What is Google doing about 2257 ? - GoFuckYourself.com

kamasutrababe · 06-23-2005, 12:21 AM

They've got hardcore thumbnails hosted on their servers with their image search tool.

Nightwind · 06-23-2005, 12:27 AM

Why can't people get it through their heads already that Google is exempt?

GatorB · 06-23-2005, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamasutrababe

They've got hardcore thumbnails hosted on their servers with their image search tool.

They are exempt. Some here will tell you they aren't. Then if that is true then they just don't care.

http://images.google.com/images?sour...GGLD:en&q=porn

bdld · 06-23-2005, 12:29 AM

they're not doing a damn thing.

GoodGuy · 06-23-2005, 12:31 AM

good question

XX_RydeR · 06-23-2005, 12:32 AM

who cares.

GoodGuy · 06-23-2005, 12:33 AM

why are they exempt?

SmokeyTheBear · 06-23-2005, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodGuy

why are they exempt?

The same reason gfy is exempt. How could lensman possibly provide 2257 docs for every nudie pic posted on gfy over the last 5 years.. It would take a long time to sort through every post by hand for every picture ever posted

The Sultan Of Smut · 06-23-2005, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

The same reason gfy is exempt. How could lensman possibly provide 2257 docs for every nudie pic posted on gfy over the last 5 years.. It would take a long time to sort through every post by hand for every picture ever posted

Well then how is it possible for every gallery submitter to go throught the 10000+ galleries submitted over the past 5 years? If you don't have the docs then you delete the content. I don't think GFY would die without the moldy 'Would you hit it' threads rotting on page 30.

If gallery submitters are not exempt even though they have thousands of pages to go through then Google, Yahoo, GFY, etc are not exempt. No, from what I've read ALL SITES containing sexually explicit content must adhear to the rules with a few exceptions; but I don't think GFY or Google are hosts, libraries, or non-profit organizations...

XX_RydeR · 06-23-2005, 01:12 AM

again, who really cares.

GatorB · 06-23-2005, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

Well then how is it possible for every gallery submitter to go throught the 10000+ galleries submitted over the past 5 years? If you don't have the docs then you delete the content. I don't think GFY would die without the moldy 'Would you hit it' threads rotting on page 30.

If gallery submitters are not exempt even though they have thousands of pages to go through then Google, Yahoo, GFY, etc are not exempt. No, from what I've read ALL SITES containing sexually explicit content must adhear to the rules with a few exceptions; but I don't think GFY or Google are hosts, libraries, or non-profit organizations...

Difference is Lens didnt create all those "would you hit it threads" a gallery submitter did make his 10000 galleries and though he didn't have to have the docs there were other parts of 2257 he SHOULD have been following all these years which would have made his job easier.

The Sultan Of Smut · 06-23-2005, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Difference is Lens didnt create all those "would you hit it threads" a gallery submitter did make his 10000 galleries and though he didn't have to have the docs there were other parts of 2257 he SHOULD have been following all these years which would have made his job easier.

I agree that gallery submitters should have been running a tighter ship but I still disagree with your other comment. While Lens didn't create the posts or the content contained within them GFY/Adult.com is responsible for the distribution of the material.

Mr.Fiction · 06-23-2005, 01:46 AM

This is a daily thread for the last few weeks:

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

(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplicators;

(ii) Mere distribution;

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;

(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service; or

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

Read "iv" and "v".

Zester · 06-23-2005, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

They are exempt. Some here will tell you they aren't. Then if that is true then they just don't care.

http://images.google.com/images?sour...GGLD:en&q=porn

this came in #4:

The Sultan Of Smut · 06-23-2005, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

This is a daily thread for the last few weeks:

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

(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplicators;

(ii) Mere distribution;

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;

(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service; or

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

Read "iv" and "v".

This is where this law gets super confusing. "iv" doesn't apply to the sites mentioned in my earlier post and I don't even know wtf they are refering to in "v". I didn't take 'electronic communication service' as being a forum. If that's the case I suppose some shithead pedo can just have his sick buddies post images to a board and be exempt from prosecution. I really doubt the DOJ is gonna let that one slide...

just a punk · 06-23-2005, 03:16 AM

Can't say for google, but yahoo is alreday did alot. Just read this article:

Has Yahoo Been Affected by New 2257 Rules?

broke · 06-23-2005, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

This is where this law gets super confusing. "iv" doesn't apply to the sites mentioned in my earlier post and I don't even know wtf they are refering to in "v". I didn't take 'electronic communication service' as being a forum. If that's the case I suppose some shithead pedo can just have his sick buddies post images to a board and be exempt from prosecution. I really doubt the DOJ is gonna let that one slide...

(i) Electronic communications service has the meaning set forth in
18 U.S.C. 2510(15).

Quote:

(15) "electronic communication service" means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications;

(j) Remote computing service has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C.
2711(2).

Quote:

(2) the term "remote computing service" means the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system

just a punk · 06-23-2005, 03:31 AM

BTW, what's about Altavista then? Fot now it looks like a big TGP: http://www.altavista.com/image/resul...ll&miwxh=large

The Sultan Of Smut · 06-23-2005, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

(i) Electronic communications service has the meaning set forth in
18 U.S.C. 2510(15).

(j) Remote computing service has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C.
2711(2).

Ok, I get it now

kamasutrababe · 06-23-2005, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.[/b]

The keyword here seems to be whether the site (i.e. electronic communication service) "manages" their content or not. If I had a huge pic post or TGP that was completely automated and thus "unmanaged", I should be exempt like Google.

From what I've heard this is the reason Yahoo and other search engines don't "actively" remove content in violation of their own terms. They only do so "passively", i.e. respond only if there is a complaint. If they were pro-active, they would thus be managing content and thus legally liable for the content they host or link to. But if they do nothing unless there's a complaint, then they are shielded legally. The legal system actually rewards you for turning a blind eye to illegal content (child porn, piracy, etc) than to be pro-active about stamping it out.

Voodoo · 06-23-2005, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamasutrababe

The keyword here seems to be whether the site (i.e. electronic communication service) "manages" their content or not. If I had a huge pic post or TGP that was completely automated and thus "unmanaged", I should be exempt like Google.

From what I've heard this is the reason Yahoo and other search engines don't "actively" remove content in violation of their own terms. They only do so "passively", i.e. respond only if there is a complaint. If they were pro-active, they would thus be managing content and thus legally liable for the content they host or link to. But if they do nothing unless there's a complaint, then they are shielded legally. The legal system actually rewards you for turning a blind eye to illegal content (child porn, piracy, etc) than to be pro-active about stamping it out.

(k) Manage content means to make editorial or managerial decisions concerning the content of a computer site or service.

When you add galleries to your site, you are making a "managerial decision" as to what content will be shown and what will not. You hand select gallery lists, and individual galleries, thumbnails or whatever. These are all "managerial decisions" that you make.

Also a TGP/MGP is NOT a "communication service", it is a content display mechanism / system.

makefuckingmoney · 06-23-2005, 05:18 AM

i dont think google is on the doj radar

wjxxx · 06-23-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

I agree that gallery submitters should have been running a tighter ship but I still disagree with your other comment. While Lens didn't create the posts or the content contained within them GFY/Adult.com is responsible for the distribution of the material.

Can you stop this bullshit ? If you really want to know why gallery submitters have to make 2257 database and Google or GFY haven`t then ask legislators.

The Sultan Of Smut · 06-23-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjxxx

Can you stop this bullshit ? If you really want to know why gallery submitters have to make 2257 database and Google or GFY haven`t then ask legislators.

Don't get your panties in a knot, if you actually read the posts you would have noticed that I did let it go. I was only asking questions to actually engage others in debate instead of following most of the shitty advice that's been dispensed on this board or sticking my head in the sand.

I totally appreciate the time broke took to answer my question. This board contains 80% bullshit but the odd time someone actually posts something usefull. If you don't want to read comments pertaining to the new regulations in a thread '2257' in the title then don't read it.

Matt 26z · 06-23-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Can't say for google, but yahoo is alreday did alot. Just read this article:

Has Yahoo Been Affected by New 2257 Rules?

What a bunch of idiots.

Yahoo pulled the user chats because sponsors were upset over the room titles people were making.

If it was about 2257, ALL chatrooms would be gone since their standard chats have the same exact capabilities as the user chats.

MyNameIsEmily · 06-23-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwind

Why can't people get it through their heads already that Google is exempt?

Because nobody tells them?

Lensman and all the other adult boards need to sticky a 2257 FAQ.

GoodGuy · 06-23-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

The same reason gfy is exempt. How could lensman possibly provide 2257 docs for every nudie pic posted on gfy over the last 5 years.. It would take a long time to sort through every post by hand for every picture ever posted

What the Sultan of Smut posted:

Well then how is it possible for every gallery submitter to go throught the 10000+ galleries submitted over the past 5 years? If you don't have the docs then you delete the content.

Janet Reno · 06-23-2005, 12:15 PM

Google is exempt but their image search feature is not.

GoodGuy · 06-23-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Difference is Lens didnt create all those "would you hit it threads" a gallery submitter did make his 10000 galleries and though he didn't have to have the docs there were other parts of 2257 he SHOULD have been following all these years which would have made his job easier.

There is no way to prove who created what page... a submitter can say it was created by a outsourcing guy... there is no way to prove that...

GatorB · 06-23-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Can't say for google, but yahoo is alreday did alot. Just read this article:

Has Yahoo Been Affected by New 2257 Rules?

Yeah yahoo is worried. Just one example of 1000's

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analstars2/

06-23-2005, 12:21 AM	#1
kamasutrababe Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 140	What is Google doing about 2257 ? They've got hardcore thumbnails hosted on their servers with their image search tool.

06-23-2005, 12:27 AM	#2
Nightwind Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: ICQ: 303-282-636 Posts: 4,786	Why can't people get it through their heads already that Google is exempt? __________________

06-23-2005, 12:32 AM	#6
XX_RydeR Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Australia. Posts: 2,151	who cares. __________________ You Dun Goofed!

06-23-2005, 01:12 AM	#10
XX_RydeR Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Australia. Posts: 2,151	again, who really cares. __________________ You Dun Goofed!

06-23-2005, 01:46 AM	#13
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	This is a daily thread for the last few weeks: (4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following: (i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplicators; (ii) Mere distribution; (iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers; (iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service; or (v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service. Read "iv" and "v". __________________ Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU \| Free Speech Coalition \| EFF \| IMPA

06-23-2005, 12:29 AM	#4
bdld $100,000 Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 11,452	they're not doing a damn thing.

06-23-2005, 12:31 AM	#5
GoodGuy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 881	good question

06-23-2005, 12:33 AM	#7
GoodGuy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 881	why are they exempt?

06-23-2005, 03:16 AM	#16
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,386	Can't say for google, but yahoo is alreday did alot. Just read this article: Has Yahoo Been Affected by New 2257 Rules? __________________ Obey the Cowgod

06-23-2005, 03:31 AM	#18
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,386	BTW, what's about Altavista then? Fot now it looks like a big TGP: http://www.altavista.com/image/resul...ll&miwxh=large __________________ Obey the Cowgod

06-23-2005, 05:18 AM	#22
makefuckingmoney Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 3,277	i dont think google is on the doj radar

06-23-2005, 12:15 PM	#28
Janet Reno Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 167	Google is exempt but their image search feature is not.