Did your sponsors refuse 2257 documents to you / any or all affiliates? - GoFuckYourself.com

chadglni · 06-23-2005, 01:03 AM

I have no idea how well this would hold up in court but I would suggest sending a formal request to those you would like to have ID's from. The new regulations specifically say they can't refuse them to you so I'm sure it would look better for you if they show up at your door and you can show them you did ask.

For those that think pulling content down by the 23rd is what will make you compliant under the new regulations I suggest you read them again and send those requests.

GatorB · 06-23-2005, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I have no idea how well this would hold up in court but I would suggest sending a formal request to those you would like to have ID's from. The new regulations specifically say they can't refuse them to you so I'm sure it would look better for you if they show up at your door and you can show them you did ask.

OK if you are using a sposnors free content and they say you are no longer able to sue them then no they don't have to give you the docs. If you continue to sue them you are in VIOLATION of the TOS of that sponsor and probally copyright law. SO in the end you'llg et your account canned and they'll sue you for refusing to stop using the content.

Quote:

For those that think pulling content down by the 23rd is what will make you compliant under the new regulations I suggest you read them again and send those requests.

That has zilch to do with the point above. I took any content I had out there down and I'm not worried in the least. It's it's not live they can't find it now can they? And don't bring up an achive.org shit. That stuff is on THEIR servers not mine.

chadglni · 06-23-2005, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

OK if you are using a sposnors free content and they say you are no longer able to sue them then no they don't have to give you the docs. If you continue to sue them you are in VIOLATION of the TOS of that sponsor and probally copyright law. SO in the end you'llg et your account canned and they'll sue you for refusing to stop using the content.

That has zilch to do with the point above. I took any content I had out there down and I'm not worried in the least. It's it's not live they can't find it now can they? And don't bring up an achive.org shit. That stuff is on THEIR servers not mine.

I never said I'd sue them, I said I'd request it so I would have it on record. As far as archive.org you are hilarious. The DOJ has been sitting on this for a year and working on it who knows how much longer. You don't think they have a list as well as screenshots of the sites they are targetting already?

That's right their entire "task force" is just sitting in an office watching Pinky and the Brain waiting on June 23rd to come around before they view sites that in their opinion have always been illegal. They aren't organized and have nothing up their sleeves. In fact, they don't want to fuck you at all. They only want to stop child porn. ahahahahahahaha

This entire industry is interlinked. One could start at the Hun and find almost every porn site published by a webmaster within a couple of months. But no, they don't know this.

TheDoc · 06-23-2005, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I never said I'd sue them, I said I'd request it so I would have it on record. As far as archive.org you are hilarious. The DOJ has been sitting on this for a year and working on it who knows how much longer. You don't think they have a list as well as screenshots of the sites they are targetting already?

That's right their entire "task force" is just sitting in an office watching Pinky and the Brain waiting on June 23rd to come around before they view sites that in their opinion have always been illegal. They aren't organized and have nothing up their sleeves. In fact, they don't want to fuck you at all. They only want to stop child porn. ahahahahahahaha

This entire industry is interlinked. One could start at the Hun and find almost every porn site published by a webmaster within a couple of months. But no, they don't know this.

The DOJ has a history of going after people they think they can win a case against. These lawyers want to be judges and politicians later on, to do that they need to win cases. If I had content up that wasn?t compliant and I took it down to be compliant, they can?t charge me for anything. The US Gov can?t retroactively enforce the law (that?s US law). Going after people that are compliant now but weren?t compliant 3 months ago will not stand up in court.

And yes, I think they are going after people that are producing, displaying, and distributing CP. Once they are done taking down the real problems they may start to inspect compliant companies. Which is fine. They have a huge amount of CP being produced that they want to stop. Just look at Yahoo?s CP case. Or newsgroups, p2p networks, and the people like the NY guy that was producing CP.

theFeTiShLaDy · 06-23-2005, 02:44 AM

good thing my sponsor is 2257 compliant.

chadglni · 06-23-2005, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

The DOJ has a history of going after people they think they can win a case against. These lawyers want to be judges and politicians later on, to do that they need to win cases. If I had content up that wasn?t compliant and I took it down to be compliant, they can?t charge me for anything. The US Gov can?t retroactively enforce the law (that?s US law). Going after people that are compliant now but weren?t compliant 3 months ago will not stand up in court.

And yes, I think they are going after people that are producing, displaying, and distributing CP. Once they are done taking down the real problems they may start to inspect compliant companies. Which is fine. They have a huge amount of CP being produced that they want to stop. Just look at Yahoo?s CP case. Or newsgroups, p2p networks, and the people like the NY guy that was producing CP.

Retroactive isn't the right word considering the laws have been on the books since BEFORE 1995. The DOJ says they reject Sundance and companies have been illegal all along.

TheDoc · 06-23-2005, 03:00 AM

The old law doesn't say that the secondary producer needs the records. Not much they can argue in court. I think when they rejected the sundance case it was to make a point that they could now say that secondary producers do need the records, so they added it into the new regs.

Dirty Dane · 06-23-2005, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

The new regulations specifically say they can't refuse them to you so I'm sure it would look better for you if they show up at your door and you can show them you did ask.

I think opposite effect; if you asked for IDs, and did not get it, it would not look good for you to post the pictures. Just because someone else break the law, does not make you less criminal

06-23-2005, 01:03 AM	#1
chadglni Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: PEI, Canada Posts: 6,924	Did your sponsors refuse 2257 documents to you / any or all affiliates? I have no idea how well this would hold up in court but I would suggest sending a formal request to those you would like to have ID's from. The new regulations specifically say they can't refuse them to you so I'm sure it would look better for you if they show up at your door and you can show them you did ask. For those that think pulling content down by the 23rd is what will make you compliant under the new regulations I suggest you read them again and send those requests. __________________ Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

06-23-2005, 02:44 AM	#5
theFeTiShLaDy Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,615	good thing my sponsor is 2257 compliant. __________________ I'm a freelance babe!

06-23-2005, 03:00 AM	#7
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	The old law doesn't say that the secondary producer needs the records. Not much they can argue in court. I think when they rejected the sundance case it was to make a point that they could now say that secondary producers do need the records, so they added it into the new regs. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation