What is Google doing about 2257 ?
They've got hardcore thumbnails hosted on their servers with their image search tool.
-
-
Why can't people get it through their heads already that Google is exempt?
-
They are exempt. Some here will tell you they aren't. Then if that is true then they just don't care.Originally posted by kamasutrababe
http://images.google.com/images?sour...GGLD:en&q=pornComment
-
they're not doing a damn thing.Comment
-
good question
Comment
-
who cares.You Dun Goofed!Comment
-
why are they exempt?Comment
-
Originally posted by GoodGuy
The same reason gfy is exempt. How could lensman possibly provide 2257 docs for every nudie pic posted on gfy over the last 5 years.. It would take a long time to sort through every post by hand for every picture ever postedhatisblack at yahoo.comComment
-
Well then how is it possible for every gallery submitter to go throught the 10000+ galleries submitted over the past 5 years? If you don't have the docs then you delete the content. I don't think GFY would die without the moldy 'Would you hit it' threads rotting on page 30.Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
If gallery submitters are not exempt even though they have thousands of pages to go through then Google, Yahoo, GFY, etc are not exempt. No, from what I've read ALL SITES containing sexually explicit content must adhear to the rules with a few exceptions; but I don't think GFY or Google are hosts, libraries, or non-profit organizations...Comment
-
again, who really cares.You Dun Goofed!Comment
-
Difference is Lens didnt create all those "would you hit it threads" a gallery submitter did make his 10000 galleries and though he didn't have to have the docs there were other parts of 2257 he SHOULD have been following all these years which would have made his job easier.Originally posted by The Sultan Of SmutComment
-
I agree that gallery submitters should have been running a tighter ship but I still disagree with your other comment. While Lens didn't create the posts or the content contained within them GFY/Adult.com is responsible for the distribution of the material.Originally posted by GatorBComment
-
This is a daily thread for the last few weeks:
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplicators;
(ii) Mere distribution;
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;
(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service; or
(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.
Read "iv" and "v".Comment
-
this came in #4:Originally posted by GatorB
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
This is where this law gets super confusing. "iv" doesn't apply to the sites mentioned in my earlier post and I don't even know wtf they are refering to in "v". I didn't take 'electronic communication service' as being a forum. If that's the case I suppose some shithead pedo can just have his sick buddies post images to a board and be exempt from prosecution. I really doubt the DOJ is gonna let that one slide...Comment
-
Can't say for google, but yahoo is alreday did alot. Just read this article:
Has Yahoo Been Affected by New 2257 Rules?
Obey the CowgodComment
-
(i) Electronic communications service has the meaning set forth inOriginally posted by The Sultan Of Smut
18 U.S.C. 2510(15).
(j) Remote computing service has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C.(15) "electronic communication service" means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications;
2711(2).
(2) the term "remote computing service" means the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications systemComment
-
BTW, what's about Altavista then? Fot now it looks like a big TGP: http://www.altavista.com/image/resul...ll&miwxh=largeObey the CowgodComment
-
Ok, I get it nowOriginally posted by broke
Comment
-
The keyword here seems to be whether the site (i.e. electronic communication service) "manages" their content or not. If I had a huge pic post or TGP that was completely automated and thus "unmanaged", I should be exempt like Google.Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
From what I've heard this is the reason Yahoo and other search engines don't "actively" remove content in violation of their own terms. They only do so "passively", i.e. respond only if there is a complaint. If they were pro-active, they would thus be managing content and thus legally liable for the content they host or link to. But if they do nothing unless there's a complaint, then they are shielded legally. The legal system actually rewards you for turning a blind eye to illegal content (child porn, piracy, etc) than to be pro-active about stamping it out.Comment
-
(k) Manage content means to make editorial or managerial decisions concerning the content of a computer site or service.Originally posted by kamasutrababe
When you add galleries to your site, you are making a "managerial decision" as to what content will be shown and what will not. You hand select gallery lists, and individual galleries, thumbnails or whatever. These are all "managerial decisions" that you make.
Also a TGP/MGP is NOT a "communication service", it is a content display mechanism / system.
"I'm selflessly supporting the common good, but only coincidentally looking out for No.1."
Comment
-
i dont think google is on the doj radarComment
-
Can you stop this bullshit ? If you really want to know why gallery submitters have to make 2257 database and Google or GFY haven`t then ask legislators.Originally posted by The Sultan Of SmutComment
-
Don't get your panties in a knot, if you actually read the posts you would have noticed that I did let it go. I was only asking questions to actually engage others in debate instead of following most of the shitty advice that's been dispensed on this board or sticking my head in the sand.Originally posted by wjxxx
I totally appreciate the time broke took to answer my question. This board contains 80% bullshit but the odd time someone actually posts something usefull. If you don't want to read comments pertaining to the new regulations in a thread '2257' in the title then don't read it.Comment
-
What a bunch of idiots.Originally posted by cyberxxxCan't say for google, but yahoo is alreday did alot. Just read this article: Has Yahoo Been Affected by New 2257 Rules?
Yahoo pulled the user chats because sponsors were upset over the room titles people were making.
If it was about 2257, ALL chatrooms would be gone since their standard chats have the same exact capabilities as the user chats.Comment
-
Because nobody tells them?Originally posted by Nightwind
Lensman and all the other adult boards need to sticky a 2257 FAQ.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
What the Sultan of Smut posted:
Well then how is it possible for every gallery submitter to go throught the 10000+ galleries submitted over the past 5 years? If you don't have the docs then you delete the content.Comment
-
Google is exempt but their image search feature is not.Comment
-
Originally posted by GatorB
There is no way to prove who created what page... a submitter can say it was created by a outsourcing guy... there is no way to prove that...Comment
-
Yeah yahoo is worried. Just one example of 1000'sOriginally posted by cyberxxxCan't say for google, but yahoo is alreday did alot. Just read this article: Has Yahoo Been Affected by New 2257 Rules?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analstars2/Comment
Comment