Thursday, March 27, 2014
Friday, March 7, 2014
Monday, March 3, 2014
Randazza Legal Group, Marc Randazza; "Is Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group shaking down Porn Producers?"
""An Anti-Islamic movie is being used to lead the pornographic industry’s sheep to the slaughter
***Sidenote: “Innocence of Muslims” was reported by Gawker.com to have been directed by a softcore pornographer named Alan Roberts.
To reiterate, it seems what Marc Randazza alluded to in his Xbiz article / advertisement, is that if pornography professionals utilize a “Free Speech” & “Copyright” specialty law firm such as Randazza Legal Group to re-write their model releases they’ll be fairly “safe” – otherwise they may be a TARGET of Randazza Legal Group (on behalf of pornstars who may become their client).
***Sidenote: “Innocence of Muslims” was reported by Gawker.com to have been directed by a softcore pornographer named Alan Roberts.
If you are a pornographic industry professional (namely a producer, studio owner or distributor), it’s imperative that you understand the following information… in fact your livelihood depends on it.
Four days ago on February 26, 2014 Eugene Volokh wrote an article for The Washington Post entitled“Copyright meets “Innocence of Muslims”: Ninth Circuit orders removal of movie from YouTube, on copyright grounds”. In summary, the article outlined the result of the Garcia v. Google inc. case of which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that actors and actresses have copyright rights in their performances when they act in a video.
As of today, Marc Randazza (a pornographic industry & copyright attorney) essentially repackaged Eugene Volokh’s article for Xbiz in what appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for the legal services of Randazza Legal Group, Marc’s own law firm.
Eugene Volokh has since posted another article on the Washington Post as of today in regards to the situation which outlines the 9th circuit court’s corrected/clarfied injuction (which can be read by clicking here).
click to enlarge – Marc Randazza of Las Vegas, Nevada encouraging porn professionals to leave Los Angeles.
What’s interesting about Marc Randazza’s article and advertisement for his law firm, is that it’s glaringly clear that whether pornographers utilize Randazza Legal Group or not (especially those who may have takenMarc Randazza’s own advice to willfully violate that law and produce their content in Las Vegas), he’s in the perfect position to make money off of porn producers, studio owner and distributors via what I can only define as a “legal extortion” scheme.
Isn’t it interesting how Marc Randazza (along with Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition of course), the very person who presented Las Vegas as being a virtual bastion of freedom for pornographers, is now stating well after many porn studios have been shooting in Las Vegas for a while, that the content they’ve produced in Las Vegas not only may cost them additional legal fees, but could essentially put them out of business? That is, of course, unless they utilize the legal services of firms such as Randazza Legal Group…
I have to wonder as to whether or not Marc Randazza somehow had advance or insider information as to what the outcome of the Garcia v. Google inc. case would be – especially considering that both Eugene Volokh and Marc Randazza are on the FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) Honorary Host Committee. Furthermore, Eugene Volokh has been involved in the highly publicized legal situation ofindependent investigative blogger Crystal L. Cox – a woman who Marc Randazza has had issue with for quite some time now.
Keep in mind, regardless of what Marc Randazza and the Free Speech Coalition has told pornographers (and the mainstream media), all along it has NOT been legal to produce pornography outside of California or New Hampshire. Prostitution is not even a legal industry in the city of Las Vegas, Nevada itself.
Adult industry attorney Michael Fattorosi aka @PornLaw on twitter
To clarify in even more detail, I will quote a few things I spotted well known pornographic industry attorney Michael Fattorosi (@PornLaw)stating to his twitter followers as of February 27, 2014:
“New copyright decision could have an impact on porn produced in California… Gives performers more say in how their performances are used. It now turns a performer’s acting into something protected by copyright – if – there’s no signed model release.”
“Producers have to now be careful how they use [and] title their movies and how scenes are used for comps.”
“I think it’s a rare situation but this can limit a producers rights”
“…not all model releases are valid. A model release can be invalidated. What if you are producing outside of Cali ?”
“In some ways this case makes it a very difficult situation for producers that are shooting in Las Vegas – for example.”
“Producers everywhere should have their model releases re-written to take into account the holding in this case.”
“If you shoot in a state where porn is not legally protected as in Cali or NH this decision could have a major impact on your productions.”
To reiterate, it seems what Marc Randazza alluded to in his Xbiz article / advertisement, is that if pornography professionals utilize a “Free Speech” & “Copyright” specialty law firm such as Randazza Legal Group to re-write their model releases they’ll be fairly “safe” – otherwise they may be a TARGET of Randazza Legal Group (on behalf of pornstars who may become their client).
Again, is it just me or does this seem like a form of “legal extortion”? Or to be more blunt…a legal “shake down” scam?
Randazza’s article, from my perspective, states that pornographic studio owners such as the young Mike Kulich of Monarchy Distribution (who’s known for creating compilation DVDs) and veteran pornographers such as Rob Black of Extreme Associates (who has an extensive catalog which he still earns money off of via online distribution) alike may be at high risk due to something called “Actors Remorse”.
Nina Devon as Rudy (left) in Not The Cosbys XXX 2 – Does this character look like an 18 year old to you?
To further explain, Marc Randazza’s article reminded me of how I feel about my appearance as a lead character in Not The Cosbys XXX 2, which was distributed by Hustler (Larry Flynts company). I was not aware when I signed on to do the project that the character of Rudy (the youngest daughter in the “Cosby” family, who was styled to look like a child no older than the age of 10) would have a sex scene.
That particular scene, was a scene of which I feel depicted an instance of child porn / pedophilia. To this day, I am bothered that I was featured in a movie along side something that may remind the public of child pornography…something pedophiles might enjoy, which is something Marc Randazza may know a lot about considering his essay defending the horrific book – The Pedophile’s Guide and his affiliation with internationally known convicted pedophile August Kurt Brackob aka Kurt Treptow.
I can only speculate as to whether or not Marc Randazza would be willing to represent me in an “Actor’s Remorse” case against Larry Flynt (a man of which Marc Randazza appears to greatly admire according to a recent job posting he wrote for his lawfirm).
To conclude, whether this situation is an effort to eliminate the competition for larger pornographic companies like Manwin, or is just a means for attorneys to make a substantial amount of money off the pornographic industry - it simply seems to me that Marc Randazza and the Free Speech Coalition are not only fleecing the pornographic industry’s sheep – they have led the sheep to the slaughter.
Marc Randazza, who stated to me via email that he has an “affection for the Jewish community” (and who I have since requested to cease communication with me though he has ignored my request not just once, but twice today) certainly appears to have managed to trap quite a few within the Jewish community (who are long time pornographic industry professionals) directly under his thumb – legally and financially at least."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)