Will the Archive.org archive be exempt from 2257's?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • goBigtime
    Confirmed User
    • Nov 2002
    • 7761

    #1

    Will the Archive.org archive be exempt from 2257's?

    Think about that a sec
  • tranza
    ICQ: 197-556-237
    • Jun 2003
    • 57559

    #2
    I don't think so.
    I'm just a newbie.

    Comment

    • jawanda
      Confirmed User
      • Feb 2003
      • 6040

      #3
      helluvah good question. I'm sure there's some loophole for that type of service though.

      Comment

      • directfiesta
        Too lazy to set a custom title
        • Oct 2002
        • 30157

        #4
        And providers of newsgroups ????

        ( giganews, usenetserver, titan, etc ... )
        I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !

        But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

        Comment

        • goBigtime
          Confirmed User
          • Nov 2002
          • 7761

          #5
          As the 2257 changes were originally proposed....

          There was this....


          Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:


          ... [snip]....

          (v)
          A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing serice who does not manage the content of the computer site or service.

          .... [snip]....

          Comment

          • xenigo
            Confirmed User
            • Jan 2001
            • 8067

            #6
            Same question applies to Google Cache, and Yahoo Cache.

            Comment

            • goBigtime
              Confirmed User
              • Nov 2002
              • 7761

              #7
              Would archive.org and the like be considered a remote computing service?

              And if so, could you or I start a 'remote computing service' that would collect/spider and display sexually oriented images to the public for the benefit of the company displaying them?

              Comment

              • directfiesta
                Too lazy to set a custom title
                • Oct 2002
                • 30157

                #8
                Originally posted by goBigtime
                As the 2257 changes were originally proposed....

                There was this....


                Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:


                ... [snip]....

                (v)
                A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing serice who does not manage the content of the computer site or service.

                .... [snip]....
                Interesting ....

                But in the case of newsgroups provider, they do decide which group they carry or not ...

                This is complicated ... and will get worse.
                I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !

                But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

                Comment

                • goBigtime
                  Confirmed User
                  • Nov 2002
                  • 7761

                  #9
                  In a nutshell...

                  Originally posted by directfiesta
                  This is complicated ... and will get worse.

                  Comment

                  • goBigtime
                    Confirmed User
                    • Nov 2002
                    • 7761

                    #10
                    Originally posted by directfiesta
                    But in the case of newsgroups provider, they do decide which group they carry or not ...

                    What if they decide to carry "All" newsgroups. Ie, no selecting of groups. They just carry "all of usenet". Sort of like how archive.org, google, yahoo, etc... try to cache "all of the internet".

                    Will they be granted special exemptions?

                    Comment

                    • directfiesta
                      Too lazy to set a custom title
                      • Oct 2002
                      • 30157

                      #11
                      Originally posted by goBigtime
                      What if they decide to carry "All" newsgroups. Ie, no selecting of groups. They just carry "all of usenet". Sort of like how archive.org, google, yahoo, etc... try to cache "all of the internet".

                      Will they be granted special exemptions?
                      I have a hard time with that when they have groups like alt.binairies.erotica.child ...

                      But maybe Whacko Jacko will have some influence .... or they will ignore newsgroups as much surfers know nothing about them ....


                      I like alt.binairies.cd.image .... lol
                      I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !

                      But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

                      Comment

                      • seeric
                        ..........
                        • Aug 2004
                        • 41917

                        #12
                        oohhhh good ass question.

                        Comment

                        • reynold
                          Too lazy to set a custom title
                          • Oct 2002
                          • 51271

                          #13
                          I don't think so...
                          This site might be dragged on this issue as well.

                          Comment

                          Working...