You did not answer my question

I love seeing people trying to cash in on bullshit laws.

I was willing to shell out $300-$500. This is insane though. I'll wait for a better solution. please contact me Newbreed.

sherm id say look in to newbreeds solution, he was showing me it and its a simple concept but will be effective..

He contacted me. Looks more than capable of doing everything we need. :thumbsup

Have you checked out the my2257 site yet? It's nothing more than an info capture site at this point. The only semi-detailed info is in the Press Release being posted on various boards, which in the end is little else than a sales pitch.

From what I have been able to understand, the whole purpose of my2257 appears to me to be a shakedown of adult webmasters under the guise of public service. Frankly, it seems pretty self-serving to me (and apparently serveral others).

http://www.homestead.com/xbr98/files/shakedown.jpg

If you respond to this post, please be honorable enough to indicate what your angle is (did you pay for the service, or are you getting the service for free as a beta tester / promoter of the service)?

If you are serving as an unpaid apologist for a service which has no details on it's site, then please explain why? Is that how you normally conduct business?

Finally, as a "content producer" do you condone the releasing of model info to anyone who will pay a fee? That seems to me to be what my2257 is offering to do, as a "bonus", in exchange for buying into it's program.

ADG Webmaster

Where exactly are you from?

It is HARDLY a conflict of interest.

It would be a conflict of interest if the creator of the software was the attorney general.

This thread has gone from silly to pathetic.

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy THIS software. The makers of the software aren't telling you that to stay out of jail you have to buy THIS software. There is a need, this is an option. Buy it or don't, that is your right. It is also THEIR right to create it and charge whatever they want for it. If it is not worth what they ask, they won't sell very many. If there are better, cheaper options, they won't sell many.

The "conflict of interest" statement is really pretty ignorant.

keep it up guys

I know the creators of the software and have for years. That is where my affiliation with this product begins, and ends.

I am not apologizing for anyone. There are no apologies necessary. There is a need. They created software to fill the need. As business people, they charge a fee for their software. Whether you think it is exhorbitant or not, is really immaterial. You voice that opinion by either purchasing, or choosing not to purchase the software. It is really quite simple.

I've been around this business long enough to know that most in it are looking for a handout. Gimme Gimme Gimme is usually the order of the day.

I'll take 2 of them, the checks in the mail!

Can't We all just get along?

LOL

Must admit I´m amazed.
As I read the offer I´m buying a small script, that I could´ve done myself in a spreadsheet + an exceedingly overpriced machine...that even needs some "maintenance". Or am i reading wrong?

It´s a nice try and all, and a good trick if someone buys it....but hey - isnt it just a bit too thick?

2257 law has been around for a long time.

Most webmasters have NOT been motivated to seek out high power software to manage their 2257 requirements UNTIL the recent ammendments edged their way into the legal registry.

Some of the key points which are now driving the need for a recordkeeping application are the very ridiculous points that the FSC is hoping to address with its challenge to DOJ.

Specifically, the undue hardship the new recordkeeping requirements place on most adult webmasters including (but not limited to): maintaining ongoing model/talent histories with past, current, and updated stage/prof names, performances; keeping track of every URL an (originally) explicit image has ever been on (whether it is still available online or not); holding and distributing personal/ID information.

All of these requirements are wrong.

These requirements must be vigorously challenged and their legal authority REMOVED (as has been done with COPA and its issues).

Noone was out clammering for a 25th hour recordkeeping solution in 2002.

It's these new deliberately laborious details which are driving the need for an automated system.

According to the information presented here and the patent applications referred to, a patent was applied for (2002) naming a lawyer/attorney as the INVENTOR (First Named). This is not about a lawyer filing an application - the patent indicates that the lawyer is laying claim of ownership to the 'invention' and implies that the lawyer has a financial stake in the 'invention'.

You have suggested (in this thread) that the SAME lawyer is also working with FSC to knock down the new 2257 regs.

For its success, my2257 NEEDS the new regs to PROCEED into law and will benefit most if the new law is UNDEFEATED.

That's not to say that there is no place for a good recordkeeping system (or that my2257 is not a good application), but from the my2257 spin (press release, announcements), it's the impending 'ticking clock' which is creating the current sense of urgency. Otherwise, this application would have been available a long time ago and good value for dollar.

Th CONFLICT as I see it, is that (if what you say about who is representing FSC is true), the legal 'warrior(s)' we're counting on to knock down the new regs stand to gain financially (from their interests in my2257) if they fail in their FSC mandate.

How is this NOT a conflict of interest?

-Dino

shame someone else offered a neat 2257 dbase appilication for 30 bucks this mornin on gfy

Yes, we have been beta testing it and it is simply AMAZING. Way better than anything anyone else is putting out, period. Here are sample screen caps, they have been posted on here before.

Screen Caps of what the system does

If you want more info, fill out the form on the site like nearly 100 people have done. Once you get that info, I am quite sure that you will be impressed.

I'm curious. Is anyone besides me considering just using HTML on my local machine? It's the language we all understand already. You can "cross-reference" using hyperlinks.. Am I nuts??

Nobody was out clammering for a 25th hour solution in 2002 because it wasn't needed. Producers of content have always been subject to 2257 regulations, always. The new additions to those regulations add a whole new class of people that must be compliant. A class of people that for the most part do not have the first clue as to how to be compliant and have no idea even where to begin.

By definition, lawyers have a vested interest in the laws that are on the books. No laws, no lawyers. And who better to create a compliance solution than a lawyer who UNDERSTANDS the nuances of the regulations better than anyone?

This will be my last post on the subject. Again, it is what it is, and it's priced where it's priced. If you want it, buy it. If you don't, don't. Nobody is putting a gun to your head. I saw a Rolls parked at a dealership the other day with a sticker of $342,000. While I personally think that is a bit overpriced for a car, I also believe that the company has a right to price their product wherever they want. No different with this product.

I will close with this... I have known Greg Picionelli for many years. More than any other industry lawyer, Greg has always given his time to talk to anyone who wanted to talk to him and I don't recall seeing him invoice those people. To suggest that Greg would pull back in his work with the FSC to gain financially on the back end shows me one thing...you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to the people involved in this fight.

I wasn't saying that 'he' would 'pull back punches' or that 'he' isn't a tremendously valued resource with a great record - this is not about a specific person.

I was pointing out what I thought was obvious as a bona-fide 'conflict of interest'.

At this point, my issues are less with the software discussed here - I'm more concerned now about how this relates to the upcoming FSC efforts (and I'll close on this post for that reason).

Unlike many of us who apply their skills to a particular view, the skill of lawyering involves objectively arguing any point of view (on behalf of someone with a view) - but situations where two opposite points of view are POTENTIALLY of interest/benefit to the same lawyer are considered 'conflicts of interest' and, without assumption, assigning accusation or blame, the conventional (professional) approach is to avoid these situations.

Lawyers, judges, and professionals regularly step down and away from involvement if they have conflicting interests - there is NO assumption that they WOULD compromise their efforts, but it's part of the process which keeps that world legitimate. And, it's part of their professional guidleines.

It's not a personal indictment when they have to disqualify themselves - especially when they are involved in an industry with so relatively few 'top guns'.

I went through the ordeal of an audit many years ago and the lawyer I hired to help me through the situation had also worked as a prosecutor FOR the those performing the audit (in the past). But, there was clear separation and distance between those roles.

I don't mean to imply any badwill to a particular individual with my comments - I'm just pointing out that, to my thinking, the 'separation and distance' between interests in this case might not be large enough.

I'll close on that.

-Dino

Anyone who can shell out $3k or $10k to organize folders should be more than capable of coming up with something themselves.

I've been working on a similar product and understand that it costs money to build but these prices are just rediculous.

Here's a formula for determining conflict of interest:

Person A relies on person B for X to not become law.
Person A pays person B to achieve that X not become law.
Person B has an interest (of any kind, financial or otherwise) in X becoming law.

Its as simple as that.

In our case, person A is everyone who pays the FSC membership dues.
In our case, person B is every lawyer and everyone else working on the FSC payroll.
In our case, X is the 2257 regulations.

In order to avoid the conflict of interest, no person in class B (i.e. no lawyers or anyone working for FSC) should have a financial interest in the FSC failing to achieve the goal for which its members are paying.

All the rest of the verbiage on this topic is BS, BS, BS and more BS.

Cliff notes ?

Still don't understand why the ppl. can't hire some weak DB programmer (in case if they can't use such an easy thing like MS Access or Boeland Delphi) and create their own database what will keep & sort any kind of info by name, date etc. Let it be model docs, DVD/VHS archive, Books archive or anything else? I did such a database on MS Access about 10 years ago for my former boss. I've spent about a half of a day to finish it. The database was intended to keep some technology-specific book archive, BUT only a few clicks of mouse were able to turn that proggie into a DVD/VHS or even 2257 info keeping archive. I bet you'll find 1000's of ready-to-use FREE databases that were developed to keep some employee records (the name, the picture, id, home address, home phone, the age (date of birth), blood group etc). There is alot of such databases available in the Internet. Why don't you use them to keep and sort your 2257 info? I bet that most of these FREE databases could be easily used for such a simple task... And there is no patent need for such a personal info keeping software...

P.S. Sorry for the possible disillusioning guys...

LOL wtf...lay off the crack-pipe m8

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Still don't understand the reason to use such a database...

Shit! It's so fucking cheap.. please let me get one.









Nawh! Please cancel the order I don't like shit cheaper than 50,000/year :1orglaugh

Newbread - how do I contact you? I have some questions.

I sent you an auth on ICQ, you can also mail me at admin @ 2257ware . com

...and lawyers take, take, take, and the world goes round and round and round.

So, what happens if you stop paying the monthly fee to my2257? Can you still keep using their product without paying them? This is an important issue, because if not, you are right back where you started, just poorer.

Also, keep in mind that you must maintain your 2257 files for seven years after creation (even if you shut down your business you have to maintain records for five years after you close).

A $195 monthly fee times seven years (84 months) equals $16.380.

Caveat Emptor...

ADG Webmaster

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude hit me up when you have a sec.

346940591 - ICQ

yet another thread

this guy wanna be rich with the 2257 shit

Send me an e-mail...

webmaster (AT) asiandivagirls.com

ADG Webmaster

From 5 years of experience with enterprise level software solutions I know what software needs to do to sell for $18,000.
You'd be better off getting a freelancer to do it in VBA instead... that way you'd save $17,500 and end up with resell rights.

i'm soooooooo glad someone else is on the right track here. its really not that difficult to pay someone to scan all this shit in, create an internal "website" where all this info is linked in html pages. a big huge expensive, dedicated system? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh




..

LOL! windows server .. aaaaaaaaahahaha! you must be real pros....

Gl.

Like to see what the program does...you don't show or tell much on your link

We have entered over 900 models and 3,000 content sets into my2257 so far and the system is rock stable. Well worth every dime we spent on it!