egafd.com

That will be ?350 plus VAT, thank you. !happy!

No, you don't get it. You have been given the information. You can choose to believe that it is not true. You can then knowingly breach the contract terms and conditions. You can then explain to a judge that you had been given the information, but you had chosen to disregard it. Can you work out what happens next ?

"Ive never heard anyone lay down the law so blatantly before": you mean given precise and useful information to fellow producers ?

"I therefore assume BB must pay well for the girls to not work for a whole year but then I still see some of their girls working on the satellite channels. Thats lkike a girl whois loaded already with sports cars and apartment and all the other fringe benefits paid for getting a part time job in a supermarket." IF YOU LISTEN IN TO THEIR CALLS, YOU'LL SEE THEY ARE TALKING TO THE CALLERS ABOUT THEIR BB FILMS. AND SIMPLY BEING THERE, PERFORMING, GETS THEM SEEN BEING GLAM AND ON TV. IT'S CALLED MARKETING. AND THEY GET EXTRA MONEY, WHICH THEY SEEM TO LIKE.

I can see you're trying to see how the whole [quite complicated] project works from BB's point of view and appreciate that. If you start from the assumption that everything we do has a sound business reason, and that we are working together with the girls to make maximum ? for all concerned, then it will all make sense quicker and easier. Or, a shortcut is to think 'Vivid and Wicked [etc] do it. They obviously know what they are doing. So maybe BB does too.'

[Edited by moderator]

Yes, I don't think any of our consumers are complaining about being unable to shoot our contract girls for themselves.

We have not had to take a case to court because honest producers respect other people's legal rights.

No breaches, flagrant or otherwise have been 'banged on' about.

Providing information about legal rights and the consequences of unlawful acts is not a threat.

It is not contemptuous to reply courteously or even wittily to posters, by providing more information, which enhances the accuracy of the overall communication.

You appear to be the person inflamed, not us. We have the studios, movies, girls, distribution contracts and the money.

The whole point of providing information is so that we do not ever have to sue someone, because our fellow producers will respect our rights - as they would expect us to respect theirs. So the premise of your post is completely flawed.

Maybe they - and their agents - have BETTER INFORMATION than you.
Now we're in agreement, I think.

"Highly controlling": compared to who ? Perhaps you mean: 'a company less controlling than Vivid or Wicked, but more controlling than Jim Slip'.

Yes, they must feel rotten about having their name, image and rights, and the royalty income that flows from them, protected.