Fuck The Asacp! - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

BVF · 04-05-2005, 04:50 PM

50 false alarms

And I would have NEVER sent them SHIT for review. Why in the fuck would I care what they think in the first place? You must have done that due to some kind of guilty conscience or something. If it's all legit then you should have had ascap fuck off from the beginning.

Damian_Maxcash · 04-05-2005, 04:51 PM

It all comes down to personal opinion.....

Some think that using girls that look under 18 or trying to make them look under age is catering to the CP audience, and that makes it wrong - Refer to the Chris Malik, ASACP, Lightspeed fiasco for a lot of debate about that.

At the end of the day its the sponsors that decide what is best for them.... and so they should - they have to protect themselves and other affiliates

V_RocKs · 04-05-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan

As requested, please contact [email protected]

OFFICIALLY I AM RENAIMING THIS THREAD,

"What the fuck ASACP?"

And I am sending you a second email.

Though ICQ is quicker, 1611-24816.

V_RocKs · 04-05-2005, 04:54 PM

Is AOL not working with you ASACP? I have sent a second email, labelled, email #2.

Perhaps the spamming fiasco got you AOL banned or something? Shall I try hotmail?

Damian_Maxcash · 04-05-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by damian2001

It all comes down to personal opinion.....

Some think that using girls that look under 18 or trying to make them look under age is catering to the CP audience, and that makes it wrong - Refer to the Chris Malik, ASACP, Lightspeed fiasco for a lot of debate about that.

At the end of the day its the sponsors that decide what is best for them.... and so they should - they have to protect themselves and other affiliates

Sorry, Im not sure I meant Chris Malik...... It could have been Gary Kremlin

I get confused easily

FightThisPatent · 04-05-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

....I have collected more specific 2257 data on my galleries than any other TGP in the history of TGP's!

FYI on the issue of 2257.... i saw your 2257 page that you posted, and it's a long list of content providers.

Ask yourself this one 2257 test question:

If the DOJ pointed to one of the thumbs that looked really, really young and asked you to identify where you got that SPECIFIC image from... could you do that?

Your answer can't be, look at my 2257 page, because the DOJ agent won't know which content producer is associated with the SPECIFIC image.

Under the EXISTING 2257 statue, you need to be able to answer this question.

The real lesson from this, is not about not including a pic that has a fully clothed boy in the background that was cropped out.... it's documenting where you got your content from, associating pics to content producer, such that if you do dabble in young looking content, that you can answer the simple question that could be asked of you.

Since it seems you are running your sites via DB, you might be able to include an extra column that tags where the image came from at the point you enter it into your db, and that would really go along way towards 2257 compliance.

Consulting an attorney about how you are handling your 2257 issues would be a good idea, and i can referer you to some if you wish.

Fight the Pop Quizzes!

whodarkman · 04-05-2005, 05:02 PM

V_Rock and I have talked about things and as far as I'm concerned the only outstanding issue was the 2257. That has been cleared up and all is well.

V_Rock - you Rock

Stop the insanity

V_RocKs · 04-05-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

FYI on the issue of 2257.... i saw your 2257 page that you posted, and it's a long list of content providers.

Ask yourself this one 2257 test question:

If the DOJ pointed to one of the thumbs that looked really, really young and asked you to identify where you got that SPECIFIC image from... could you do that?

Your answer can't be, look at my 2257 page, because the DOJ agent won't know which content producer is associated with the SPECIFIC image.

Under the EXISTING 2257 statue, you need to be able to answer this question.

The real lesson from this, is not about not including a pic that has a fully clothed boy in the background that was cropped out.... it's documenting where you got your content from, associating pics to content producer, such that if you do dabble in young looking content, that you can answer the simple question that could be asked of you.

Since it seems you are running your sites via DB, you might be able to include an extra column that tags where the image came from at the point you enter it into your db, and that would really go along way towards 2257 compliance.

Consulting an attorney about how you are handling your 2257 issues would be a good idea, and i can referer you to some if you wish.

Fight the Pop Quizzes!

Humm.. interesting point. But what TGP CAN do this? Can Thumbzilla tell you what content producer is matched with each gallery? How about Shemp? Or theHun? Can anyone other than the sponsor do this? I would have to contact each sponsor and ask them. Do you know what they would say? They'd say, "Sure, and you can pay the employee's hourly wage that is getting the data together." Or they'd most likely just laugh at me and tell me no, it isn't possible and they will not give me that kind of info.

V_RocKs · 04-05-2005, 05:37 PM

Apology #1, Seems the ASACP cannot send to AOL right now because some asswipe spammed people and forged the headers to look like the asacp.com website sent them.

Joan and I are now using Hotmail instead.

FightThisPatent · 04-05-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Humm.. interesting point. But what TGP CAN do this? Can Thumbzilla tell you what content producer is matched with each gallery? How about Shemp? Or theHun? Can anyone other than the sponsor do this?

TGP are in an interesting grey space with 2257, because while you show sexually explicit images, and therefore fall under 2257, you don't necessarily license the content, it's provided to you.

Your images have a source, somewhere, somehow you received them since the thumbs are served off of your server. At the point that you received the image (maybe through a form upload), you probably have an additional field that includes the link for the clickthru. You could ask the individual that is submitting the image to also include the content producer info.

If they can't provide it, then you do have a problem with 2257. sleazydream.com has a different approach since he licenses his content, so he has all the 2257 info in place.

I started an interesting thread about the "click here if over 18" type language found on the front of many sites that might interest you. http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...6&page=1&pp=50

I am bringing the 2257 issues up since you had posted that you felt you did more 2257 documentation than any other TGP.. and by looking at your list, it would appear you have.. you have alot of content producers listed.. but that's only a small step towards compliance, and you are missing the bigger part, knowing where each image came from (ie. content producer).

Not trying to bring you down, just trying to help you out, since you seemed genuinely concerned about the CP stuff and 2257.

Fight the 411!

the Shemp · 04-05-2005, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Humm.. interesting point. But what TGP CAN do this? Can Thumbzilla tell you what content producer is matched with each gallery? How about Shemp? Or theHun? Can anyone other than the sponsor do this? I would have to contact each sponsor and ask them. Do you know what they would say? They'd say, "Sure, and you can pay the employee's hourly wage that is getting the data together." Or they'd most likely just laugh at me and tell me no, it isn't possible and they will not give me that kind of info.

i dont show thumbs, its text only. you are responsible for the thumbs on your page

V_RocKs · 04-05-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Shemp

i dont show thumbs, its text only. you are responsible for the thumbs on your page

Right, you also can't link to CP either, so we are both on the same boat.

V_RocKs · 04-05-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

I started an interesting thread about the "click here if over 18" type language found on the front of many sites that might interest you. http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...6&page=1&pp=50

I am bringing the 2257 issues up since you had posted that you felt you did more 2257 documentation than any other TGP.. and by looking at your list, it would appear you have.. you have alot of content producers listed.. but that's only a small step towards compliance, and you are missing the bigger part, knowing where each image came from (ie. content producer).

Not trying to bring you down, just trying to help you out, since you seemed genuinely concerned about the CP stuff and 2257.

Fight the 411!

Thanks for your reply. I hate to keep using this thread though, it is bashing the ASACP more than I'd like to just in the title. I will read the thread you posted and then go there for replies if needed. I'd like to let this thread die for the sake of the ASACP.

the Shemp · 04-05-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Right, you also can't link to CP either, so we are both on the same boat.

who is linking to CP?

V_RocKs · 04-05-2005, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Shemp

who is linking to CP?

Neither I nor you. The point was that someone asked, if the DOJ asked, "[Shemp] can you prove that this partner (paid or not) posted link does not point to CP?" You would have to prove that it didn't. Do you have the content providers proof (Legal ID) that each and every link on your site isn't CP? ie, have 2257 data on every single link you have rotating through your sites 24/7. No... No TGP does because gathering the ID's of all of the models in all of our sites would be crazy! You check to make sure the spot their got it from (the sponsor) has a 2257 link and then go with that. But according to the 2257 law, that isn't enough?

And that is what I was asking and that is what I was told "no" on. But no TGP has this data. So don't point fingers at me for not having it either. And that is where you came in.

rockbear · 04-05-2005, 07:15 PM

I don't know for you guys but this guys "V_rocks" is hard to keep track.

Really hard to trust him in my opinion of this thread. I saw this Tgp around 4-

5 times in the last 2 years because he trade with some friends and the

looked really young.

Anyway...Please Joan keep an eye on him.

Rockbear

FightThisPatent · 04-05-2005, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

And that is what I was asking and that is what I was told "no" on. But no TGP has this data. So don't point fingers at me for not having it either. And that is where you came in.

I was resisting to not post again in this thread to let it die out, but so much to correct in your last post.

My 2257 points were about thumbnails you display on your site that are sexually explicit, require 2257 compliance.

If you link to someone that has CP, you have a whole separate issue to deal with as for as FBI or DOJ goes.

Current 2257 doesn't require that you have the ID's of the models.. not sure where you picked that idea up since it was never mentioned in this thread. Having the model ID was proposed for new 2257 regulations, but they haven't been approved and would be countered in court by adult legal beagles.

Fight the wazzzn't me!

04-05-2005, 04:50 PM	#51
BVF Black Vagina Finder Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Midwest Posts: 13,975	50 false alarms And I would have NEVER sent them SHIT for review. Why in the fuck would I care what they think in the first place? You must have done that due to some kind of guilty conscience or something. If it's all legit then you should have had ascap fuck off from the beginning. __________________ Black Pussy Click On Mr Cosby..CCbill, 60/40, 136 FHG's....The Cos Loves Black Ghetto Pussy!! Last edited by BVF; 04-05-2005 at 04:52 PM..

04-05-2005, 05:02 PM	#57
whodarkman Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: T.O. Posts: 203	V_Rock and I have talked about things and as far as I'm concerned the only outstanding issue was the 2257. That has been cleared up and all is well. V_Rock - you Rock Stop the insanity __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.

04-05-2005, 04:51 PM	#52
Damian_Maxcash So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: MaxCash.com Posts: 12,745	It all comes down to personal opinion..... Some think that using girls that look under 18 or trying to make them look under age is catering to the CP audience, and that makes it wrong - Refer to the Chris Malik, ASACP, Lightspeed fiasco for a lot of debate about that. At the end of the day its the sponsors that decide what is best for them.... and so they should - they have to protect themselves and other affiliates

04-05-2005, 04:54 PM	#54
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,422	Is AOL not working with you ASACP? I have sent a second email, labelled, email #2. Perhaps the spamming fiasco got you AOL banned or something? Shall I try hotmail?

04-05-2005, 05:37 PM	#59
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,422	Apology #1, Seems the ASACP cannot send to AOL right now because some asswipe spammed people and forged the headers to look like the asacp.com website sent them. Joan and I are now using Hotmail instead.

04-05-2005, 07:15 PM	#66
rockbear Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 806	I don't know for you guys but this guys "V_rocks" is hard to keep track. Really hard to trust him in my opinion of this thread. I saw this Tgp around 4- 5 times in the last 2 years because he trade with some friends and the looked really young. Anyway...Please Joan keep an eye on him. Rockbear