2257 rules: All sig posters will need 2257 info?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • RawAlex
    So Fucking Banned
    • Oct 2003
    • 9465
    #1

    2257 rules: All sig posters will need 2257 info?

    I am thinking that anyone with a sig file with an image in it is going to need to send a copy to GFY to prove the content.

    Interesting issues coming down the road.
    Tags: None
    • BoyAlley
      So Fucking Gay
      • Nov 2004
      • 19714
      #2

      -Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

      There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

      GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.

        Comment

        • JD
          Too lazy to set a custom title
          • Sep 2003
          • 22651
          #3
          Originally posted by BoyAlley

          -Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

          There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

          GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.
          yep and it's total bullshit imho

            Comment

            • BoyAlley
              So Fucking Gay
              • Nov 2004
              • 19714
              #4
              Originally posted by SPeRMiNaToR
              yep and it's total bullshit imho
              Especially considering message boards and p2p are the top ways that real CP are distributed in the first place! Owners of those sites have virtually no responsibility, while owners of sites that use by adult for adult content are subjected to this muck-a-muck.

                Comment

                • StarkReality
                  Confirmed User
                  • May 2004
                  • 4444
                  #5
                  Originally posted by BoyAlley
                  Especially considering message boards and p2p are the top ways that real CP are distributed in the first place! Owners of those sites have virtually no responsibility, while owners of sites that use by adult for adult content are subjected to this muck-a-muck.
                  Very true, but it's like always: If you can't catch the big fish (real criminals), you catch the small ones (webmasters) and call it success.

                    Comment

                    • The Sultan Of Smut
                      Confirmed User
                      • Dec 2004
                      • 4325
                      #6
                      Originally posted by BoyAlley

                      -Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

                      There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

                      GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.
                      I don't see how Google is the same since users post the material on a public forum (which is acting as the carrier of goods from one party to another) as opposed to Google who goes out and seeks/repackages/redistributes the content on their own without the permission of at least one of the parties involved.

                      Like the other guy said it's total bullshit. Large companies with the resources to put up a fight are given a pass while the smaller guys get fried.

                      Oh, this is one interesting tid bit to extend the common carrier arguement since there still seems to be a level of accountability on the part of Google if it is in fact a common carrier:

                      "A common carrier is absolutely liable for goods carried by it"

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

                        Comment

                        • Bloomer
                          So Fucking Banned
                          • Mar 2007
                          • 654
                          #7
                          Originally posted by SPeRMiNaToR
                          yep and it's total bullshit imho
                          How are you so sure?
                          Where is your law degree?
                          I would also like to see some sort of proof to this claim that they WONT have to comply show it in writing if you can that these Within the U.S. companies are exempt from this!

                            Comment

                            • BoyAlley
                              So Fucking Gay
                              • Nov 2004
                              • 19714
                              #8
                              Originally posted by Bloomer
                              How are you so sure?
                              Where is your law degree?
                              I would also like to see some sort of proof to this claim that they WONT have to comply show it in writing if you can that these Within the U.S. companies are exempt from this!

                              Bloomer, you've made a total jackass out of yourself in every other thread you've posted in, why bother continuing that trend in this one?

                                Comment

                                • IllTestYourGirls
                                  Ah My Balls
                                  • Feb 2007
                                  • 14311
                                  #9
                                  it is all bull shit, like i have said before "land of the free



































































                                  to go fuck yourself

                                    Comment

                                    • Bloomer
                                      So Fucking Banned
                                      • Mar 2007
                                      • 654
                                      #10
                                      those days of being free are gone just like the sitcom

                                        Comment

                                        • After Shock Media
                                          It's coming look busy
                                          • Mar 2001
                                          • 35299
                                          #11
                                          I think my sig is exempt.

                                          [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

                                            Comment

                                            • RawAlex
                                              So Fucking Banned
                                              • Oct 2003
                                              • 9465
                                              #12
                                              Originally posted by BoyAlley

                                              -Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

                                              There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

                                              GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.
                                              I have a feeling that won't carry much water in this case. GFY isn't a common carrier, they do edit posts, ban people, and limit the content of sig files. By nature, the exercise editorial control over the content of the board, and as such are not "blind" common carriers, but a service provider (and secondary producer as a result).

                                              That nice picture of Sunny is the corner will certainly need a 2257... as will many of the images from the pheonix forum.


                                              Also: I am wondering how this will affect Fubar and JFK... some of those images are explicit, and not all of them are taken at public events (no "news" exemption).

                                              Anyone?

                                                Comment

                                                • BusterBunny
                                                  perverted justice decoy
                                                  • Aug 2005
                                                  • 19291
                                                  #13
                                                  Originally posted by BoyAlley

                                                  -Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

                                                  There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

                                                  GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.
                                                  good to know































                                                  see sig
                                                  my sig caught gonoherpasyphilaids and died

                                                    Comment

                                                    • stickyfingerz
                                                      Doin fine
                                                      • Oct 2005
                                                      • 24984
                                                      #14
                                                      Originally posted by Bloomer
                                                      How are you so sure?
                                                      Where is your law degree?
                                                      I would also like to see some sort of proof to this claim that they WONT have to comply show it in writing if you can that these Within the U.S. companies are exempt from this!
                                                      Thats what my lawyer worries about. You should be SUPER worried with your 600+ sites, all those tgps and blogs. lol

                                                        Comment

                                                        Previous template Next
                                                        Working...