machine."

This isn't a matter of trying to bring an industry down, just a scumbag to justice. There are a ton of people in adult who do the right thing everyday and follow the law. The law states you cannot under any circumstances use a model under the age of 18, married or not. Dirty D has been accused of this and instead of coming out in the beginning and coming clean, he deflected it and transferred blame on the girl.

Now, IF and that's a BIG IF, what Dirty D claims is actually true and she purposely and knowingly used a fake ID and Dirty D has NO KNOWLEDGE of such ID, it is still his responsibility being in an adult business where one fuck up can not only cost you your business but also your freedom and the freedom of those marketing for you to make sure everything meets the requirements.

But looking at the way he response was worded, he was trying to absolve himself from any wrong doing while shifting the burden of proof on that girl. Furthermore, IF Kelsie was actually lying about this entire ordeal, where is the defamation lawsuit against her from Dirty D? Surely if she is the predator in this situation and has caused such harm to his character and business, he would want justice for himself would he not? He knows that any such action would open a jury to all of his shady practices that have since came out as well as the events leading up and including the production of Kelsey when she was 17 years old. If they can convict Max on distributing content that he did not send himself in Tampa, what chance do you think Dirty D stands in the same Tampa court room?

Dirty D can always post a copy of the ID that Kelsie used with redacted information and let those who question whether he acted in good faith to make the determination if the picture ID looks anything similar to the girl he shot. I bet there is a reason why this has not occurred.

fmltube

Great point.....however, if what Kelsie claims is true, Dirty D and his buddy "Eric from 350" were allegedly in on the ID thing because Kelsie claims D told her to write down the same information on the ID she was told to bring with her. Now she could be lying but so could D. The problem is look at the amount of shit that has come up about him and it adds to quite a lot less than a young mother trying to feed her kid. But do not forget, the reason we have USC 2257 is because of Traci's behavior.

Robbie

I wasn't aware of that. Shot all through the 1990's and never heard of 2257. I believe Traci Lords was a lot further back than that. Content producers have always kept model releases and id's on file. Don't know where you're getting "2257" from. That's a bullshit law that was enacted a few years ago to save the "children" (small children) from pedophiles...or at least that's the bullshit excuse the govt. gave. In reality no pedophiles have ever kept any records anyway and are unaffected by 2257 laws. Only honest people are put through the govt. torture rack. Anyway, Traci Lords did not cause the 2257 laws. There were already laws in place that prevented people from shooting porn with girls under the age of 18. Also keep in mind that just has to do with using a camera. You can legally have sex with girls from 15 to 18 years old depending upon the state you are in and their age of consent laws.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Robbie

Yeah, I was right. Traci Lords films were in the early 1980s. Shit hit the fan with the govt. in 1986. All her films were pulled. Had nothing to do with 2257

Amazing how much mis-information is spewed on this board.

Looks like the new 2257 laws were cranked up in 2004. Though I'm not an attorney. If they existed prior to that it wasn't in any form that has caused so much consternation for everyone.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

theking

Not true.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

BSleazy

Fuckin retards goin back and forth about 17-18. any of u would bang a 14 year old for a g if it was legal...

__________________
icq 156131086

fmltube

Robbie, you do realize that USC 2257 has been around since the 80s right? The reason for this was Traci Lords.

The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100?690, title VII, subtitle N (§7501 et seq.), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4485, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq.) is a United States Act of Congress, and part of the United States Code, which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws (colloquially known as 2257 Regulations (C.F.R. Part 75), part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.

While the statute seemingly excluded from these record-keeping requirements anyone who is involved in activity that "does not involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for, the participation of the performers depicted," the Department of Justice (DOJ) defined an entirely new class of producers known as "secondary producers." According to the DOJ, a secondary producer is anyone who "publishes, reproduces, or reissues" explicit material.

On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech.[1] However the US DoJ, under control by US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, has asked for, and was granted, an en banc review of the initial decision of the 6th Circuit Court in order to see if the initial decision should be overturned.[2] The Sixth Circuit subsequently reheard the case en banc and issued an opinion on February 20, 2009, upholding the constitutionality of the record-keeping requirements, albeit with some dissents.[3]

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the legality of 2257 and its enforcement by refusing to hear the April 2009 challenge to "Connection Distributing Co. et al. v. Holder", upholding the Sixth Circuit's decision (as listed in its "Orders" decision from Monday, October 5, 2009)

fmltube

Its not the issue of "banging" a 17 year old. Its the issue of filming a 17 year old having sex which is AGAINST THE LAW.

kronic

Actually, 2257 IS a direct result of Traci Lords. The origins of 2257 go back as far as 1988.

My point in the matter however is that a model that is determined enough, can attain the appropriate documents, and there is NOTHING that any producer can do OTHER than check those very ID's...especially when it's a GOVERNMENT ID.

And a model most certainly isn't above lying that she IS over the age of 18, OR, if the purpose suits her, saying she WAS underage when she in fact WASN'T (anyone know the name Risi Simms?).

kronic

Yes, it IS amazing.

fmltube

Enjoy the foot.

BSleazy

This thread is ridiculous. Anyways, if you're 17 I'll bang you every which way possible. Hit me up babe

I'll tape it too...

__________________
icq 156131086

fmltube

You raise an excellent point. Allow me to ask. In a business that is constantly under fire from all sides, do you not think it is prudent to go above and beyond to cover your own ass when you know one slip up could take away your freedom?

Your example would be sufficient IF Kelsie had a government issue ID that beared her picture with someone else's information. That would have meant that the government had been duped in issuance and could not reasonably expect someone with less experience to be able to detect the ID as false. However, in this case specifically, Dirty D has alluded to Kelsie using an ID of a friend and unless they are identical twins, would be very difficult to pass off as belonging to Kelsie. Perhaps D dropped the ball or whoever verifies model information and it could have been a mere over sight. Nonetheless, over sight is no excuse when the penalties are so harsh.

It has been stated here many times before that shit occurs every day that could potentially bring down the adult industry but shit like this is allowed to pass by without any outrage.

Consider all the backlash Rob Black and Max received for their extreme content. Many in the industry are now exposed to greater scrutiny because they continued to push the limits. Things like this could make it harder for those that love this business to continue in it.

The fact that the content remained for a year, marketed by affiliates, paid for and downloaded by customers makes them just as culpable as him in this mess. How fair is that? Do affiliates not have the right to be assured that the content they are marketing meets current laws and does not potentially puts them in harms way? Doesn't the customer who purchases in good faith have the right to be assured that the content they bought can not potentially land them in jail for simply viewing and purchasing?

Isn't it possible that the reason he doesn't come clean (hypothetically) and admit over sight or lack of effort to verify true identity prior to production is because that in itself is admittance that affiliates and customers cannot trust the content he supplies because of the incident? If Dirty D came out and said that all of this is true, do you think any affiliate in his right mind would still promote him, risking their freedom for promotion of underage material? It would be business suicide.

fmltube

Wow. Dude, you do realize this is an open forum viewed by many different types of people, including law enforcement correct?

Les Grossman

The proof is the MODEL HERSELF said she was 17 at the time of shooting.

theking

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

fmltube

I was referring to his stupid and illogical comment of "Ill tape it too".

fmltube

Anyone else find South Dakota disturbing that 10 year olds can sex with someone not older than 13? What the fuck?

theking

West Virginia...less than 11 and 4 years age difference...thus a 13 year old could have sex with a nine year old.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

sicone

What... how did I miss this news?

__________________

kronic

As far as culpability goes, if a model can produce a GOVERNMENT ID, that should be good enough. If it came down to it in a court of law, what jury is going to convict ANYONE of producing underage content of BEHALF of the government when the model in question fooled the government themselves and produced GOVERNMENT ID? How many convictions were there of Traci Lords produced videos even though it was proven that she was underage? I'm not aware of any, but I could be wrong.

As I said regarding Dirty D, I didn't follow it, but I don't ever assume that just because a model is proven to be underage, that the producer is 100% at fault. In this case, they may be. I don't know. However, if you bring in a contract photographer who makes their money directly from shooting a model FOR a site owner, my experience tells me that the chain of command, or who's word do I trust would be something like...site owner > photographer > and/or = model. From what I can tell in THIS thread, you're taking the models word as gospel over the site owners mainly because of HIS shady past. That's your prerogative. I tend not to base my decision of a person on another situation from that person's past.

Rob Black? lol. I was a very outspoken opponent of Rob Black on some old Ynot show's a few years ago, and to this day, maintain that that is one of only TWO debates that I lost. My belief TODAY is that Rob Black has EVERY right to produce any material that is protected by free speech. Rape? Uh, no. SIMULATED rape? Why the fuck not? Hollywood does it. What's the difference between Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley? The difference between Hollywood and The Valley is penetration. Nothing more, nothing less. What's worse to you...simulated rape WITH penetration of a CONSENTING adult or the simulated rape of a CHILD withOUT penetration? I don't know what's worse, but I sure have an opinion as to what's more disturbing, and it isn't the one with penetration.

If a woman, or for that matter a man, agrees of their own free will to be filmed doing something that you or I might find disgusting, WHO are you or I to say that it's wrong? The day we allow that to happen is the day the government can step in and say, no more gay, no more groups, no more interracial, etc. etc. etc. The government doesn't have that right, nor do you or I to choose what is acceptable for others to view. You and I and everyone else in this industry should thank Rob Black AND Max Hardcore for the fight they're fighting or fought on our behalf. If they'd rolled over, the government would be more inclined to push even harder and THEN the industry would be in REAL trouble.

But I digress.

Finally, you mention affiliates. Affiliates would be just as culpable, but also just as much a victim of a lying model with a fake ID. No court in the land is going to convict someone of using advertising material provided by a company that THEY thought were legal, and could go to court with substantiating ID's to further prove their case, regardless of whether or not they're fake. The lawyer of any affiliate could subpoena those ID's and their client would get off (The disclaimer here is that I live in Canada where we live free). ALSO, any affiliate that wants to make 100% sure (as we see, that's NOT possible), can refuse to promote a sponsor if that sponsor isn't willing to provide them with the model's ID...which is exactly what the new version of 2257 wanted to do to them as "secondary producers". In fact, the affiliates lawyer would PROBABLY advise them beforehand NOT to use affiliate content for which they don't have ID's. So, who's fault does that make it? In reality, the affiliates themselves. But what affiliate is going to demand that right? Well guess what...the industry standard of too cheap to pay for content with ID's and too lazy and/or cheap to pay for lawyer advice doesn't automatically make it the sole responsibility of the program owner. To put your blind faith in someone you don't know that could potentially result in the loss of your freedom might be the most stupid thing someone could do. While I don't believe ANY affiliate would ever be convicted in these circumstances, when it comes right down to it, if they were, they would have noone to blame but themselves...NOONE. (to quote yourself...do you not think it is prudent to go above and beyond to cover your own ass when you know one slip up could take away your freedom).

The irony isn't lost on me that one of the arguments primary producers used to fight 2257 was the protection of those very models btw.

ganjaman

So fucking banned

kronic

lol, you consider that proof? Look up Risi Simms and get back to me.

I can't imagine ANY model might have regrets about posing naked on camera. Then, knowing how serious it would be for someone to shoot underage content, perhaps uh, LIE to force the producer to remove her content.

fmltube

kronic, you make excellent points. But from my understanding, the ID the model used was one of her friends that was not issued to her (Kelsie's) with her picture on the ID, hence Kelsie did not present a government issued ID bearing her image or likeness. This is why I think D is culpable. A fake ID issued by the government for Kelsie would lesson if not eliminate the culpability for D. But that's not what has occurred here apparently.

While those guys can be commended for fighting for the rights of all, both brought much criticism and attention that may or may not have came at a later time. The only thing they were successful at was speeding up the time frame that those issues were addressed in a court of law. If not for the extreme stuff, no one has any way of knowing if the backlash would have grown to this proportion. We can assume it would have but we cannot factually state it would have occurred.

WRT to the revised 2257, would current regs still have applied when her content was on his site in December 2007? I ask because secondary producers requirements went into effect this year and that affiliate does not appear to have been under the same requirement in 2007.

kronic

It's Monday night, 5am and I'm 6 beers in so I'm gonna make this short.

As I've said, re-DD, I don't know his situation. Other than to say that I wouldn't take any ONE person's word for it, be it the model, photographer OR program owner.

Re-Rob Black. What content do you produce or promote? I guarantee there's someone out there somewhere that finds it reprehensible and if they had THEIR way, you wouldn't be allowed to produce or promote it. Yeah, someone out there has a problem with blowjobs and if they had THEIR way, they'd be illegal. Also, Rob Black wasn't persecuted as much for his extreme content as much as he was for his defiance and daring of the government to come after him. Regardless, I stand by what I said...you and I and everyone else in this industry should be thankful.

The latest 2257? I haven't paid much attention tbh because I either pay for content with ID's or trust the sponsors that I promote (edit-and I live in Canada). I also KNOW for a FACT that if I went to court, I could get those model releases in a heartbeat. But I'll look into it more in the next couple of days when I have time, just for my own knowledge.

pocketkangaroo

The issue wasn't them being tricked, it was that the girl insinuated they knew she was underage and told her to bring a friend's ID. Much different than Traci Lords.

Iron Fist

I like how it's an "Age of Consent" table... but they refer to the other person as a "victim".

__________________
i like waffles

seeandsee

i missed the shit

__________________
BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year

Contact here

kronic

If you're taking the models word as gospel, then sure.

If you DON'T take the models word for it, then she quite possibly falsified ID which makes it exactly the same as Traci Lords.

Who's telling the truth? The model? Possibly. Possibly not. The photographer? DirtyD? Again, possibly, possibly not.

The only question I'd have on this subject is, if this model was indeed "victimized" as she suggests she was, was anyone charged with anything? Surely this would be an open and shut case against them.

There's always at least two sides to every story...

http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=31681

"We have made the copies available to local law enforcement in case there has been an identity theft and will be happy to cooperate with any state or federal officials as well."

Agent 488

ah shut uo 40 year old fat loser kid.

kronic

A similar search turned up this...

http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=31667

Did Kelsie Cummings Falsify Her Age?

--reader speak

From Dark Eyes Productions: Gene, It seems everyone is assuming Dirty D knew what was going on and that Kelsie was the victim here. I have forwarded an email conversation I had with her in March 14th, 2008. She was already seeking work prior to her turning legal age and knew she had to be 18 in order to shoot any type of content.

I would have to conclude that if she was seeking information regarding jobs and prices prior to her 18th birthday, she knew exactly what she was doing when she misrepresented herself and falsified her age to DIrty D.

Cummings wrote the following: I will do bj scenes for 300 but whats the pay for b/g intercourse scenes? I attached pics. I'm available after april 6th which is when i turn 18. the pics are from dec. i have gotten darker & a bit smaller since then,