I dont care about the 2257 and will not change anything for it, but if one of my buddies in the states wanted to iframe a thumb tgp off me, then I would be the one responsible and not him right?
Jeff
Jeff
-
Coming Soon! -
good question
didn't think about that one yet... i'm interested in the answer as well... -
Its still considered published on his site, regardless of where its actually loading from.Comment
-
the link is on his site... but not the content, well kinda.Originally posted by kernelpanic
JeffComing Soon!Comment
-
Another grey area, but one that the majority is erring on the side of caution with and saying if it appears on your site, including hotlinked or framed material, you need docs.Need Hosting? Reality Check Network services me purrrfectly!
Comment
-
Another reason why the verbage of the new 2257 will be its downfall.
NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo!
| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily
| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 |ICQ: 78943384 |Comment
-
Content is published on his site. He needs 2257 docs.Care about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
Originally posted by chase
if its grey area and from MY site couldnt you claim that you didnt know that the day in question had the thumbs in question showing?
I mean there has to be a loop hole somewhere.
It makes sence in my mind why Iframed thumb tgp would be ok, but I cant really explain why.
Kinda like canadians stealing us satallite, its grey market because no one offers it to canadians, so its not really stealing...Coming Soon!Comment
-
so if a paysite is iframed through a different url. Like blah.com/paysitename.
would docs be required?Comment
-
Finding a loophole involves getting arrested, getting an attorney, and going into court. You won't beat it when they show up, you'll beat it in front of a judge.Originally posted by jeffreyComment
-
If blah.com is your site. You need docs.Originally posted by ManowarCare about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
Originally posted by Manowar
it would go back to the owner of hte iframe.....
I mean maybe I am jsut way off my rocker, but it really does make sence to me that iframed from someone outside the us would be a loophole
but as I said, maybe I have no idea at all.Coming Soon!Comment
-
No, I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately the DOJ just isn't accepting "I didn't know" as a reason..that's exactly why they are now requiring secondary producers to hold docs.Originally posted by jeffrey
I wouldn't want to risk, it, if it were me, I guess is all I can tell you, lol.Need Hosting? Reality Check Network services me purrrfectly!Comment
-
Originally posted by chase
I'm trying to find where part of the 2257 was quoted, it was something about why the server hosts cant be help responsible. In that same section I remember someting that got me thinking the Iframe would be a loophole, but now I cant find that damn quote.
Its the same reason why blogs and forums cant be help responsible.
there are too many 2257 posts on this site for a search to be any use.Last edited by jeffrey; 06-12-2005, 09:08 AM.Coming Soon!Comment
-
Isn't all this 2257 discussion like the one about playing with fire?
Seriously, until a magical "precedence" gets set, I'm not sure if anyone knows anything, including $500 / hour lawyers.
Then again, I could be a big ol'pussy and since I'm not a lawyer it's not even worth
.
Your post count means nothing.Comment
-
Last time i checked there are three pleas you are allowed to enter during trial.Originally posted by jeffrey
Guilty
Not Guilty
Not Guilty By Reason of Mental Insanity
ignorance or stupidity doesnt cound.
The content is on YOUR WEBSITE. You are publishing it.Care about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex
so GFY would be in shit for every single image ever posted here....
blogs and forums arent responsible, so why would someone putting an iframe?Coming Soon!Comment
-
Originally posted by jeffrey
Once again.
Read the docs before asking questions and forming opinions.
I wont give you an answer to it, but ill give you a hint.
Why do you think Google and Yahoo wont be subject to 2257 laws. The same applies to GFY.Care about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex
Once again.
Read the docs before asking questions and forming opinions.
I wont give you an answer to it, but ill give you a hint.
Why do you think Google and Yahoo wont be subject to 2257 laws. The same applies to GFY.
I have read, and again I say, in MY MIND I see the iframe as a loophole, and still no one has said anything to make me think otherwise.Coming Soon!Comment
-
The only exemptions would be if a third party posts the content to your site and you have no control over it.Originally posted by jeffrey
That regulation i just posted exempts sites like GFY.com because they do not manage EACH post and cant control it.(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service
You on the other hand can control which sites you iframe, putting you as the responsible party.
easier to understand?Care about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex
ok, thank you, see that makes sence.
but I (owner of iframed site) would be the "remote computing service" and if its a nn thumb tgp, then the sexually explicit images would be only sometimes, and since whoever posts the iframe cant moderate the images in it, then he would fall under (v)
But I do see why my nude mgp couldnt be iframed as a loophole.Coming Soon!Comment
-
Do Google have 2257 docs for all the pictures he's showing in frames on images.google.com?
JulioWebmasters! Looking for new affiliate programs to promote?
Affiliate Program Search <-- Search for programs with FHGs, RSS feed, specific niche sponsors, ...Comment
-
Nude TGPs dont need 2257 in the first place,Originally posted by jeffrey
But whoever has the iframe on their site CAN control the the images, because he can chose to not iframe it, or only i frame a certain part.Care about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
Are you slow or do you act it on purpose.Originally posted by J.P.Care about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex
??? umm what? I thougt all thumbs had to comply.. well for you US people anyways.Coming Soon!Comment
-
Not if it is a thumb of a non nude image....Originally posted by jeffrey
And for you too if you host on u.s servers.Care about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
So if a framed paysite at a blah.com/paysitename url would be responsible, what about Typo domain redirects... they are exactly the same. Would they be responsible too?Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex
My US host has already said it doesnt matter what I have on my server, they can not be held for it, and they cannot be forced to shut me down without a court order.Coming Soon!Comment
-
and thats a good point too.Originally posted by Manowar
404 redirect to 3rd party sites? I mean this law is jsut too fucking gay.Coming Soon!Comment
-
Sorry, I saw your post only after I posted my comment.Originally posted by AlexWebmasters! Looking for new affiliate programs to promote?
Affiliate Program Search <-- Search for programs with FHGs, RSS feed, specific niche sponsors, ...Comment
-
I'd like to see somebody go to court over this...
Comment
-
Same thing as hotlinking. Just because something appears to be on your page doesn't mean it is. The internet does not operate that way.Comment
-
Since he is "in control" of the Web page on which the image is displayed, technically he is responsible for making the documentation available to an inspector.Originally posted by jeffrey
It doesn't matter where the content is physically located, it matters who is responsible for control of the Web page on which the content is displayed.DISCLAIMER: I am not giving you legal advice, and there is no attorney-client relationship established between us as a result of this writing. You should seek the advice of an attorney in your area for any legal questions you may have.
Rob Apgood
www.adultlaw.com
"We eat what we kill"Comment
-
Don't miss a chance to fight back.
Support the Free Speech Coalition in their fight for your constitutional rights, by adding one of these banners to your signature:
Comment
-
that makes the law actually sound like it makes senseOriginally posted by TheShark
Comment
-
If its questionable i would suggest not doing at all and be safe.......
Comment
-
but than again, using the same logic:
if a site using iframe to pull content from a different site is responsible for that content, than the same goes to a forum that keeps its "[img]" feature up.
why?
"<iframe>" pulls content and can if there is a loophole here and that content might be hardcore - 2257 docs are needed or the "<iframe>" needs to be remove.
"<img>" (hotlinking) pulls content and can if there is a loophole here and that content might be hardcore - 2257 docs are needed or the "<img>" needs to be remove.
in both cases there is a certain amount of responsibility on the "pulling" site.
EDIT: now if you response like "you don't know shit" "you are a retard" "you are slow" "go read the regulations again" - that's fine I don't care, but it won't make you look smarter because i really DON'T KNOW ENOUGH about this and it is an interpretation of something i couldn't see a clear answer for or missing itComment
-
same here, or at least realize it IS a riskOriginally posted by Hornydog4cooterIf its questionable i would suggest not doing at all and be safe.......Comment
-
Who says the DOJ cant get o ne if they wanted to.Originally posted by jeffreyCare about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
Apology accepetd.Originally posted by J.P.
Care about me?
Who?
Me!
Who?Comment
-
Yes, you have found the loophole. The whole country can get around 2257 by iframing foreign hosted material. Now that you have heard what you want to hear the argument can be over?
.Comment
Comment