Can You Trust Your Content Provider? - Page 8 - GoFuckYourself.com

baddog · 04-27-2003, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

Well, see.. Say you're baddog, content purchaser. You live in California, land of the free, land of the fair and land of 2257. You buy said content off of this person not subject to 2257 who isn't compliant with 2257. What do you think happens when you say "Oh, well here's the website that I bought the content on" but there's no 2257 notice, and the documents are in fact not in order if they do track them down? baddog content purchaser isn't going to be happy, now is he?

I am never happy anyway, but thank you for explaining

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:14 PM

With the self-righteous bullshit attitudes by some of you better-than-thou content providers I can tell you that I'd never be interested in buying your shit. I'd rather buy Cloud9 than Jact anyday.

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
With the self-righteous bullshit attitudes by some of you better-than-thou content providers I can tell you that I'd never be interested in buying your shit. I'd rather buy Cloud9 than Jact anyday.

Who was being self-righteous? I never once said don't buy from anyone, I never once rubbed it in anyone's face that I'm compliant. It's common sense. Lacking some are we?

baddog · 04-27-2003, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
With the self-righteous bullshit attitudes by some of you better-than-thou content providers I can tell you that I'd never be interested in buying your shit. I'd rather buy Cloud9 than Jact anyday.

you would rather buy from Cloud9 because Jact is compliant? That makes a lot of sense.

Those hoiler than thou content providers that follow the law . . . .how dare them.

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
With the self-righteous bullshit attitudes by some of you better-than-thou content providers I can tell you that I'd never be interested in buying your shit. I'd rather buy Cloud9 than Jact anyday.

If I was selling content, and doing everything in my power to be legal and saw how many other arrogant "self-righteous" content providers all thought they were above the law and got all bent outta shape cause someone pointed out that they weren't legal... I'd kinda cop an attitude about it too.

Numb nuts who think they're bigger than the law run the risk of royally fucking up business for everyone else... they can single handedly ruin this business just by being pig headed.

If I was Jact or AaronM... I'd be pissed... I'd say they're actually handling it really well and civilized.

But hey, you're call.... enjoy using that illegal content. Hope it makes you feel important.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:22 PM

No genius, pay attention. I'd rather buy Cloud9 content because I trust it more and they're not full of themselves like Jact is. As to being compliant or not, I'll deal with that decision myself and not based on the list.

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
No genius, pay attention. I'd rather buy Cloud9 content because I trust it more and they're not full of themselves like Jact is. As to being compliant or not, I'll deal with that decision myself and not based on the list.

You're breaking my heart here. No, really, you are. I'm fucking crying here. Oh god, Brujah said I'm full of myself.

XxXotic · 04-27-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
With the self-righteous bullshit attitudes by some of you better-than-thou content providers I can tell you that I'd never be interested in buying your shit. I'd rather buy Cloud9 than Jact anyday.

you'd rather buy from someone who is breaking the law as opposed to a content provider that cares about it's webmasters?

that makes sense... if you're an idiot

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
No genius, pay attention. I'd rather buy Cloud9 content because I trust it more and they're not full of themselves like Jact is. As to being compliant or not, I'll deal with that decision myself and not based on the list.

Hahaha... it comes down to "the list" again.

You're right.... ignore the list.... by all means. Might as well go out and steal all the money outta the register at your local convenience store while yer at it.

Want me to make a list that says that the store isn't it in compliance so that it makes it ok for you to do it?

XxXotic · 04-27-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
No genius, pay attention. I'd rather buy Cloud9 content because I trust it more and they're not full of themselves like Jact is. As to being compliant or not, I'll deal with that decision myself and not based on the list.

he's full of himself? why? because he obeys the LAW?

well shit, i must be full of myself too, when it comes to my business i comply with regulations

maybe i'm just crazy

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan
Hahaha... it comes down to "the list" again.

You're right.... ignore the list.... by all means. Might as well go out and steal all the money outta the register at your local convenience store while yer at it.

Want me to make a list that says that the store isn't it in compliance so that it makes it ok for you to do it?

I said "not based on the list." Your comprehension is lacking.

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by XxXotic
you'd rather buy from someone who is breaking the law as opposed to a content provider that cares about it's webmasters?

that makes sense... if you're an idiot

Okay I'd like to back the train up to where it went off the tracks. Not sure where exactly Brujah got bent out of shape.

As far as I'm aware the only part of Cloud 9's non-compliance according to this interpritation of the law is that the records are held at a law office and not their place of business. Some lawyers will tell you this doesn't matter, some will tell you this matters greatly. It depends on how strictly you abide and which camp you adhere to.

So I personally wouldn't call it illegal content and haven't. Personally I'm not subject to 2257 but I'll adhere to the most severe interpritation for my clients. That's it, that's all.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by XxXotic
he's full of himself? why? because he obeys the LAW?

well shit, i must be full of myself too, when it comes to my business i comply with regulations

maybe i'm just crazy

Did you really.. really believe that was the meaning of my post, or are you just argue a point that doesn't exist ?

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
No genius, pay attention. I'd rather buy Cloud9 content because I trust it more and they're not full of themselves like Jact is. As to being compliant or not, I'll deal with that decision myself and not based on the list.

Nobody said the list was the end-all and be all either. It's a GUIDELINE. Aaron was trying to do people a favor.. both webmasters AND content providers. Most people would have said "fuck you" and eliminated 3/4 of their competition in one fell swoop as opposed to trying to help them out.

Not only that, but a lot of the webmasters too.. I've heard a lot of people say that there are too many newbie webmasters.. guess who'd take the fall then, eh? Some not-so-newbies too, according to this thread.

And as for your thing with jact the man, go nuts, he fights his own battles and has his own attitude problem, but don't paint us all with the same mental brush.

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

Did you really.. really believe that was the meaning of my post, or are you just argue a point that doesn't exist ?

Maybe he thinks you look good in tights.

XxXotic · 04-27-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

Did you really.. really believe that was the meaning of my post, or are you just argue a point that doesn't exist ?

did i really what? you're making less sense with each post

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

I said "not based on the list." Your comprehension is lacking.

yes my comprehension.... right... so anyway you're going to ignore the list... and the law too? Smart.

How much do you charge for some hit and run jobs I need done?

XxXotic · 04-27-2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

Maybe he thinks you look good in tights.

well damn now you ruined the surprise!

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:32 PM

Maybe it's a Guideline, but start reading from the first page again.. and see how it's almost being used as a weapon. To paint everyone with a "N" as running an illegal business in the sense of non-compliance to federal law. That's my impression of it.

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

Maybe he thinks you look good in tights.

I betcha he does.. Almost as good as you look in the tutu.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by XxXotic
did i really what? you're making less sense with each post

It's there, clear and simple. You just missed it.

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
Maybe it's a Guideline, but start reading from the first page again.. and see how it's almost being used as a weapon. To paint everyone with a "N" as running an illegal business in the sense of non-compliance to federal law. That's my impression of it.

Yeah, some people are going to see it that way regardless of motivation though. Hey, it's still useful information, irregardless, isn't it?

I mean I had nothing to do with the list, but I do appreciate it's existance as far as giving information that's been lacking in this industry for WAY too long. It's well worth the kick in the ass, the heads up, call it what you will. It's certainly accomplished it's "goals". A LOT of providers got their information into shape and did themselves AND their customers a great service.

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
Maybe it's a Guideline, but start reading from the first page again.. and see how it's almost being used as a weapon. To paint everyone with a "N" as running an illegal business in the sense of non-compliance to federal law. That's my impression of it.

Yes but your interpretation sucks.

No really man... ignore the list and use what ever content you want that isn't compliant. You're the one that will pay for it in the end.

Maybe while you're closing up shop and paying a hefty fine, you'll feel real happy that you showed AaronM up and ignored his crummy list.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan

yes my comprehension.... right... so anyway you're going to ignore the list... and the law too? Smart.

How much do you charge for some hit and run jobs I need done?

Where do you even begin to get that ignoring the list equates to breaking the law ? Was it because I didn't agree that Cloud9Content is breaking the law ?

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
[B]Maybe it's a Guideline, but start reading from the first page again.. and see how it's almost being used as a weapon. To paint everyone with a "N" as running an illegal business in the sense of non-compliance to federal law. That's my impression of it.

I really don't think that Aaron would be giving these people links to resources and showing them advice from lawyers if he was out to get them and brand them as running "illegal content businesses". I don't even see how it was painted in that light. Just because they have an N beside them in the title 18 doesn't mean they're "illegal" it just means they aren't fully compliant to the US law which may or may not apply to them.

If Aaron hadn't updated the list, or added anyone to it, then maybe it would be a weapon.. But as Aaron's said several times, if he gave a fuck about his content site, he'd have updated it in the last year or so. Sure, Aaron lacks tact sometimes and that's a part of his charm, but an ulterior motive, I really don't see it.

You don't have to listen to me obviously, since I'm self-righteous and full of myself. But hey, figured I'd stick my two cents in.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan

Yes but your interpretation sucks.

No really man... ignore the list and use what ever content you want that isn't compliant. You're the one that will pay for it in the end.

Maybe while you're closing up shop and paying a hefty fine, you'll feel real happy that you showed AaronM up and ignore his crummy list.

Oh I'm going to close up shop and pay a hefty fine ? What for genius ?

XxXotic · 04-27-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

It's there, clear and simple. You just missed it.

the phrase "did you really" has absolutely NO relativity or application to anything I've stated to you idiot. clearly and simply put YOU missed it. Not I. maybe when you actually get a grip on comprehending the english language i'll listen to something you have to say

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

I really don't think that Aaron would be giving these people links to resources and showing them advice from lawyers if he was out to get them and brand them as running "illegal content businesses". I don't even see how it was painted in that light. Just because they have an N beside them in the title 18 doesn't mean they're "illegal" it just means they aren't fully compliant to the US law which may or may not apply to them.

Then you've missed the posts where the words Illegal, and Breaking the law have been thrown around and targeting the other content providers.

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

Then you've missed the posts where the words Illegal, and Breaking the law have been thrown around and targeting the other content providers.

You're right, I did skim several pages because well, it was just too much. Illegal is subject to local law anyhow. Doesn't matter, the DOJ is never going to pursue porn, right? Riiiiiiiight.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by XxXotic
the phrase "did you really" has absolutely NO relativity or application to anything I've stated to you idiot. clearly and simply put YOU missed it. Not I. maybe when you actually get a grip on comprehending the english language i'll listen to something you have to say

I'll help you.

You asked if I believed Jact was full of himself, because he is obeying the law.

I replied with did you really believe that ? If so you missed the point of my post and are apparently just trying to argue, for the sake of arguing. Now it's obvious that's exactly all it is.

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

Oh I'm going to close up shop and pay a hefty fine ? What for genius ?

well, if you ignore advice, and don't bother to even check for compliance or listen to others who do...

I'd imagine it wouldn't take long.

I mean, if you take offence from everyone who ever tried to inform you of rules, laws, regulations and what not... well, I'd imagine that you wouldn't be getting very far.

LadyMischief · 04-27-2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

Then you've missed the posts where the words Illegal, and Breaking the law have been thrown around and targeting the other content providers.

How many of them fixed that within minutes though? If someone commits murder and you say he's broken the law, is it slander? No, it's truth. Taken out of context yeah it's harsh. But what's worse, getting a bit of a smack on the boards, or going to jail for a very long, unhappy time?

I'm not trying to justify it because sure, people have been pricks in this thread.. but this is GFY. Take everything with a grain of salt, remember? :P

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan

well, if you ignore advice, and don't bother to even check for compliance or listen to others who do...

I'd imagine it wouldn't take long.

I mean, if you take offence from everyone who ever tried to inform you of rules, laws, regulations and what not... well, I'd imagine that you wouldn't be getting very far.

I'm not a content provider. Why should I follow legal advice from GFY ? I'll consult my own attorney for legal advice. What exactly is it that you think I'm getting fined for ?

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyMischief

How many of them fixed that within minutes though? If someone commits murder and you say he's broken the law, is it slander? No, it's truth. Taken out of context yeah it's harsh. But what's worse, getting a bit of a smack on the boards, or going to jail for a very long, unhappy time?

I'm not trying to justify it because sure, people have been pricks in this thread.. but this is GFY. Take everything with a grain of salt, remember? :P

A grain? How about a dumptruck full?

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

I'm not a content provider. Why should I follow legal advice from GFY ? I'll consult my own attorney for legal advice. What exactly is it that you think I'm getting fined for ?

Maybe it's illegal to wear tights in public where you live and he's concerned?

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

I'm not a content provider. Why should I follow legal advice from GFY ? I'll consult my own attorney for legal advice. What exactly is it that you think I'm getting fined for ?

Quote:

I'd rather buy Cloud9 than Jact anyday.

You can't remember what you say one moment from the next?
You get all bent outta shape about this list, so decide "I'm gonna show him by going and buying from someone who isn't compliant... yeah, that'll show him!" and then wonder what you're doing wrong?

I know you said you'd rather... and didn't say you actually would. But you get the idea... be an idiot, ellude that you would be an idiot... same diff.

I'm surprised you don't get mad at your legal advisor too when he gives you advice on who's compliant.

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:48 PM

I bet we could make a list of website operators that are subject to US law Title 18 USC 2257 that don't bother to comply.. You think that'd rise a stink? I think it'd raise a stink. Maybe. Just maybe though, since the number who would be compliant would be a far lower ratio.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyMischief

How many of them fixed that within minutes though? If someone commits murder and you say he's broken the law, is it slander? No, it's truth. Taken out of context yeah it's harsh. But what's worse, getting a bit of a smack on the boards, or going to jail for a very long, unhappy time?

It's such a trivial thing to add the info, but that doesn't mean it's accurate or reflects a content provider following the law as it is written. Any of them could be using a PO Box ( Suite 101 ) or faking the address altogether.

Quote:

I'm not trying to justify it because sure, people have been pricks in this thread.. but this is GFY. Take everything with a grain of salt, remember? :P

Amen.

baddog · 04-27-2003, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact
I bet we could make a list of website operators that are subject to US law Title 18 USC 2257 that don't bother to comply.. You think that'd rise a stink? I think it'd raise a stink. Maybe. Just maybe though, since the number who would be compliant would be a far lower ratio.

save it for next week, and you will have a new xbox for sure

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan

You can't remember what you say one moment from the next?
You get all bent outta shape about this list, so decide "I'm gonna show him by going and buying from someone who isn't compliant... yeah, that'll show him!" and then wonder what you're doing wrong?

I know you said you'd rather... and didn't say you actually would. But you get the idea... be an idiot, ellude that you would be an idiot... same diff.

I'm surprised you don't get mad at your legal advisor too when he gives you advice on who's compliant.

I'm not surprised you missed the few posts where I already had to clarify it for you that buying from Cloud9 instead of Jact wasn't based on who is legal and who isn't.

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baddog

save it for next week, and you will have a new xbox for sure

I've already got two though.

Can I get a PS2?

jact · 04-27-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

I'm not surprised you missed the few posts where I already had to clarify it for you that buying from Cloud9 instead of Jact wasn't based on who is legal and who isn't.

Exactly. You base it upon more important reasons.

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

I'm not surprised you missed the few posts where I already had to clarify it for you that buying from Cloud9 instead of Jact wasn't based on who is legal and who isn't.

Actually, you said you wouldn't base it on the list... sorry I had to clarify it for you.

Need help keeping track of your own mindless ramblings?

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

Exactly. You base it upon more important reasons.

Exactly! Like who is customer-friendly, provides good support, easy to deal with, actually has good content, etc.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan

Actually, you said you wouldn't base it on the list... sorry I had to clarify it for you.

Need help keeping track of your own mindless ramblings?

And not basing it on the list because of the nature in which it is compiled, whereas I would seek my own legal advice and not get it from GFY. It's all in the previous posts. Nothing to keep track of. You just keep missing it.

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

And not basing it on the list because of the nature in which it is compiled, whereas I would seek my own legal advice and not get it from GFY. It's all in the previous posts. Nothing to keep track of. You just keep missing it.

You've obviously been missing it too. It's been suggested and always has been for people to check with their lawyers. Infact, that's what Aaron said he did... he checked with his lawyers.

Seems smart... doesn't it??

No one ever said to go by the list and use it as your bible. It's a question of trust... do you trust your content provider? Do you really know if they're compliant.

If they have an N on the list, then it's probably in your best interest to find out if they are... isn't it??

You were a brain donor when you were younger, weren't you?

StuartD · 04-27-2003, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

Exactly! Like who is customer-friendly, provides good support, easy to deal with, actually has good content, etc.

Ahh... I see, so you're basing it on who you know... because you obviously don't know Jact (damn, that sounded good.. don't know Jact

)

Anyway, you can ask a few dozen people on any given board and they'll tell you that Jact ranks very highly in all those categories you just listed.

jact · 04-27-2003, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

Exactly! Like who is customer-friendly, provides good support, easy to deal with, actually has good content, etc.

If that's what you base your content purchases on, then you obviously have bought from JACT Content often! If you're going to make jabs like that because of how I am on a board, you have some serious fucking issues to work out. Business is business, this ain't business.

Brujah · 04-27-2003, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan

You've obviously been missing it too. It's been suggested and always has been for people to check with their lawyers. Infact, that's what Aaron said he did... he checked with his lawyers.

Seems smart... doesn't it??

No one ever said to go by the list and use it as your bible. It's a question of trust... do you trust your content provider? Do you really know if they're compliant.

If they have an N on the list, then it's probably in your best interest to find out if they are... isn't it??

You were a brain donor when you were younger, weren't you?

No one ever said to go by the list ? Are you sure ? I can help you find Aaron, probably Jact, and others stating that certain content providers were breaking the law. Do you need me to help you with that ?

Did the brain donor comment make you feel special or superior ? Way to argue your point!

jact · 04-27-2003, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah

No one ever said to go by the list ? Are you sure ? I can help you find Aaron, probably Jact, and others stating that certain content providers were breaking the law. Do you need me to help you with that ?

Did the brain donor comment make you feel special or superior ? Way to argue your point!

"probably jact"?

04-27-2003, 08:14 PM	#352
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	With the self-righteous bullshit attitudes by some of you better-than-thou content providers I can tell you that I'd never be interested in buying your shit. I'd rather buy Cloud9 than Jact anyday. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

04-27-2003, 08:22 PM	#356
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	No genius, pay attention. I'd rather buy Cloud9 content because I trust it more and they're not full of themselves like Jact is. As to being compliant or not, I'll deal with that decision myself and not based on the list. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

04-27-2003, 08:32 PM	#369
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Maybe it's a Guideline, but start reading from the first page again.. and see how it's almost being used as a weapon. To paint everyone with a "N" as running an illegal business in the sense of non-compliance to federal law. That's my impression of it. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

04-27-2003, 08:48 PM	#387
jact Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Canada Posts: 9,134	I bet we could make a list of website operators that are subject to US law Title 18 USC 2257 that don't bother to comply.. You think that'd rise a stink? I think it'd raise a stink. Maybe. Just maybe though, since the number who would be compliant would be a far lower ratio. __________________ Free agent