egafd.com

No. You make a financial offer. And if we and the CG are happy, we say yes. It really is very simple. You want it: you pay for it.

No. Bless. Think about it.
If you are a producer who knows - then you know and are liable.
If you don't know - you aren't liable.
Do any of us need to explain that again ?

They come and go. Of course there's a US studio to fill now, as well.

Ignorance is bliss....

Thank you Hiwatt.

Forgive me for being blonde but does this mean that BB are in ownership of said implants...?

Would they require them back if contract broken or royalties if used or touched by others? I think the girls would be quite deflated if they wanted to take them back.

Surely there is a better way to deal with this than scare tactics. You cite protecting BB's image as the reason for controlling the actions of ex CG's. Do you believe that this thread has shown BB in a positive light in any way?
You most certainly haven't generated much sympathy for your company.

A company that seems to be willing to cut off a girls main source of income, girls who have children, for what reason?

Image.....Surely nobody in their right mind believes that punters would boycott a production company because after a girl left that company she did a low budget performance. Brianna Banks did a fairly awful scene early in her career but it certainly didn't hurt her credibility or popularity. Ronald Regan was a cowboy actor he managed to become President of America.

Yes you paid for girls to have breast enhancements. I am sure that wasn't done in any way to enhance the product but was done as an act of kindness to grant girls bigger boobs.

Hiwatt posturing, threatening, interpreting law and making the occasional, supposedly, sarcastic/witty comment has achieved very little maybe it has put the BB name back into some peoples heads ahead of your imminent site relaunch. But it has also generated a huge amount of negativity towards BB.

As I said before BB could do so much to take the British adult industry forwards with the resources it has. It is a shame that when I think of BB I see a company obsessed with blowing its own horn and throwing its weight around.......I am probably not the only one.

Its not like all their girls havent done shedloads that are listed here on this very forum before they started is it?

PIPPA; ROMANA; THE TWINS; CINDY; BROOKE [THE LIST GOES ON] Never shot before BB.

If what Hiwatt means in his legal speak is "touch my girls before their year is up and I'll smash ya face in" then thats another matter entirely.

Otherwise I'm not sure how he will ask you to remove content and/ or refund the money direct to them. That just sounds outrageous. if anything then it sounds like a veiled threat put in polite terms.

THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE PROHIBITION IS STATED IN OTHER POSTS IN THIS FORUM. THE ASSERTION OF LEGAL RIGHTS IS NOT A THREAT.

Hi Hiwatt,

Hows things...

See things still haven't changed...

I know things are different from UK to LA but look at it this way...

Contract girls like Hanna Hilton who has just been contracted to a major company over here can not work for another company for 6 months after her contract has expired...

What is the difference between them and bluebird....

At the end of the day porn is a business, if girls are happy enough to sign the contract then surely they have read the whole thing through and not just looked at the ??? signs....

Hi Paul, I advise descretion next time,

Matt.

PS Love the videos.