What is GFY doing about 2257? - GoFuckYourself.com

Cman · 08-24-2004, 07:42 AM

I just thought of this as I was looking through the new threads.

People posts pics in various threads here all the time and most of the time they are just random porn pics or party pics or whatever.

Are the new regulations going to have any effect on this behavior? Do this forum have to comply with the regulations or is there some kind of loophole?

Just curious.

BRISK · 08-24-2004, 08:30 AM

Lensman · 08-24-2004, 08:43 AM

GFY is a service provider, and the rules are different.

Cman · 08-24-2004, 09:23 AM

Does that apply to all forums on the internet, or only certain forums?

chowda · 08-24-2004, 09:25 AM

a slight change in the terms and conditions and voila, they aint responsible... if they ever were.

baddog · 08-24-2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lensman
GFY is a service provider, and the rules are different.

really? hmmm

FightThisPatent · 08-24-2004, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lensman
GFY is a service provider, and the rules are different.

Under DMCA, service providers are exempt from being hit with copyright infringement issues because they don't control what is being displayed on their system.

So all those images that people post up, are copyrighted to someone else, and not licensed to be displayed on the GFY domain.. if it weren't for DMCA, GFY would be liable.

now for 2257, the new regulations define the secondary record keeper as one that makes editorial decisions about what is displayed, thus the responsibilty to have 2257 records and not using underaged models.

This is where attorneys will love to debate.. that whether you can use DMCA as a defense against 2257.

Adult dating sites are facing 2257 issues because they don't make editorial decisions on what people post, but do have concerns about how 2257 applies to them (i don't know the facts on how it would apply or not).

Google could be a target by DOJ because it allows children easy access to porn that is sexually explicit.....

Pic post sites or blind-accept TGP (with thumbs) could try this same angle of saying they are a service provider and don't make decisions as to what goes up on their site.

It's an interesting angle, and one that anyone who feels they going to use the service provider angle will definitely have consulted with 2257 attorney about it.

-brandon

Nolamer · 08-24-2004, 09:39 AM

GFY don't use visa, why it needs to comply 2257?

baddog · 08-24-2004, 09:41 AM

Interesting . . . especially the Google scenario

baddog · 08-24-2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nolamer
GFY don't use visa, why it needs to comply 2257?

2257 and Visa have nothing to do with each other . . . .it is amazing the misunderstanding out there

BarneyRubble · 08-24-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lensman
GFY is a service provider, and the rules are different.

THANK YOU LENSMAN !!!!

TGP/MGP oners please take note !!

I think Lens has for certain done his homework on this, and he knows what he is talking about! The sky is NOT falling, and you need to stop making absurd requests that gallery submitters submit 2257 informations!

LadyMischief · 08-24-2004, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BarneyRubble
THANK YOU LENSMAN !!!!

TGP/MGP oners please take note !!

I think Lens has for certain done his homework on this, and he knows what he is talking about! The sky is NOT falling, and you need to stop making absurd requests that gallery submitters submit 2257 informations!

uhh...tgp owners choose what to list, therefore they have editorial decisions... Have a lawyer much?

FightThisPatent · 08-24-2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BarneyRubble
The sky is NOT falling, and you need to stop making absurd requests that gallery submitters submit 2257 informations!

Probably not a good conclusion to make.

most TGP and MGP that put up thumb images make an "editorial decision" as to what gets posted.

If the images are sexually explicit, then you do need to deal with 2257.

If you blindly accept images to be posted on your site, then you could try to claim a DMCA-like response to 2257, but it's your business and your azz in jail for 5 years if you are wrong.

Lensman's answer was based on his business, GFY isn't a TGP/MGP so your conclusion is mixing apples and oranges.

-brandon

baddog · 08-24-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BarneyRubble
THANK YOU LENSMAN !!!!

TGP/MGP oners please take note !!

I think Lens has for certain done his homework on this, and he knows what he is talking about! The sky is NOT falling, and you need to stop making absurd requests that gallery submitters submit 2257 informations!

excuse me . . . can you read? there is a little difference between making an editiorial decision to post something (ie: reviewing galleries that are submitted) and letting people post freely on a bbs.

However, I guess if it is a board that moderates and approves every thread, it would be a different story

bdld · 08-24-2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nolamer
GFY don't use visa, why it needs to comply 2257?

see you in jail buddy!

Basic_man · 08-24-2004, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lensman
GFY is a service provider, and the rules are different.

Thanks for this info lens !

Doctor Dre · 08-24-2004, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
Under DMCA, service providers are exempt from being hit with copyright infringement issues because they don't control what is being displayed on their system.

So all those images that people post up, are copyrighted to someone else, and not licensed to be displayed on the GFY domain.. if it weren't for DMCA, GFY would be liable.

now for 2257, the new regulations define the secondary record keeper as one that makes editorial decisions about what is displayed, thus the responsibilty to have 2257 records and not using underaged models.

This is where attorneys will love to debate.. that whether you can use DMCA as a defense against 2257.

Adult dating sites are facing 2257 issues because they don't make editorial decisions on what people post, but do have concerns about how 2257 applies to them (i don't know the facts on how it would apply or not).

Google could be a target by DOJ because it allows children easy access to porn that is sexually explicit.....

Pic post sites or blind-accept TGP (with thumbs) could try this same angle of saying they are a service provider and don't make decisions as to what goes up on their site.

It's an interesting angle, and one that anyone who feels they going to use the service provider angle will definitely have consulted with 2257 attorney about it.

-brandon

Why can't tgps be considered as service providers ?

Doctor Dre · 08-24-2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BarneyRubble
THANK YOU LENSMAN !!!!

TGP/MGP oners please take note !!

I think Lens has for certain done his homework on this, and he knows what he is talking about! The sky is NOT falling, and you need to stop making absurd requests that gallery submitters submit 2257 informations!

You need to stop making absurd comments when you haven't read a line about 2257.

BarneyRubble · 08-24-2004, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Dre
You need to stop making absurd comments when you haven't read a line about 2257.

Actually I am one of the few people who actually HAVE gone over it with a lawyer. I know exactly how 2257 affects me.

But thanks for adding to this thread. Did it make you feel as important as you had hoped it would?

This board having (do you even recall how many Joe?) moderators which have full editorial priviledge, puts it in exact same category as a TGP/MGP.

But Lens has done his homework, and yes he is correct in stating that DMCA does cover him.

NEXT ??

mardigras · 08-24-2004, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdld
see you in jail buddy!

What are you doing that's going to land you there?

Panky · 08-24-2004, 12:08 PM

Lens is ultimately responsible for everything and anything posted on his board. The owners are implicated by default.

When the mods decide a picture of tub girl or whatever other image is allowed to stay, that is making an editorial decision.

In the eyes of the law, bulletin board owners whether it would be GFY or any other, are 100% accountable for the content posted on their board.

Moderators make editorial decisions all the time. It's their job.

fris · 08-24-2004, 12:10 PM

i got a 2257 tat today

FightThisPatent · 08-24-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BarneyRubble

But Lens has done his homework, and yes he is correct in stating that DMCA does cover him.

Lensman never stated anything about DMCA, i brought that up.

Lensman is probably referring to this paragraph:

Internet Definitions. To bring the regulations up to date with the
2003 Amendments, the definition of a producer has been modified in proposed 28 CFR 75.1. Persons who manage the content of computer sites or services are considered secondary producers. An Internet service provider (ISP) is not a producer under this definition; ISPs [[Page 35549]] merely provide individuals with access to the Internet.

from: http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

which is somewhat similar language as DMCA.. DMCA also includes the term "Online Service Provider", for which eBay is protected from copyright infringements.

In the case of Perfect10 vs. CCBill, etc.. P10 was trying to content that CC processors could not be protected under DMCA, because they didn't provide access to the internet, etc..

The judge ruled against P10 (i read the ruling, interesting stuff).

The issue of whether a message board can be considered an OSP, like google, is debateable. As the above poster pointed out, the Mods do make editorial decisions on what to delete.

The difference here is that lens has a bunch of attorneys looking out for his business (much like his legal team that's fighting acacia), so he's got his back covered.

Anyone out there trying to be clever or creative in trying to get around 2257 is doing so without an attorney, and without a net.

-brandon

Cman · 08-24-2004, 01:56 PM

heh, looks like i opened a big ol' can of worms

FightThisPatent · 08-24-2004, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by exp0sed
heh, looks like i opened a big ol' can of worms

what did ya expect? when you go fishing, you need bait.

-brandon

xxxjay · 08-24-2004, 02:17 PM

Defining GFY as an ISP is iffy. ISPs would, in my opinion, be hosting companies (Mindspring, AOL) or hosts. Since GFY is moderated, it can be argued that GFY is not an ISP.

None the less, GFY is not a likely target.

Get Bush out of here and lets end the nonsense.

tony286 · 08-24-2004, 02:26 PM

I am curious how msn and yahoo groups fit into this. To tell you the truth if GFY went picture less it would be a good thing , it would get rid of the surfers rather quickly.

StuartD · 08-24-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by exp0sed
What is GFY doing about 2257?

You mean besides starting 6 threads a day about it for the past 2 months?

Cman · 08-24-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaskedMan
You mean besides starting 6 threads a day about it for the past 2 months?

i check this forum out every 2-3 days and i look through the first 3-4 pages before posting.

some people have these new inventions called "lives" and therefore can't spend 24 hours a day reading every single thread on this forum.

you might want to pick one up for yourself

baddog · 08-25-2004, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Dre
Why can't tgps be considered as service providers ?

because they review and accept or reject the galleries submitted to them

baddog · 08-25-2004, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BarneyRubble

This board having (do you even recall how many Joe?) moderators which have full editorial priviledge, puts it in exact same category as a TGP/MGP.

having and exercising are two different things. there are boards that all posts must be reviewed by a moderator before it is posted, if GFY was like that, they would be subject to the same 2257 regs as a TGP . . . . at least that is what I get out of it

08-24-2004, 07:42 AM	#1
Cman Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 697	What is GFY doing about 2257? I just thought of this as I was looking through the new threads. People posts pics in various threads here all the time and most of the time they are just random porn pics or party pics or whatever. Are the new regulations going to have any effect on this behavior? Do this forum have to comply with the regulations or is there some kind of loophole? Just curious. __________________ I could put stuff here, but you don't care.

08-24-2004, 08:30 AM	#2
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	__________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

08-24-2004, 09:23 AM	#4
Cman Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 697	Does that apply to all forums on the internet, or only certain forums? __________________ I could put stuff here, but you don't care.

08-24-2004, 09:25 AM	#5
chowda Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Gooch city Posts: 9,527	a slight change in the terms and conditions and voila, they aint responsible... if they ever were. __________________ Someone finds you... 2007 PS: Nationalnet is the best host I've ever had. And i tried alot of them.

08-24-2004, 12:10 PM	#22
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,372	i got a 2257 tat today __________________ Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence. WP Stuff

08-24-2004, 08:43 AM	#3
Lensman GFY Chaperone Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Adult.com Posts: 9,846	GFY is a service provider, and the rules are different.

08-24-2004, 09:39 AM	#8
Nolamer Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 212	GFY don't use visa, why it needs to comply 2257?

08-24-2004, 09:41 AM	#9
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	Interesting . . . especially the Google scenario

08-24-2004, 12:08 PM	#21
Panky Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 269	Lens is ultimately responsible for everything and anything posted on his board. The owners are implicated by default. When the mods decide a picture of tub girl or whatever other image is allowed to stay, that is making an editorial decision. In the eyes of the law, bulletin board owners whether it would be GFY or any other, are 100% accountable for the content posted on their board. Moderators make editorial decisions all the time. It's their job.

08-24-2004, 01:56 PM	#24
Cman Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 697	heh, looks like i opened a big ol' can of worms __________________ I could put stuff here, but you don't care.

08-24-2004, 02:17 PM	#26
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	Defining GFY as an ISP is iffy. ISPs would, in my opinion, be hosting companies (Mindspring, AOL) or hosts. Since GFY is moderated, it can be argued that GFY is not an ISP. None the less, GFY is not a likely target. Get Bush out of here and lets end the nonsense. __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

08-24-2004, 02:26 PM	#27
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I am curious how msn and yahoo groups fit into this. To tell you the truth if GFY went picture less it would be a good thing , it would get rid of the surfers rather quickly.