Tuesday, October 31st, 2000
Luke F-rd Live
I did my first show with James DiGiorgio as my cohost and Jesus as my copilot. Guests included Meni (from PornNewsDaily.com) first off, then Jim Gunn, Quasarman from Quasarmanrants.com (34 mins in) and Brad Shaw. Let me know what you think. Email Luke I think this show is better suited to the general interests of my readers than the more internet centered previous shows with Lee Noga. Webmaster topics do dominate the second hour of tonight's show.
Greg Geelan writes on YNOTmasters.com about the Mike Jones and the RJBT busts: I think the most important thing to take out of these two events is to realize that the proverbial s--- has finally hit the fan - and the new president hasn't even been sworn in yet! While the two events are completely unrelated, the writing is on the wall - government, whether big or small, is finally starting to investigate us and to MOVE on those investigations. That means that if you don't have your s--- together, you better do it damn fast. For the small minority of you who are engaging in illicit practices - get out of child porn, bestiality, celebrity content, spamming, credit card and dialer fraud, and misrepresenting what's on your websites NOW.
RJB Telcom, Other Porners Busted By FTC
The Federal Trade Commission has filed charges against leading internet porners such as RJB Telcom and other alleged net scam artists.
The bust of RJB Telcom is a "total nightmare" to the porn internet industry.
Luke F-rd says: "The FTC has asked that RJB Telecom be put in receivership. You can't fight the FTC. All RJB can do is sign an agreement with the FTC to not sin again, and then pay a huge fine.
"As for the GIA [an internet porn trade group of the biggest players], this sinks the GIA. RJB was a key player in the GIA, a key funder. This news devastates the porn net industry. All the major net porn players do major business with RJB.
"This news comes as a shock to porners. RJB is generally regarded as having the highest ethical standards. He's gone from nobody in the industry four years ago to the top of the pile, without making enemies. RJB is popular and respected by his peers. What probably happened is that RJB did not keep technical inhouse control of customer complaints, thus allowing chargebacks to spiral out of control."
RJB means the business owned by the brothers Richard and Robert Botto. They operate Karas Adult Playground, one of the two biggest adult sites on the web, and MaxCash which pays about $4 million a month to webmasters for traffic.
On Thursday, October 26, the FTC won a temporary restraining order against RJB, with asset freeze and receiver obtained.
A rival of RJB tells Luke Tuesday morning: "This really pisses me off. It totally messes things up."
RB (Rich Botto) posts on Netpond Tuesday evening: "Firstly let me say that I appreciate the support and it has been duly noted...May I also add that the silence from certain cirlces has been deafening. RJB operations ARE continuing. We will continue to keep you aprised of all developments. Calm, people, calm..."
Luke talked weeks ago with a competitor of RJB who said there was no way he was going to offer dialers [charging people for access to porn net sites through telephone billing] because it would bring an FTC crackdown. Which is exactly what has happened here.
XXX: "This RJB crackdown is not just about dialers. It's also about credit card fraud. RJB has major problems and I don't know what the industry is going to do. I thought RJB was a 100% straight arrow. Completely ethical. The FTC doesn't shoot empty bullets. Like the FBI and CIA. They come in when they've already got the case. When they ask you questions, they already have the answers. They just want to see if they can add perjury as a charge.
"This has been an extensive investigation of RJB. The complaint says it dates back to 1999."
Billing issues are huge for net porn and phone sex. And whenever a method has started doing huge volume, the FTC has cracked down on fraud, both purported and real.
From the FTC Complaint:
Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") brings this action to halt a multi-million dollar scam involving unauthorized credit and debit card billings, as well as telephone billings. The FTC seeks a temporary restraining order ("TRO") with an asset freeze, and appointment of a Receiver in order to halt unfair and deceptive acts and practices...
Defendants RJB Telcom, Inc., Robert J. Botto, Jr., and Richard D. Botto - operate a company in Scottsdale which offers adult entertainment on the Internet through a series of web sites. Acting without consumers' authorization or knowledge, defendants post charges for their services to credit and debit cards and phone bills. During the current year alone, as indicated in the attached declarations from financial institutions, credit card networks, and from information supplied to the FTC by AT&T, there have been more than 200,000 charge-backs, credits and telephone bill refunds involving defedants' business practices. Moreoever, as this complaint is filed, defendants' fraudulent practices continue unabated.
Defendants' revenues from their business are huge: between June 1999 and May 2000, two merchant accounts utilized by defendants received a total of at least $48 million in deposits.
(...[T]hese numbers are based on information supplied to Visa nad MasterCard by Benchmark Bank, which maintained an account on behalf of defendants from May - August 1999 and by Am Trade International Bank, which has maintained an account for defendants from August 1999 through the present... In fact, defendants have at least two other operative merchant bank accounts - both in overseas banks and both established in recent months. Thus, the $48 million figure clearly understates defendants' gross revenues.)
By May 2000, defendant's monthly reveues exceeded $6 million. Although a portion of defendants' business may be legitimate, it is abundantly clear from the exhibits submitted in support of this motion that the overall business of defendants is permeated by fraud and that the fraudulent and legitimate portions of the business cannot be meaningfully distinguished. It is also clear that defendants have earned and continue to earn millions of dollars from their illicit activities, and that these activities are increasing. Finally, defendants' recent establishment of merchant accounts at two overseas banks underscore the danger of asset dissipation through extraterritorial transfers of funds.
Given the defendants' egregious conduct, the broad relief sought in the FTC's proposed TRO is clearly warranted. Without it, defendants will continue to defraud numerous consumers on a daily basis, and dissipate assets which could be used as redress for the countless consumers they have already defrauded. In addition, plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, including appointment of a permanent receiver, should in all respects be granted.
Under community property laws of Arizona, a party seeking to proceed against the assets of a marital community must sue both spouses jointly in order to afford due process. Therefore, Suzette Botto [wife of Robert] and Anne Botto [wife of Richard], spouses of the individual defendants, are being named as relief defendants.
Defendants' Business Operation
1. Beginning on December 19, 1997, and continuing as recently as September 6 of this year, RJB has registered 82 different Internet web sites with Network Solutions - each with a separate, sexually explicit descriptor advertising the type of adult entertainment it offers (e.g., "Asianpleasures.com" "Clubcock.com" "AbsolutelyMale.com" "Wetlesbians.com" "Majormelons.com")...
The web sites all have a common modus operandi: through a series of sexually explicit pictures and statements, they attempt to persuade viewers to purchase a trial membership (typically $2.95) using either their credit card or a check, or, if that fails, by accepting a telephone billing option which provides for a significantly more costly connection to defendants' web sites.
On the majority of defendants' web sites, the credit or debit card/check payment option is offered first. In their "Terms and Conditions," defendants state that their memberships are automatically renewed at "the standard one month rate" unless cancelled "within 1 day to expiration." Unless viewers separately click on the "terms and conditions" option at the time they sign up, they will be unaware of this. Moreover, as indicated in the materials from defendants' "Major Melons" web site, defendants do not indicate the amount of their "standard one month rate."
Viewers who decline the credit or debit card/check payment option and elect to close the web site are unable to do so; they are instead "mouse trapped" within defendants web site and hyperlinked to a new web page which promotes a phone payment option with the inducement: "NO CREDIT CARD NEEDED!...PAY BY PHONE!" The web page indicates that "PAYING BY PHONE is as easy as 1,2,3." This payment option is far more costly than the credit/debit option and is billed at a rate of up to $7:34 per minute. Consumers who were billed, accumulated charges as high as $1938.
The "pay by phone" billing option installs a dialer on the viewer's computer which disconnects his modem from his usual Internset service provider and reconnects the computer's modem to the Internet, via an international call, opening to the advertised pornographic site. Prior to choosing the "pay by phone" option, viewers must indicate that they have read a disclaimer which, among other things, states that the viewer must be eighteen years of age or older, and indicates that billing for RJB's services will be in the form of an international call billed to the line subscriber. If the viewer chooses the "pay by phone" option, an icon appears on his computer's desktop screen to simplify future use of the web site through telephonic billing. Viewers refusing the "pay by phone" are nonetheless hyperlinked to several more pages containing explicit sexual imagery and more invitations to join before they are able to close down the web site.
Defendants' "pay by phone" option provides no mechanism or process to assure that the person making the purchase is the line subscriber. As a result, line subscribers get billed for charges made from their telephone line even if they did not make or authorize the calls. Advertising materials from defendants' billing company, Global Internet Billing, indicates that the "pay by phone" billing option is targeted at teenagers and other unauthorized minors who do not have credit cards. On its web site, Global Internet Billing describes the phone option as a way to solicit "kids and freespending teenagers" since they do not have credit cards.
Defendants web sites purportedly offer a cancellation option for previous viewers who are seeking to terminate their memberships. In fact, however, as indicated in the Vera declaration, exercise of this option is difficult and time consuming. Moreover, there is evidence that the cancellation option is ineffective, because defendants billed viewers who canceled their memberships immediately.
2. Defendants' Billing Practices and Revenues
As indicated in the accompanying exhibits from financial institutions, Visa, MasterCard, and complaining consumers, defendants have been billing consumers' charge and debit cards using two descriptors - "DBL*RJBTE" and "RJBTELCOM WWW.FSX2.COM"...
...Although AT&T ceased handling calls to defendants' Madagascar number on July 23 of this year, defendants have continued to use the number, apparently by substituting other carriers and intermediaries for AT&T. In fact, one such intermediary, Verity International Ltd, is now the subjec tof an ex parte TRO, as a result of deceptive billing practices which caused more than 540 consumer complaints to the FTC in a five day period.
C. Defendants Billing Scam
1. From at least June 1999 (the month after defendants Benchmark Bank account was established) to the present, there has been an outpouring of consumer complaints regarding RJB's credit and debit card billings. As indicated in the declarations supporting plaintiff's present motions, virtually all of the complaints involve a common theme - that defendants are engaging in unauthorized billing. In fact, the vast majority of the declarations indicate that consumers did not know who defendants were or what services they were offering until they inquired about the charges on their credit and debit card statements. The declarations also made it clear that there is no conceivable way the consumers could have authorized defendants' charges. For intance, one consumer - a mother of four girls eleven years and younger - had no computer in her house when the charges were purportedly authorized. Another consumer was overseas on vacation when the charges were placed. The credit card on which the charges appeared arrived during this time and had not been activated. Another consumer had cut up the credit card on which the charges were placed several months before the charges were purportedly authorized. Yet another consumer had not used the credit card with the charges in two years and kept it locked in her home. Still another consumer was an 88 year old woman with vision impairment. Another consumer who had no knowledge of what RJB was until she received her credit card statement, testified about subsequently seeing more than 100 complaint messages regarding RJB's unauthorized billings from consumers at a shopping coupon web site which she used.
The credit and debit card statement containing defendants' charges set forth a phone number for customer complaints. However, as indicated in the declaration of FTC investigator, Martha Vera, this connects consumers to a separate entity, incorporated in California, which identifies itself as "Jettis.com." Thus, consumers are not able to identify the merchant who actually placed the charges. Moreoever, even after complaining to RJB's customer service number and receiving assurances that the charges would stop, some customers continued to be charged in subsequent months.
The customer declarations just described are not isolated occurrences; rather, they are evidence of a broader pattern - one that indicates a business permeated by fraud. This is apparent from the declarations of Visa, MasterCard, and American Express ("AMEX") representatives, all of which describe disciplinary actions taken against RJB as a result of excessive chargeback patterns involving credit and debit cards. It is also apparent from the declarations of representatives of two banks - Chase Credit Card Services ("Chase") and Capital One - each of which describes their institution's extensive, recent complaint activity involving RJB charges.
The Visa declaration indicates that, as a result of RJB's excessive chargebacks, it has taken the extraordinary step of notifying AmTrade - the United States bank at which RJB currently maintains a merchant account - that it intends to disquality RJB from the U.S. region. This step - decided at a July 26 Visa meeting and announced in a letter to AmTrade dated August 9, 2000 - followed a six month period during which RJB's average monthly chargeback rate exceeded Visa's chargeback monitoring guidelines. Because of its chargeback problems, RJB has been monitored in Visa programs for high risk merchants - first, in Visa's Merchant Chargeback Monitoring Program ("MCMP") and subsequently, from April 2000 on, in Visa High Risk Merchant Monitoring Program.
As indicated in the Visa declaration, the MCMP applies to only a statistically infinitesimal number of Visa merchants. In a typical month only 70-80 merchants out of the 3-4 million in the Visa system, are placed in MCMP; of this group an even smaller number - a mere 4 to 8 per month - enter "active monitoring." Defendants' horrendous chargeback numbers placed them in this latter group. Even more tellingly, from a global perspective, in four of the first eight months of this year (March, April, May, and August), RJB generated more chargebacks and penalties from their merchant bank than any other merchant in Visa's global risk management program. Incredibly, even after AmTrade was notified of the impending Visa disqualification, RJB continued to violate Visa's chargeback guidelines. Indeed, its August chargeback and chargeback/credit rates - 4.4% and 14.76% respectively - were its highest this year. Put another way, in terms of individual sales, there were a total of 181, 218 Visa-related chargebacks and credits involving RJB for the first nine months of this year. Of this total, 44, 491, or 24.6% of the nine-month total, were in the months of August and September.
The Visa declaration also underscores the difficulty of curing RJB's fraud without judicial intervention. During June 2000, RJB established a merchant relationship with Aval Card, an offshore bank located in Costa Rica; in August, RJB established a second merchant account with Banco Uno, a Panamanian bank. These actions placed RJB beyond the jurisdiction of Visa USA.
With respect to MasterCard, it has recently completed an audit of RJB's AmTrade merchant account. Like the Visa investigation, it showed a pattern of excessive chargebacks and credits. For the first six months of this year, RJB's total chargebacks and credits involving the Mastercard network, averaged 14.4%, reaching a high of 16.8% in June - the last month for which Mastercard obtained data... As in the case of Visa, RJB's chargeback/credit problems place it in a highly unique category of problem merchants.
The Visa and Mastercard declarations also indicate that they encountered excessive chargeback problems during the period in 1999 when RJB business was being processed through a merchant account at Benchmark. ...total chargebacks and credits during the four month period this account was operated amounted to 11.3%, when measured as a percentage in dollars of total deposits.
Finally, the American Express declaration indicates that it had an RJB merchant account which was opened on July 29, 1999, and canceled a mere nine months later - on April 28 of this year. As in the case of Visa and Mastercard, the cancellation was due to a pattern of excessive chargebacks - a pattern which first appeared in 1999 and escalated in the first four months of 2000. Six weeks after cancellation of the RJB account, individual defendant Richard Botto opened up a new American Express account with a new descriptor, "RJBT." Although the ccount was operative for less than two months - from June 8 to August 4, it was flooded with even more chargebacks than its predecessor (20.5%)...
The declarations from Chase and Capital One banks show the recent impact of defendants' fraud. According to the Capital One declaration, between January 1, 2000 and July 30, 2000, 40% of attempted charges by RJB were rejected. Of the remaining charges, 7% were subject to fraud complaints. As for Chase, between February 1 and August 15, 13% of RJB's billings were the subject of consumer complaints.
2. Complaints About Defendants' Telephone Billing
Defendants' telephone billings, like those involving credit and debit cards, have also generated massive consumer complaints. As indicated in teh appended consumer declarations, these customers, like those complaining about defendants' crediut and debit card billings, assert that the charges were unauthorized and that they were unaware of them until receiving their phone bills. Some declarants were charged without authorization for multiple calls on the same day... In addition, some consumers suffered a loss of telephone service when their phone company disconnected service as a result of the astronomical charges.
The declarations from consumers who were charged on their phone bills are further evidence of a business permeated by fraud. This is apparent from a chart furnished to the FTC by AT&T, which lists total charges and adjustments due to consumer complaints for a Madagascar-based phone number which was utilized by RJB between March and July of this year. The Madagascar phone number generated $1,119,744 in charges before being cut off by AT&T on July 23 of this year. However, as of August 31, AT&T reported making $320,654, or 28.6% in refunds to complaining customers.
D. Scope of Defendants Fraud
Defendants' revenues from tehir business are substantial. A spreadsheet prepared by MasterCard concerning the merchant account at Benchmark which handled defendants' claims indicates that at total of $10.0 million in Visa and MasterCard business for RJB was processed between May and August 1999. With respect to AmTrade, $39 million was deposited to defendants' merchant accounts between September 1999 and May 2000. Records of Visa/MasterCard deposits to RJB's AmTrade account show a steady increase in defendants' revenue flow: from a net revenue of $1.06 million in September of 1999 to nets of $6.2 million and $6.05 million in April and May of this year. Finally, defendants processed $2.7 million in sales through American Express...
Although a reasoned inference can be made that some portion of defendants' business is legitimate - that is, results from charges for actual use of their web sites - it is also clear...that a substantial portion is the result of blatant fraud. This fraud began as early as May 1999, and has continued unabated through the present time.
To prevent the defendants from committing further law violations pending resolution of this action and to preserve the possibility of effective final relief, the FTC also seeks an ex parte TRO, asset freeze, appointment of a receiver over defendants' businesses, immediate access to defendants' premises, expedited discovery, and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
...[D]efendants misrepresent material facts in order to induce consumers to pay for services taht they neither purchased nor authorized. By billing consumer credit and debit cards, and by placing charges on consumers' telephone bills - in both instances without any prior authorization or awareness by consumers - defendants misrepresent that consumers are legally obligated to pay charges for defendants' sexually-explicit Internet services. Consumers receive the bills and believe that they are obligated to pay them even though they never authorized defendants' services or the charges.
In addition to deception, the complaint also alleges that defendants unfairly: (1) charge and debit consumers' credit or debit card accounts without authorization; and (2) attempt to bill and collect from line subscribers who did not access defendants' web sites.
Click here for the list of folks busted.
Click here for charges against porner Ian Eisenberg. Ian gave Seth Warshavsky his start in phone and internet sex. Then they quarelled, sued each other and later resumed doing business.
Charges against porner Ed Lipton at WorldNet.
For background on this story, check out these links: Joe Elkind. Serge Birbrair. Vivid. Carl Ruderman.
Listen to this 10/17/00 edition of Luke F-rd Live about the CEN controversy. Rich Botto appears 100 minutes into the show.
Serge Birbrair writes on Netpond: Yes, Luke, I agree. Porn on the internet is VERY vulnerable at the moment. Government doesn't need a new laws Supreme Court and other drastic measures, all they have to do is take 3-7 key players and vou-a-la, free sites are gone, as WHERE ELSE WILL YOU SEND YOUR TRAFFIC with our beloved industry leaders tied up with FTC? I said to myself, if somethign happens to RB money wise, I'm closing down completelly, as I'd rather do that than send traffic to some unknown dick and harry who are not only shave you but pay you late as well....
Ryan writes on Netpond: "Luke, I am sure RB's team of attorney's will have no problem fighting this - most likely winning as I am "SURE" they REALLY looked at the dialer they were using and whether it had the proper warnings... But it is going to cost a nice chunk of change to fight this regardless. I personally have seen the dialer figures on some of my checks and they are so small it is not worth the hassle IMHO, you are also clearly raping the consumer regardless of how you look at it for a few cents a minute. Definatey not a way to achieve repeat visitors to your website when the consumer does end up with a credit card he is willing to take out... I still think dialers were a bad idea, I am really looking forward to atmbilling.com though. I am sure this is just the first of a string of suits to be filed against adult websites using dialer software regardless of how clearly the warnings were on the software.
"Uh oh... After reading a bit closer I see it is on the CC end of things also, definately not good.. The main argument they have against RJB is the consumers are complaining they didn't signup. How many of us running adult membership sites that have had to deal with the customer support before have recieved e-mails stating they didn't signup for the account but you could see in your logs they logged in and they are writing you from the e-mail address they used on the join page? This is fraud alright, against us though... not the consumer."
NotShocked writes on Netpond: "luke you are shocked? go on! I am shocked that it took so long to nail another theif on the net like rjbt! $100 payouts, f--- all of ya that fell for it and got f---ed too! and stick it in your ass before ya jump to defend rb, he is nailed!!!!! xpics ieg rjb seeyalateralligator"
Carnz.com writes on Netpond: RB and Bob have helped honest webmasters since day 1. Unlike other per click, signup, or partnership programs that are here today and gone tomorrow; RJB has been a pioneer, a trend setter, and developed into a cornerstone institution of the adult internet. They aren't just 'old school' webmasters, they helped build the f---ing building! Being one of the biggest means that they make a wider target. I regret that RJB has to go through the burden of proving what a top notch, ethical and honest company they are... Anyone who posts otherwise is just a waste of pixels; but real webmasters knew that one already...
JimC writes on Netpond (http://www.netpond.com/msgboard): "Luke...they got worldtel here in Fla too... My primary nameserver! total nightmare!"
SykkBoy writes on Netpond: "Lee [Noga], Luke has never been known for "responsible journalism". He, himself has claimed on many occasions that he does mostly cut and paste. Remember Lee, Luke started out with us on NetPond Radio. When he was on NetPond Radio, I actually listened to his shows instead of trying to ramrod them and keep Luke quiet. but, alas, your right, I'm a big nobody...not important to anyone or known for anything of importance...yup, you got me there...oh, how will I survive? I guess my three kids will have to face the sad fact that their daddy is a nobody...."
FuzzyNutz writes on Netpond: "Ahh s---, RJB is in trouble with the FCC? Funny, you guys bitch about conversion ratios with them....(shaving) You havn't seen nothing yet! It just really sucks when a GREAT sponsor gets into a bit of trouble... Thats what you get for f---'n around with dialers! BAD, BAD, BAD!!!"
Melody writes: "Luke F-rd, this was irresponsible *as hell*. I hope whomever tipped you off is proud of her/himself. RB, you know that Tweet and I are behind you and believe in you 100%. Let us know if we can help.
"Any of the predatory creatures who think they're going to make bank on RB's problems should know that anyone with sufficient traffic uses, to some extent, Max Cash. You start using this situation for personal gain, and the rest of us will remember. I'll take it VERY personally, as I not only consider RB and Bob and Co to be the best of businesspeople in this industry, but also friends. There's a lot of this going around, and why Max Cash was "reported on" is the problem. I promise you, I'm going to get to the bottom of it. Hell hath no fury like a Scots-Cherokee woman in a way bad mood.
"Luke, you're a jackal and a pariah (and please accept my apologies, all the jackals and pariah of the world for the association -- Diogenes himself does not deserve the label beside Ford), you also are talking out of your ass. I sincerely hope that RB sues your ass for this garbage you're spewing.
"How on earth can you attack the very field in which you make your living? If you want to be some mistress' bitch, kindly do it in a dungeon where it will do no one else harm. Richard Metzger says you're one of the most disturbing people he's ever interviewed, for your working in the very realm you seek to destroy. Who is paying your way these days? Why are you still around? Who is catering your daily epiphany? I think the answers to these questions would make for some true journalistic discovery. I suggest people start considering who serves to gain from RJB being hung with all this -- it's a cynical, brazen, greed-driven attack on a rival, in order to save someone else's hide. Whomever is behind it is not as opaque as they would like to believe."
CyberErotica Club Pix Asian Frenzy FF5 Homegrown Video
Serge writes on Netpond: "RB, I have only 1 {ONE} question: will this FTC debacle affect checks suposedly leaving on 10th of November or not? simple YES or NO will do..."
Todd SexToy King writes on Netpond: "Rb and Maxcash, don't sweat it, you will survive this..... not to be the asshole and say i told you so everyone, but remember when those dialiers hit the market again, a few of us said, the Ftc will come down again, as they did a couple of years ago.. I know it sucks!!! All I can say, is we are waiting for the day when you enter a pin# with your CC, or swipe it or something.... until then, it could be any of us, getting hassled by the Ftc.. s--- this aint nothing, compared to if BUSH wins in 1 week!!!!!!!!"
AdminX writes on Netpond: "RB & the Maxcash crew are probably the most honest sponsors on the net. The disclosure on billing practices on Maxcash sites is so clear even Ray Charles can read it. Ryan You hit it on the head. Unfortunately for RB & crew, their size and sheer volume has put them in the spot light. This snowball is defiantly gonna roll down hill and hit everyone that has used dialers. The credit card portion of the complaint just compliments the dialer issue. The FTC will fling as much s--- against the wall to assure themselves that some will stick. Hopefully the efforts of the GIA will alleviate the whole credit card crisis before the FTC lowers the boom."
Mark Tiarra, an industry leader and head of United Adult Sites, writes on Netpond: I think people are missing the bigger picture here: Anyone remember the Reagan years? The Meese commission?
Look, the new political climate coming forth is going to bring about a lot of UNDESERVED legal scrutiny to many UPSTANDING members of our community. While all of us know that there are sites/companies that have walked the tightrope of ethics and deserve scrutiny, RJB IS NOT ONE OF THEM. They have kept up good and responsible business practices from long before it was "vogue" to do so.
I understand what the FTC is trying to do in general and I appluad efforts to make sure consumers are fairly treated, but keep in mind folks, the FTC doesn't even yet grasp the whole idea of THE BIG COMPANIES SOMETIMES BEING THE VICTIMS OF FRAUD! There are quite a few scumbags out there that find ways to run blocks of stolen numbers so they can collect their pay per sign up fees and what is being done to stop that? I hope that the powers that be in the government are HONEST in their cause and listen to the truth behind this (and the many others that are soon to come) situation and that only people deserving of action are at the butt end of such action.
So long as truth and just action are the goals of the FTC and the government, people like RJB will be just fine, and people that are finding ways to screw them will be sought after instead trying to blame the victim for the crime.
Luke: What the heck are you talking about? How does this sink the GIA? Please don't talk about things that you have no idea about.
The GIA is fine and will hopefully play a key role in establishing "best practices" so that this kind of crap doesn't happen to people who don't deserve it. Know your history - RJB isn't the first company to face this scrutiny and the last notable one who did face it did not nearly have the responsible policies that RJB practices. That company is still out there. They just had to work out an agreement and change their practices (and I do believe a fine was involved - not sure on that point).
Anyway, MY POINT is, RJB is not going anywhere - they haven't done anything wrong, the facts just have to be presented and hopefully this will be a positive step in establishing industry wide practices as well waking up the government to the problem of fraud from people cheating the programs through false and stolen credit card numbers.
Click here for FTC's report on DotCons.
Here some key links:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/10/category.pdf (Go to page 24 for RJB)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/10/rjbtelcomtromemo.pdf (The entire complaint against RJB)
Dravyk writes on Netpond: Luke, you don't KNOW this industry. You are NOT a part of it. You couldn't run a paysite to save your ass. You couldn't run a freaking free site without losing money! Stop talking like some authority, when you haven't the first clue. My dead grandmother is more of an authority on this industry than you will ever be! You get your "wisdom" from the same anonymous f---s that post here and merely parrot back whatever they say. Unfortunately they are almost people nearly (but not as quite) as clueless as you are, or they are folks with axes to grind who use you as the little puppet and pawn you are. So, essentially, shut the f--- up.
RJB was picked on for one reason, they are the biggest and the most successful. Period. Since someone posted the entire docket, I point out the blatant bulls--- in paragraphs 21 and 22 whereby consumers claim that they are being automatically rebilled, that they never called it, and that they had to change their phone numbers. What s---! Dailers and long-distance doesn't and can't work that way for godssakes!!! Obviously a few dick-in-hand horndogs ran up so many large amounts of calls whacking off night after night that they shocked themselves when they got the bill, and then couldn't or wouldn't pay up, and therefore lodged fraudalant complaints that "oh, the phone took over" or that "I didn't make no calls" .... And since the FTC in their infinite (lack of) wisdom has no idea how anything works, took the consumers word for it hook, line and sucker.
Persian Kitty writes on Netpond: "My maxcash banners will remain exactly where they are, as they have since the program was first opened! RJB Telcom is beyond reproach and has always been steadfast and on the forefront for not only webmasters but consumers. As one who's been singled out for outrageously absurd lawsuits in the past (none of which has ever gotten anywhere other than being the cause of unnecessary worry and sleepless nights only to end up being dropped or dismissed), I know that they're being singled out because of the sheer size and popularity of their sites. It's a shame that many choice to contribute to the witchhunt rather than stand behind one of our own."
Hooper writes: They [FTC] had 2 valid points. 1) There is no way of verifying that the person you are billing is the person who made the connection. Although that should apply equally to 900 numbers. 2) Unlike 900 & 976 numbers, you can't block intl numbers. This seems like the key point. JMHO, but I'm taking down all of my dialers.
Here's a copy of much of the complaint:
David R. Spiegel, NY Bar No. 1592724
Tracey L. Brown
Craig Tregillus
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3281, fax (202)326-3395
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX DIVISION
Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. RJB Telcom, Inc., a corporation; Robert J. Botto, Jr. individually, and as an officer of RJB Telcom, Inc., and Robert J. Botto, Jr. and Suzette Botto, as Husband and Wife; Richard D. Botto, individually, and as an officer of RJB Telcom, Inc., and Richard D. Botto and Anne Botto, as Husband and Wife, Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
RJB Telcom, Inc., a corporation; Robert J. Botto, Jr. individually, and as an officer of RJB Telcom, Inc., and Robert J. Botto, Jr. and Suzette Botto, as Husband and Wife; Richard D. Botto, individually, and as an officer of RJB Telcom, Inc., and Richard D. Botto and Anne Botto, as Husband and Wife, Defendants.
Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("Commission"), by its undersigned attorneys, alleges:
1. This is an action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), to secure injunctive and other equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, for defendants' deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), in connection with unauthorized billing for Internet services.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 53(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a) and 1345.
3. Venue in this District is proper under 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c). PLAINTIFF
4. Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission is an independent agency of the United States Government created by statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The Commission enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The Commission may initiate federal district court proceedings to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and to secure such equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case, including restitution for injured consumers. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).
DEFENDANTS
5. Defendant RJB Telecom, Inc. ("RJB") is an Arizona corporation that does or has done business at one or more of the following addresses: (a) 7702 East Doubletree Ranch RD, #305, Scottsdale, AZ 85258; (b) 8601 N. Scottsdale RD, Ste. 330, Scottsdale, AZ 85253; (c) 10785 E. Salt Bush Dr., Scottsdale, AZ 85259-8843; and (d) 13771 Fountain Hills Blvd., Ste. 247, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268. RJB was incorporated in May 1999, and transacts or has transacted business in the District of Arizona.
6. Defendant Robert J. Botto, Jr. is the President and Secretary of corporate defendant RJB. He resides and transacts or has transacted business in the District of Arizona. At all times material to this complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Mr. Botto has formulated, directed, controlled or participated in the acts and practices of RJB, including the acts and practices set forth in the complaint.
7. Relief defendant Suzette Botto is named as wife of defendant Robert Botto. At all times Robert Botto has acted on behalf of the marital community and Suzette Botto is being named for community liability purposes.
8. Defendant Richard D. Botto is the Vice President and Treasurer of corporate defendant RJB. He resides and transacts or has transacted business in the District of Arizona. At all times material to this complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Mr. Botto has formulated, directed, controlled or participated in the acts and practices of RJB, including the acts and practices set forth in the complaint.
9. Relief defendant Anne Botto is named as wife of defendant Richard Botto. At all times Richard Botto has acted on behalf of the marital community and Anne Botto is being named for community liability purposes.
COMMERCE
10. At all times material hereto, defendants (sometimes hereinafter referred to collectively as "RJB") have been engaged in the business of offering for sale and selling Internet-related services to the public, including access to sexually explicit Web sites, in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44.
DEFINITIONS
11. For purposes of this complaint, "Local Exchange Carrier" or "LEC" means the local telephone company from which a line subscriber receives his or her telephone bill.
12. For purposes of this complaint, "line subscriber" means an individual or entity who has arranged with a LEC to obtain local telephone service provided through an assigned telephone number, and to be billed for such service on a monthly (or other periodic) basis.
13. For purposes of this complaint, the term "Defendants" refers to individual defendants Robert J. Botto, and Richard D. Botto, as well as corporate defendant RJB Telecom, Inc. The term "Relief Defendants" refers to Suzette Botto, and Anne Botto.
DEFENDANTS' BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
14. Since May 1999, defendants have engaged in a plan, program or campaign to bill consumers throughout the United States on their charge cards or debit cards, and more recently, on their telephone bills, purportedly for access to sexually explicit web pages and web sites.
15. A "web page" is a single electronic file or document displayed on the World Wide Web ("WWW"). Web pages include at least the following elements: copy, graphics, layout, and internal technical design. Web pages are housed within a "web site," which is a home or location on the WWW. Web sites are usually comprised of a home page and subordinate pages.
16. Defendants have registered and own and/or operate sexually explicit web sites with descriptors including "AsianHeat.com," "Teensteam.com," "Clubcock.com," and "KarasXXX.com." The sites are configured so that after an initial "teaser" layout, viewers are shifted to a screen which offers them either a trial membership (e.g., $2.95 for five days) or a longer membership (e.g., $29.95 for a month). Viewers are offered the option of paying by either credit or debit card or by check. Viewers who sign up are then provided with additional sexually explicit images.
17. In numerous instances, consumers have complained that they have been billed by defendants on their credit or debit cards, purportedly for access to defendants' web sites, without their authorization or knowledge. Many such consumers have never accessed defendants' web sites, yet defendants have obtained and continue to obtain these consumers' credit and debit card account numbers and have caused and continued to cause charges to be posted on, or monies to be withdrawn from those accounts, without consumers' authorization.
18. Viewers who close the credit card membership screen or attempt to exit the web site are shifted to a new screen which indicates that there is "NO CREDIT CARD NEEDED!" Instead, the viewer is offered the opportunity to "PAY BY PHONE!" Whether the viewer clicks on the phone option or simply attempts to exit the web site, he or she is referred to a new set of screens which advertise a phone dialer option. This option installs a dialer program on the viewer's computer which disconnects the viewer's computer modem from the viewer's usual Internet service provider, dials an international telephone number and reconnects the viewer's computer modem, via an international call, to the Internet, opening at defendants' sexually explicit web site.
19. As a result of the action of defendants' dialer program, telephone line subscribers are billed for defendants' "adult" Internet-based entertainment via their monthly telephone bills, or are invoiced directly for the charges by a billing company. These bills describe the charge for defendants' adult entertainment as a toll charge for telephone transmission -- i.e., the charge looks like a charge for an ordinary international long distance call.
20. Defendants do not take any steps to verify or confirm that the telephone line subscriber that they ultimately bill for access to sexually explicit material is in fact the person who downloaded and used the dialer software. Defendants do not know if the line subscriber's minor children, house guests or others with access to the phone line used the dialer software, or whether any such usage was authorized by the line subscriber.
21. In numerous instances, line subscribers have complained that they have been billed on their telephone bills for access to defendants' web sites without their authorization or knowledge. Many such line subscribers have never accessed defendants' web sites, have never placed calls to the phone numbers used by the dialer software on defendants' web sites, and have never authorized anyone else to do so.
22. In many cases, consumers have had to cancel their existing credit or debit card accounts, or line subscribers have had to change or disconnect their telephone numbers in order to stop incurring continuing additional charges from defendants. VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5 OF THE FTC ACT
23. As set forth below, defendants, individually and in concert with others, have violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act in connection with the marketing, promotion, offer and sale of access to their sexually explicit Internet-based entertainment services.
COUNT I
24. In numerous instances, in the course of billing, attempting to collect, and collecting money from consumers, defendants represent to consumers, expressly or by implication, that consumers purchased or agreed to purchase goods or services from defendants, and therefore owe money to defendants.
25. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances, consumers did not purchase or agree to purchase goods or services from defendants, and therefore do not owe money to defendants.
26. Therefore, defendants' representations, as set forth above, are deceptive, and violates Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §45(a).
COUNT II
27. In numerous instances, defendants charge or debit the accounts of consumers, purportedly for access to their web sites.
28. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances, consumers have not accessed, contacted, been contacted by, purchased, or agreed to purchase or pay for any goods or services from defendants or from anyone for whom defendants purport to bill. Large numbers of consumers have never heard of RJB Telcom, Inc. prior to receiving their account statements, and therefore cannot reasonably avoid defendants' billing for services that they did not purchase.
29. Defendants' practice of charging and debiting consumers' credit or debit card accounts without authorization causes substantial injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
30. Therefore, defendants' practice, as outlined above, is unfair and violates Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
COUNT III
31. In numerous instances, defendants represent, expressly or by implication, that because a line-subscriber's telephone was used to access Internet web sites through the line-subscriber's computer modem using the Defendant's dialing program, the line subscriber is legally obligated to pay defendants for that access, whether or not the line subscriber actually accessed such web sites.
32. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances, the line subscriber is not legally obligated to pay defendants for accessing Internet web sites through defendants' dialing program.
33. Therefore, the representation set forth in Paragraph 31 is deceptive, and violates Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §45(a).
COUNT IV
34. In numerous instances, defendants bill or cause to be billed, and attempt to collect or arrange for the collection of payment from, a line subscriber whose telephone may have been used to call an international telephone number through the line- subscriber's modem, using the defendants' dialing program in order to access an Internet web site, but who did not himself or herself access such site or use the defendants' dialing program, or authorize anyone else to do so.
35. Line subscribers cannot reasonably block telephone calls to international numbers. Therefore, line subscribers cannot reasonably avoid defendants' billing and collection efforts for international telephone calls made through the defendants' dialing program by others while using those line subscribers' computer modems and telephone lines.
36. Defendants' practice of billing and attempting to collect from line subscribers whose computer modems and telephone lines may have been used to access Internet web sites using the defendants' dialing program, but who themselves have not accessed such web sites or used the defendants' dialing program, causes substantial injury to the line subscribers that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
37. Therefore, Defendants' acts and practices, as alleged in Paragraphs 34 through 36, are unfair, and violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
CONSUMER INJURY
38. Consumers in many areas of the United States have suffered substantial monetary loss as a result of defendants' unlawful acts or practices. In addition, defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers and harm the public interest.
THIS COURT'S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF
39. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers the Court to grant injunctive and other equitable ancillary relief, including consumer redress, disgorgement, and restitution, to prevent and remedy violations of any provision of law enforced by the Commission.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, plaintiff requests that this Court:
1. Award plaintiff such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be necessary to avert the likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency of this action, and to preserve the possibility of effective final relief;
2. Permanently enjoin the defendants from violating the FTC Act, as alleged herein;
3. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from defendants' violations of the FTC Act, including but not limited to rescission of contracts, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; and
4. Award plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and additional equitable relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.
Gene Ross's Last Day
Tuesday, October 31st, is Gene Ross's last day at Adult Video News and GeneRoss.com. Good luck at Extreme, Gene.
Perfect Movies
Director James DiGiorgio writes: Lukey! Your "Sin City source" has got me pondering the meaning of a "perfect (porn) movie." And now, I need to know what the f--- a "perfect movie" is. I now know I'm guilty of making "less than perfect movies." But I'm repentant. You must go back to your source, to the Dali-Porn-Lama, and get me some answers. I want to attain Porn-Nirvana Luke! I'm on a quest now. I thought, for a moment, I had it figured out: a "perfect movie" would be one that costs the manufacturer absolutely NOTHING to produce, box, and duplicate, and then sells REALLY BIG domestically, foreign, mail-order, PPV, cable, stand-alone, VOD, get's rave reviews, spawns a best-selling DVD and maybe a website or two, wins a "Best of..." something at the AVN awards, and is then cut into a whole bunch of comps, creates a series... but then, Luke, I realized, this would not be a "perfect movie," this would be an impossible movie...something light-years beyond perfection. Something even Michael Raven or Roy Karch, with all their incredible "scruples," could not achieve. Something no one on the Planet Porno could possibly achieve. But the point still remains, Luke. Apparently, there ARE 'perfect movies" out there. Apparently others, like Sin City's M.R. and Roy Karch, have achieved it. It's not a myth. Somewhere in the dark and foreboding Sin City vaults there ARE "perfect movies," and I want to see them! I'll do anything to see just one, to hold one in my undeserving hands. I'll even get scruples, Luke...I'll ask Roy if I can borrow his. Please help me, luke. Please help me unlock the mystery of the "perfect movie!"
A sidenote on a different matter Luke: I've produced and/or directed a pretty fair amount of smut. I've worked for companies like VCA, Sin City, Pleasure, Legend, and others. No one has ever asked me to give back a dime from a budget. And as your Don Corleone so aptly pointed out about porn directors, I ain't no boy scout.
XXX writes: Mike Jones is a very popular content provider who has appeared on NetPond, brokers CD's and licenses to webmasters, always states he has model releases and will gladly give them to webmasters if asked. This company is a big provider of content licensing to webmasters and works with several other brokers to pedal his "wares", Steve Tepper from http://www.adultlegal.com and Bonnie Murphy, Zmaster, Inc. http://www.zmaster.com
Waiting For You
Brandy Alexandre writes: I was just reflecting more on what Tricia Devereaux said to me via your column, and tried to make me believe about John [Stagliano, Brandy's ex-boyfriend]. Yes, he does talk about me to other people, and yes, he even to this day refers to me in his magazine. He may not in the future because of what's happened, but that won't be because his memory of "us" has changed, just that Tricia, like any woman, has told him, in no uncertain terms, that he better not ever do it again. That's really sad.
In the conversation to which she referred, she talked about how he cheats on her, like he did me (some men never change no matter how much time passes), about finding condom wrappers in his pockets, etc. She joked about watching the DVD duplication and seeing John, "when he was still able to f---" with me. She has a strange inheritance--she miscarried a baby once and is trying again. It seems to me that it's all she can do to hang onto him for whatever reason she wants to. When we spoke she indicated she was about to give up. That he claimed he loved her but continued to dominate and cheat. Maybe she looked at the bills for their HIV meds and realized she could never finance it. I know that's a rude thing to think, I know, but if he doesn't marry her, and if she doesn't want to marry him (which is what I got from our conversation) what else is she supposed to do? Tricia may have her baby to hang onto him, but will it be enough, and will it bring him closer? John said he wanted to have a baby with Kristi Lynn. So, it's not so much that it's Tricia's, but that it's his. There's an accomplishment for her...
So, she orders him never to mention The Ex again, at least not in flattering terms, and tries and fails once to have a baby, and tries it again. Tries to get me, and everyone else, to think he saw me as insignificant--that she's the queen bee. I don't know what she's jealous of. I've been long gone from his life and it's not like he'd ever want me back or that I'd even take him. That's the most desperate thing I've ever seen in my life. And I don't mean that as a flame, but as an assessment of what her life must be like: a man she can't trust, who cheats on her, but is her sole source of support. Not just for life, but for her very LIFE.
She can construct whatever house of cards she wishes, and it doesn't matter to me. Yeah, it's a cool ego thing to hear that John has said, more than once and more than three times, that I was the best he's had in his life in a lot of areas. But if he never says it out loud again, I had that for a long, long time. It's nice. If he flat out hated me now it would be sad, but it wouldn't change my memories--the good stuff. It wouldn't change the longevity of those feelings after the relationship ended. Or the things that enter my mind first when I think of him. Like the places we went, Big Sur, Carmel, Tahoe, Angel's Camp, Puerto Vallarta... all when he DIDN'T have money. (Tricia told me that he told her he knew I really loved him because I was with him when he didn't have money--that he questions the reason people stick around him now). That we had "a song." You know, I knew we had a song, but I couldn't remember what it was. I called and asked him and he was genuinely hurt that I didn't remember. That he said to her that he knew I really loved him because he didn't have money then--that he questions the reason people stick around him now. It was just a lapse, he reminded me and I'll remember now. It was "Right Here Waiting" by Richard Marx. The words go, "Wherever you go, whatever you do, I will be right here waiting for you." It's still true. Not in the romantic sense, but as a friend. If my phone rang at 3:00 a.m. and he just needed someone to talk to, just anyone at all, nothing to do with "me," I'd be there as I am for any friend. Even you, Luke.
Some people don't appreciate that about me. It's their loss. And even if I'm rarely sympathetic, I'm still a voice, I'm still an ear. Bend it, bitch at, threaten it. It's resilient like person to whom it belongs. I don't need John's money, grace, or flattering comments. He's gone. I only wish Tricia felt the security in herself that I feel in myself--that she believed her relationship had substance. Maybe this would piss John off enough to change. But if he hasn't changed in ten years since we were together, he isn't going to. She needs to decide if she deserves better than that or not. Most porno girls don't think so. Such is life.
AVN Expo Fears
In September, numerous porners chose the AVN IA2000 internet expo over the East Coast Video Show. The ECVS was the worst ever. Video porners fear similar results in Las Vegas in January at the AVN Video Expo.
In previous years, the adult section was part of CES. Now it is separate. So there won't be tons of fans filling the aisles. So if porners don't show up to do business, the place will look dead.
BrandyAlx1: Will the AVN Expo have on-site registration? I don't think they'll have too much trouble with attendance since word will get around that adult has split off. The diehards already know, the "really big fans" may be able to extend their travel plans. If they pull it off right, those who are super disappointed in the change, and really want to go, will come next year. This year, and to a lesser extent next year, will make or break the show.
BrandyAlx1: They're also going to set the precedent for future shows, so they better decide what they want it to be--a place to do business where fans can come and see stars in a calmer environment than before. Or, if they're going to go for the free-for-all raunch out to pack them in to capacity as it has been with CES. Whatever they do in January they're going to be expected to do for the rest of the life of the Expo. They better start penciling out the rules.
Jeannie Rivers Working In Nevada Brothel
Whore Monger writes: Tell your buddy Chuck Martino that his ex, Jeannie Rivers has escaped from the filthy hell of pornography and into the wholesome world of brothel work. She's at Madam Kitty's Fantasy Ranch: 2pm - 2am Wed./Thu./Sun. and 2pm -4am Fri./Sat. Click here: NV Brothels
What's The Deal With Mike South?
Louis Scorbick writes: Lukey- So what's the deal with this guy Mike South, anyway? I ask because having met him while down in Tampa at the Nightmoves show shooting my documentary, everyone else was total class, agreeing to interviews, interacting with the camera, and then there was Mr. South, threatening to break my camera and injure me after I introduced myself to him. The guy apparently thinks I was sneaking around videotaping people while holding the camera at my waist (yeah, that'll make for a good documentary). Talk about delusional.
Ask anyone else who was down there, we were respectful and gracious. We shot nothing that people didn't want us to. Yet here's ragin' Mr. South, threatening me down there, and continuing to do so on PST Chat. Luke, you're friends with this guy. What's the deal with him? Where does his anger and paranoia come from? I'd corresponded with him a few times on IRC and while having that typical porn narcissism, seemed moderately intelligent. What do you attribute his paranoid anger to? Is this common among men in the porn industry?
He claims to be a Libertarian yet today he banned me from PST chat for I guess not kissing his ass enough. Talk about hypocritical. I'm bummed, I like poking into PST and chatting every so often. Anyway, thanks Mike, for encouraging an open dialogue by banning me. Luke, is this form of schizo-narcissism common in porn? Is Mike South the exception or the rule? Why would he be so hostile towards an outside camera crew making a documentary? It should be noted everyone else in Tampa, from Dirty Bob on down, were nothing but class, accomodating and easy to get along with. Our doc is turning out great and should be done by January.
Mike South writes: OK Luke for strters Lou didnt say who he was until AFTER my cameraman and I caught him walking by porn girls rooms with his camera running...with the light covered.
second it doesnt matter who he is the respectful thing to do is ASK before shooting someone.
Third, HE isn't anyone, he isnt affiliated with any press organization even though he was walking around with CNN logos on his mic and camera...as if CNN shoots with a VX1000. If others had known what he was doing at that time they would have been mad too...
As for pst when I come in and this little pissant calls me a punk...ya Im gonna start some s--- with him and I am gonna finish it.
and finally since when is he a documentary film maker...what has he done? what are his credentials...he is just another lame ass looking for his personal stroke material. I am protective of the people I bring into this biz and I am happy to be on anyone's camera...WHEN THEY ASK ME.
So Lou, you little f---head, don't ever point your camera at me again unless you want video of your colon.
Scorbick replies: Hey Lukey- Just to clarify a few points Mr. South makes. We had about 10 rotating mics (CNN, BBC, PBS, Disney, The Russian Hammer and Sickel, etc.) and everyone we interviewed knew it was a "bit" and part of the film. If South had bothered to talk to me rather then threaten me, I could've explained that. Secondly I'm happy to make Mike a dub of the six hours of raw footage and have him show me exactly where my "secret camera rendezvous" was taking place. This is pure paranoia on his part... I'm not even sure what type of image that would produce, nor how it could be usable in any film, but that's neither here nor there. I did have the camera "on" when I met him (on standby), and maybe that's what confused him, but I shut it off when he pointed that out (while threatening me). We asked every single person we interviewed before we shot them. When Seymour Butts asked us to stop shooting in his room, we immediately packed up and left. When we were told we couldn't shoot the pool party at night, we didn't (even though it would've been some great footage). What makes this funny is it never even occurred to us to want to interview or shoot Mike South in any way. So don't worry Mike, my camera'll never be pointed in your direction. Just wish you weren't so hostile, everyone else was great. And BTW: "Punk" is a term of endearment here in NYC (like "homes"),... maybe it's a Southern Thing....
Australian porner Taksan says....... From my personal experience I think that Mike South is a true southern gentleman and I cannot see him behaving remotely like Louis Scorbick claims unless as Mike asserts Scorbick was acting in such a way as to disrespect the very people he claimed he was shooting a doco on. Its is extremely disrespectful to film sombody for a private commercial venture without prior permission.
Helmy's 69 Spot
I cruised over to http://players.69spot.com for this gossip about porn webmasters:
Skitz, a former employee of Joe Elkind's CEN operation, writes: Joe, in my opinion you are a liar and a cheat. Your celebrity site is made entirely of stolen content, so why should anyone trust you to not steal from webmasters?
JoeE replies: Webmasters are not stupid Bruce! Once they know you have known crack dealer and heroin user(did I mention MOLESTING girl workers at CEN) they all turned him down for date...they don't do drugs skitz..that's why you fired yourself;-) That's right personal attack- Skitz molested 3 different nice chicks tha work in the office and tried to bribe them with drugs... Get out of the industry..Molester? Gotta be the worst....Pig!
Luke Gets Mail
Meni writes: tony wrote to gene about the seymore thing for videosecrets so i told tony, what the hell, why didn't you send me the info, since I sent traffic to it and I know Tony pretty well. I told Tony he kisses Gene's ass. So Tony said I kiss your ass. Untrue, correct when do I start the show?
Tony Testa replies: Hey Luke- Just wanted to let you know that meni is so full of s--- his eyes are brown. I don't know what the f--- info he wants about the seymore shoot. If he opened his eyes and looked he would have seen banners all over the place hyping it up. Maybe he needs to spend less time trying pick up strippers and porn chicks and actually GO to the site he says he promotes. he never once asked me about the shoot. maybe I should tell meni everything I do. I am about to go take a s---, when I am done I'll take a digi pic and send it to him just so he knows what I was up to.
Tal writes: sup luke the best porn company hands down is devils film.aint no other company coming close but devils is killing themseleves by not having a web site.s---s been under construction for the last decade.i wanna see a catalogue of all thier movies and s--- is just useless.
Chick Or Treat?
Dear Porners, Tonight when the little trick or treaters come to your door, unwittingly celebrating a pagan holiday, what will you bestow upon them? Candied apples? Chewing gum? Lemon flavored protein bars? Autographed nude polaroids? Or will you give them the gift that can deliver them to heaven? The gift of a Chick tract? Read how a simple comic can save a soul. Click here: The Little Princess
