Google Images, 2257 required? - GoFuckYourself.com

GatorB · 05-17-2005, 06:07 PM

If not why not? If so, you can be damned sure they will be taking this to court.

bringer · 05-17-2005, 06:08 PM

why wouldnt it be required?

Mr.Fiction · 05-17-2005, 06:16 PM

The government chooses who they want to go after. If Google behaves and doesn't put too many anti-Bush stories on Google News, they will probably be allowed to exist.

seeric · 05-17-2005, 06:18 PM

yep and what about public message boards like this one?

its much wider and encompassing than it appears. this is gonna make life interesting in adult for quite some time.

many many boards, have many people surfing through proxies and posting tons of shit. who is accountable if you can't find them? the board itself?

Nicky · 05-17-2005, 06:21 PM

I have 1 word for it......fucked-up....

Mr.Fiction · 05-17-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

yep and what about public message boards like this one?

its much wider and encompassing than it appears. this is gonna make life interesting in adult for quite some time.

many many boards, have many people surfing through proxies and posting tons of shit. who is accountable if you can't find them? the board itself?

AOL and other ISP type companies have not been held responsible for content posted by their users, regardless of what other laws say about the legality of the user's actions. There is no reason to believe that this law would be any different.

Death threats are illegal. If a user posts a death threat on GFY, anonymously or not, Lensman cannot be arrested for that crime.

bringer · 05-17-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

yep and what about public message boards like this one?

its much wider and encompassing than it appears. this is gonna make life interesting in adult for quite some time.

many many boards, have many people surfing through proxies and posting tons of shit. who is accountable if you can't find them? the board itself?

probably the domain its hosted on

GatorB · 05-17-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bringer

why wouldnt it be required?

That's my point under these regs as I read the prosals Google WOULD be required to get the 2257 info for their images. Of course we all know they couldn't even if they wanted to and they don't want to. I can tell you that as a small fry if the feds came after me I'd tell them to go to Google Images then task them WTF they are procescuting me for. No way they could get a conviction on a small guy when all his lawyer has to do is show them Google Images and their non-compliance. And the AG has to answer the question of WHY Google hasn't been targeted even though they'd be the world's largest source of non complying images in the world.

Of course if they then went after Google, Google would have a team of high priced lawyers fuck the DOJ so far up the ass they wouldn't know their head from a hole in the ground.

GatorB · 05-17-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

AOL and other ISP type companies have not been held responsible for content posted by their users, regardless of what other laws say about the legality of the user's actions. There is no reason to believe that this law would be any different.

Google Images are not posted by the owenrs of the content. They are picked up by google and hosted on googles servers.

http://images.google.com/images?sour...:en&q=ass+fuck

Mr.Fiction · 05-17-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

I can tell you that as a small fry if the feds came after me I'd tell them to go to Google Images then task them WTF they are procescuting me for. No way they could get a conviction on a small guy when all his lawyer has to do is show them Google Images and their non-compliance. And the AG has to answer the question of WHY Google hasn't been targeted even though they'd be the world's largest source of non complying images in the world.

Try telling a judge when you get a speeding ticket that there were other people on the same road going faster than you and see what he has to say.

bringer · 05-17-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

That's my point under these regs as I read the prosals Google WOULD be required to get the 2257 info for their images. Of course we all know they couldn't even if they wanted to and they don't want to. I can tell you that as a small fry if the feds came after me I'd tell them to go to Google Images then task them WTF they are procescuting me for. No way they could get a conviction on a small guy when all his lawyer has to do is show them Google Images and their non-compliance. And the AG has to answer the question of WHY Google hasn't been targeted even though they'd be the world's largest source of non complying images in the world.

Of course if they then went after Google, Google would have a team of high priced lawyers fuck the DOJ so far up the ass they wouldn't know their head from a hole in the ground.

im sure if it came down to it google would install filters and slowly remove the thumbnails
by then this stupid shit will be overturned and most american webmasters will be back to working full time at mcdonalds

reynold · 05-17-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

The government chooses who they want to go after. If Google behaves and doesn't put too many anti-Bush stories on Google News, they will probably be allowed to exist.

Again that's the inescapable, adulterated, contaminated, and invulnerable POLITICS!

mrthumbs · 05-17-2005, 06:53 PM

People, relax.. 1 year from now we will still be doing business as usual maybe with little adjustments.. Id be worried about your processor instead.

GatorB · 05-17-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Try telling a judge when you get a speeding ticket that there were other people on the same road going faster than you and see what he has to say.

Not the same. You can't PROVE those others were speeding it's just your word. Give a laptop to the judge and tell him to go to google images and type "bukkake". Anyways who gives a rats ass what the judge thinks. All one would need is just ONE out of 12 people to agree with him.

Choker · 05-17-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

That's my point under these regs as I read the prosals Google WOULD be required to get the 2257 info for their images. Of course we all know they couldn't even if they wanted to and they don't want to. I can tell you that as a small fry if the feds came after me I'd tell them to go to Google Images then task them WTF they are procescuting me for. No way they could get a conviction on a small guy when all his lawyer has to do is show them Google Images and their non-compliance. And the AG has to answer the question of WHY Google hasn't been targeted even though they'd be the world's largest source of non complying images in the world.

Of course if they then went after Google, Google would have a team of high priced lawyers fuck the DOJ so far up the ass they wouldn't know their head from a hole in the ground.

This is the smartest post about this 2257 crap I have seen yet to date.

mrthumbs · 05-17-2005, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

This is the smartest post about this 2257 crap I have seen yet to date.

Not really.. the law doesnt work like that.

GatorB · 05-17-2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrthumbs

Not really.. the law doesnt work like that.

Oh Google wouldn't fight this?

Also I have seen the law work this way in other areas.

For example I used to lvie in Sarasota where Pee-Wee Herman was caught jerking off in a XXX theater and the sheriff made a big to do about it. Now it came out that basicaly all the cops did was watch TV and bust patrons of porno theaters. Well at the time, crime in general, but particualrly murder and rape were way up. The sheriff had to answer the question why were cops going into porno theaters and watching TV when people were getting raped and murdered. Guess who didn't have a job for long?

pornguy · 05-17-2005, 07:11 PM

the messed up thing is that when a girl posts her photo on GFY from now on, she will have to add a link to her 2257, and guess what? That page has to have her home address (unless she has an office).
That means tons of psychos chasing the poor girls around. It is going to get nasty, watch!

goBigtime · 05-17-2005, 07:13 PM

like I said in this thread , if what google (cache) or archive.org, etc does is LEGAL, then it should also be legal for any of us to do the same and build sites based on spidered and "archived" content.

In fact, google even makes an effort to identify links with mature content for the mature content filter (so they couldn't claim they had no knowledge that it was there.. right?).

I would think that the easy answer would be either the law will need to change or those services will need to be shut down....

goBigtime · 05-17-2005, 07:18 PM

by "legal" above, I mean "exempt".... I think googles right to cache was already tested in court and they won. Or maybe it was Alexa? It was someone.

mrthumbs · 05-17-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Oh Google wouldn't fight this?

Also I have seen the law work this way in other areas.

For example I used to lvie in Sarasota where Pee-Wee Herman was caught jerking off in a XXX theater and the sheriff made a big to do about it. Now it came out that basicaly all the cops did was watch TV and bust patrons of porno theaters. Well at the time, crime in general, but particualrly murder and rape were way up. The sheriff had to answer the question why were cops going into porno theaters and watching TV when people were getting raped and murdered. Guess who didn't have a job for long?

Hes, google will fight this if they have to.
But its stupid to assume your case is clear by simply refering to google.
It was the "i have nothing to fear ill just point my finger at google'" attitude i was addressing.

Also dont forget that for us google is 'big' but in the real world GFY status and specs dont apply.

mrthumbs · 05-17-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goBigtime

by "legal" above, I mean "exempt".... I think googles right to cache was already tested in court and they won. Or maybe it was Alexa? It was someone.

Exactly.. totalyl different case. They currently get away with thumbnailing millions of copyrighted images.. that law has been up for ages.. and they have a general pardon so it seems. Gogole is not stupid.

Just dont forget you are not Google.

teksonline · 05-17-2005, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Google Images are not posted by the owenrs of the content. They are picked up by google and hosted on googles servers.

http://images.google.com/images?sour...:en&q=ass+fuck

Google does not host the images, they are simply linking to them...

goBigtime · 05-17-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teksonline

Google does not host the images, they are simply linking to them...

Google causes the images to be inserted into their webpages.

And in the case of thumbnail previews of the front page of a website, google actually creates these images.

mrthumbs · 05-17-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teksonline

Google does not host the images, they are simply linking to them...

They do host the thumbnails.

GatorB · 05-17-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrthumbs

They do host the thumbnails.

Yep and thumbs count.

mrthumbs · 05-17-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yep and thumbs count.

Finally size really doesnt matter ;)

keyboard warrior · 05-17-2005, 07:39 PM

time to quit this biz now before it is to late.

BV · 05-17-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrthumbs

They do host the thumbnails.

exactly
same with yahoo, hell they even make a thumbnail for your movies!

Kingfish · 05-17-2005, 07:44 PM

As I first read the purposed regulations months ago, I thought they would apply to Google image search. However, that wouldn?t get you off the hook if the government decided to go after you and not Google. At best search engines can be cited as an example as to why the new regulations are unworkable and chill free speech, but not to get you off the hook in an individual case.

05-17-2005, 06:07 PM	#1
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	Google Images, 2257 required? If not why not? If so, you can be damned sure they will be taking this to court.

05-17-2005, 06:08 PM	#2
bringer i have man boobies Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: van down by the river Posts: 13,082	why wouldnt it be required? __________________ 333-765-551

05-17-2005, 06:16 PM	#3
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	The government chooses who they want to go after. If Google behaves and doesn't put too many anti-Bush stories on Google News, they will probably be allowed to exist. __________________ Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU \| Free Speech Coalition \| EFF \| IMPA

05-17-2005, 06:18 PM	#4
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	yep and what about public message boards like this one? its much wider and encompassing than it appears. this is gonna make life interesting in adult for quite some time. many many boards, have many people surfing through proxies and posting tons of shit. who is accountable if you can't find them? the board itself? Last edited by seeric; 05-17-2005 at 06:19 PM..

05-17-2005, 06:21 PM	#5
Nicky Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 30,070	I have 1 word for it......fucked-up.... __________________ gfynicky @ gmail.com

05-17-2005, 06:53 PM	#13
mrthumbs salad tossing sig guy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: mrthumbs*gmail.com Posts: 11,702	People, relax.. 1 year from now we will still be doing business as usual maybe with little adjustments.. Id be worried about your processor instead.

05-17-2005, 07:11 PM	#18
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	the messed up thing is that when a girl posts her photo on GFY from now on, she will have to add a link to her 2257, and guess what? That page has to have her home address (unless she has an office). That means tons of psychos chasing the poor girls around. It is going to get nasty, watch! __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

05-17-2005, 07:13 PM	#19
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	like I said in this thread , if what google (cache) or archive.org, etc does is LEGAL, then it should also be legal for any of us to do the same and build sites based on spidered and "archived" content. In fact, google even makes an effort to identify links with mature content for the mature content filter (so they couldn't claim they had no knowledge that it was there.. right?). I would think that the easy answer would be either the law will need to change or those services will need to be shut down.... Last edited by goBigtime; 05-17-2005 at 07:16 PM..

05-17-2005, 07:18 PM	#20
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	by "legal" above, I mean "exempt".... I think googles right to cache was already tested in court and they won. Or maybe it was Alexa? It was someone.

05-17-2005, 07:39 PM	#28
keyboard warrior Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,435	time to quit this biz now before it is to late. __________________ - nothing here -

05-17-2005, 07:44 PM	#30
Kingfish Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 668	As I first read the purposed regulations months ago, I thought they would apply to Google image search. However, that wouldn?t get you off the hook if the government decided to go after you and not Google. At best search engines can be cited as an example as to why the new regulations are unworkable and chill free speech, but not to get you off the hook in an individual case.