Where is the 2257 Statement for GFY - GoFuckYourself.com

Lifer · 02-10-2007, 07:05 AM

Can someone tell me if GFY needs to have a 2257 statement.

If so, where is the url?

If GFY doesn't need one, can someone explain why not?

I'm not trying to be an ass here... I just really want to know if there is an occasion that a 2257 statement is not required on a board, forum, blog, etc. and what would constitute a situation where an adult site does not need a statement.

If it doesn't need a statement... does it need an exemption statement?

To all of you that want to tell me to fuck off... I consider myself told already.

On the otherhand... maybe someone can enlighten some of use that have boards who want to know the real world facts and position of boards regarding this topic.

munki · 02-10-2007, 07:13 AM

GFY typically is not posting it's own explicit content through the message boards.

Lifer · 02-10-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munki

GFY typically is not posting it's own explicit content through the message boards.

But it is a adult oriented site.

So shouldn't it have an exemption statement.

Plus... if it moderates posts... then GFY would be required to remove anything that might be regarded as explicit.

Or?

cranki · 02-10-2007, 07:22 AM

GFY is a moral compass in the first place. moral compasses don't need any 2257.

Lycanthrope · 02-10-2007, 07:25 AM

GFY is an internet service with user generated content that does not directly financially benefit from said content.

AtlantisCash · 02-10-2007, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cranki

GFY is a moral compass in the first place. moral compasses don't need any 2257.

Haha well said...

UKJack · 02-10-2007, 07:32 AM

miss gfy pic has tits out and hosted by gfy not that I care about 2257 as I'm exempt just thought I would mention

Lifer · 02-10-2007, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

GFY is an internet service with user generated content that does not directly financially benefit from said content.

They sell ad space for banners that have explicit content - I just saw some.

So, I think they have a financial interest in their site.

DaddyHalbucks · 02-10-2007, 08:08 AM

It's a good question.

I am not a lawyer but, perhaps...

GFY is a discussion forum, and therefore GFY is acting as an ISP. Any content is user generated, not generated by GFY. GFY is not a primary producer of content, at least not in this context.

Its rules forbid posting of "pedo links."

Lycanthrope · 02-10-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

They sell ad space for banners that have explicit content - I just saw some.

So, I think they have a financial interest in their site.

Of course they have a financial interest in the site, but much like Google or the like, they sell adertising NOT porn.

Lifer · 02-10-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

Of course they have a financial interest in the site, but much like Google or the like, they sell adertising NOT porn.

Google hot links the images and it is the original site that is responsible for the content.

GFY lets you post images, and polices images... and therein is the problem.

Regardless, if a site is mature adult with even basic nudity, don't they have to have some kind of statement?

CyberHustler · 02-10-2007, 12:05 PM

what the fuck! I fucking made a thread asking about this!

YOU FUCKS!

marcjacob · 02-10-2007, 12:11 PM

This shows how stupid 2257 is. People dont know or cant agree on what is required and what isnt. I bet even the prosecutors and FBI argue amongst themselves over what is and isnt compliant.

wizhard · 02-10-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

Google hot links the images and it is the original site that is responsible for the content.

GFY lets you post images, and polices images... and therein is the problem.

Regardless, if a site is mature adult with even basic nudity, don't they have to have some kind of statement?

Sorry but your wrong here. Google does'nt hotlink the image from the original site but collects and stores copies of images it finds on the web on their own servers and then gives the surfer the chance to see the original image by linking to the site where Google found the image.

Since Google is in effect publishing content that is stored on their own servers, (and Google is a US company), then many people say that Google should in fact be in complience with the 2257 regs. Maybe the Feds just don't fancy tangleing with a big, wealthy company like Google ?

Lifer · 02-10-2007, 12:45 PM

I wonder why the Google shareholders have not complained about all the porn on Google.

Anyway, even with Google, there is a mature filter.

wizhard · 02-10-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

I wonder why the Google shareholders have not complained about all the porn on Google.

Anyway, even with Google, there is a mature filter.

Because quite simply it brings Google and their shareholders plenty $$$$$$

Both Brin and Paige are on recored as saying they don't like all the porn on the net but they know that if Google started trying to block it their mighty SE would be worthless.

Money talks - Bullshit walks.

Scroto · 02-10-2007, 12:58 PM

Just lol, some replies on here!

tranza · 02-10-2007, 01:01 PM

Well, GFY does host a lot of banners with porn images. It should have a 2257 statement, shouldn't it?

PAR · 02-10-2007, 01:17 PM

Mature filter blocks about 90% of adult images on google for me not all.
Google does as said above have a copy of the images on it servers. Its easy to show this as doing a search and clicking on an image and the image is not there anymore that thumbnail that you clicked on is on the google servers.

As for google making money with the images.. in a round about way they do .. Image search on google is a add on search tool for he users ther same users are the one that use google and click the paid for listings in google. Without adult in google users would need to use google to search for all things non-adult and slowly the users would leave and start using MSN/Yahoo/Mamma or any of the number of search engines out there.

Also most SE's with an images search use the same method as google. So really we are not just talking google but also Yahoo and MSN to name only a few. Also Alexa with is screen caps next to search results could be said to need 2257 and many many other cases. There are many problems and unclear areas when ut comes to 2257 and I for one hope that this helps to kill 2257

Lifer · 02-11-2007, 02:07 AM

Google has a warning statement

just a punk · 02-11-2007, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

Google has a warning statement

Warning statement is for children or for the people who don't wanna see porn. On the other hand, 2257 is intended for the prosecutors to be sure all the models are 18+. So don't mix warning and 2257.

BTW, there should be no 2257 requirement only in case if the site server located outside of USA. Furthermore, many EU counties have a law which forbids exposing of personal info (such as model id's) and there is a serious prison time penalty for breaking that law.

PHP-CODER-FOR-HIRE · 02-11-2007, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

Google hot links the images and it is the original site that is responsible for the content.

GFY lets you post images, and polices images... and therein is the problem.

Regardless, if a site is mature adult with even basic nudity, don't they have to have some kind of statement?

GFY does not allow image uploading for posts... you have to host it remotely.

Buzz · 02-11-2007, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cranki

GFY is a moral compass in the first place. moral compasses don't need any 2257.

LOL good one, nothing to add

CyberHustler · 02-11-2007, 03:16 AM

what do the GFY admins and mods have to say about this?

mikeyddddd · 02-11-2007, 04:05 AM

The way that 2257 has been explained to me is that no 2257 doc is needed for Miss GFY as it is not sexually explicit, but the explicit ads hosted at GFY would need it.

There is disagreement as to the requirements for images displayed on one site and hosted by another because of the various provisions made for different entities.

chris01282 · 02-11-2007, 04:07 AM

2257, I thought that was a shame from the US government to scare people, but it was never followed through... or am I wrong?

afterall, how many sites have taken down their explicit content?

Just a thought...

The Sultan Of Smut · 02-11-2007, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

It's a good question.

I am not a lawyer but, perhaps...

GFY is a discussion forum, and therefore GFY is acting as an ISP. Any content is user generated, not generated by GFY. GFY is not a primary producer of content, at least not in this context.

Its rules forbid posting of "pedo links."

I remember reading something to this effect, about public forums being exempt. I think it's different though if the site puts up images with pink either in the form of banners or a skin which may require the owners to have 2257 documents for all the depictions of sexuality in said banners and skins.

Nookster · 02-11-2007, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

Can someone tell me if GFY needs to have a 2257 statement.

If so, where is the url?

If GFY doesn't need one, can someone explain why not?

I'm not trying to be an ass here... I just really want to know if there is an occasion that a 2257 statement is not required on a board, forum, blog, etc. and what would constitute a situation where an adult site does not need a statement.

If it doesn't need a statement... does it need an exemption statement?

To all of you that want to tell me to fuck off... I consider myself told already.

On the otherhand... maybe someone can enlighten some of use that have boards who want to know the real world facts and position of boards regarding this topic.

They (and anybody) don't need actual 2257 related docs as long as the model in question is posing/exhibiting non-sexually explicitly. Meaning no penetration, perceived penetration, et cetera. But, of course, they still need to keep records of age/use/etc.

Lifer · 02-11-2007, 12:16 PM

I guess what some are saying is that adult boards feel they are exempt... but according to the law, if they post sexy pictures of topless models such as sponsor banners that are not explicit, then they are still required to have a statement - in that case an exemption statement explaining why the site is 2257 exempt.

Isn't the bottom line that an adult site must either have a 2257 complience statement or they have to have a 2257 exemption statement?

CyberHustler · 02-11-2007, 12:22 PM

what a friend of mine put on his forum...

18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement

2257 EXEMPTION STATEMENT This site is a mere distributor of content

Exemption Statement: The Publisher of this website is exempt from the record keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and 28 C.F.R. § 75.

This Publisher is engaged in mere distribution of content, and does not take any actions involving the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of any persons in the depictions on this website.

This site is an electronic communications service, which is not managed by the Publisher of this website, but merely stands as a conduit of communication between its members. Accordingly, Publisher does not and reasonably cannot manage any actual sexually explicit content on this site as that term is defined by 28 C.F.R. § 75.

sumphatpimp · 02-11-2007, 12:59 PM

where is the note from your mother saying it is ok for you to post on the big grown up board?
back to telletubies with you.

Lifer · 02-12-2007, 12:01 PM

I had hoped to get a statement from someone at GFY since they know the real answer

sicone · 02-12-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

I had hoped to get a statement from someone at GFY since they know the real answer

And with the $$$ that Lensman and Playboy have spent on attorney fee's over the years, you feel they should just hand out the same advice to you for free?

Come on now, get a clue...

and your own lawyer

StuartD · 02-12-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

I had hoped to get a statement from someone at GFY since they know the real answer

GFY is exempt since most people in politics are unable to spell it.

Lifer · 02-13-2007, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicone

And with the $$$ that Lensman and Playboy have spent on attorney fee's over the years, you feel they should just hand out the same advice to you for free?

Come on now, get a clue...

and your own lawyer

I think they think they are exempt.

So, what's the problem with a statement?

Why not just spell it out and explain their position?

02-10-2007, 07:05 AM	#1
Lifer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Working Posts: 871	Where is the 2257 Statement for GFY Can someone tell me if GFY needs to have a 2257 statement. If so, where is the url? If GFY doesn't need one, can someone explain why not? I'm not trying to be an ass here... I just really want to know if there is an occasion that a 2257 statement is not required on a board, forum, blog, etc. and what would constitute a situation where an adult site does not need a statement. If it doesn't need a statement... does it need an exemption statement? To all of you that want to tell me to fuck off... I consider myself told already. On the otherhand... maybe someone can enlighten some of use that have boards who want to know the real world facts and position of boards regarding this topic.

02-10-2007, 07:13 AM	#2
munki Do Fun Shit. Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OC Posts: 13,393	GFY typically is not posting it's own explicit content through the message boards. __________________ “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.” -Oscar Wilde

02-10-2007, 07:25 AM	#5
Lycanthrope Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 4,517	GFY is an internet service with user generated content that does not directly financially benefit from said content. __________________

02-10-2007, 08:08 AM	#9
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	It's a good question. I am not a lawyer but, perhaps... GFY is a discussion forum, and therefore GFY is acting as an ISP. Any content is user generated, not generated by GFY. GFY is not a primary producer of content, at least not in this context. Its rules forbid posting of "pedo links." __________________ Boner Money

02-10-2007, 12:05 PM	#12
CyberHustler Masterbaiter Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 28,156	what the fuck! I fucking made a thread asking about this! YOU FUCKS! __________________ “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

02-10-2007, 07:22 AM	#4
cranki Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Café del Mar Posts: 5,162	GFY is a moral compass in the first place. moral compasses don't need any 2257.

02-10-2007, 07:32 AM	#7
UKJack Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 139	miss gfy pic has tits out and hosted by gfy not that I care about 2257 as I'm exempt just thought I would mention

02-10-2007, 12:11 PM	#13
marcjacob Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: England Posts: 1,063	This shows how stupid 2257 is. People dont know or cant agree on what is required and what isnt. I bet even the prosecutors and FBI argue amongst themselves over what is and isnt compliant. __________________ Free Site Express GFY Launch Offer Gay Demo Video - Straight Demo Video Icq: 191127710 Email: [email protected] Last edited by marcjacob; 02-10-2007 at 12:11 PM.. Reason: corrected typo

02-10-2007, 12:45 PM	#15
Lifer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Working Posts: 871	I wonder why the Google shareholders have not complained about all the porn on Google. Anyway, even with Google, there is a mature filter.

02-10-2007, 12:58 PM	#17
Scroto Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,804	Just lol, some replies on here!

02-10-2007, 01:01 PM	#18
tranza ICQ: 197-556-237 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BRASIL !!! Posts: 57,559	Well, GFY does host a lot of banners with porn images. It should have a 2257 statement, shouldn't it? __________________ I'm just a newbie.

02-10-2007, 01:17 PM	#19
PAR Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,835	Mature filter blocks about 90% of adult images on google for me not all. Google does as said above have a copy of the images on it servers. Its easy to show this as doing a search and clicking on an image and the image is not there anymore that thumbnail that you clicked on is on the google servers. As for google making money with the images.. in a round about way they do .. Image search on google is a add on search tool for he users ther same users are the one that use google and click the paid for listings in google. Without adult in google users would need to use google to search for all things non-adult and slowly the users would leave and start using MSN/Yahoo/Mamma or any of the number of search engines out there. Also most SE's with an images search use the same method as google. So really we are not just talking google but also Yahoo and MSN to name only a few. Also Alexa with is screen caps next to search results could be said to need 2257 and many many other cases. There are many problems and unclear areas when ut comes to 2257 and I for one hope that this helps to kill 2257

02-11-2007, 02:07 AM	#20
Lifer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Working Posts: 871	Google has a warning statement

02-11-2007, 03:16 AM	#24
CyberHustler Masterbaiter Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 28,156	what do the GFY admins and mods have to say about this? __________________ “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

02-11-2007, 04:05 AM	#25
mikeyddddd Viva la vulva! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself Posts: 16,557	The way that 2257 has been explained to me is that no 2257 doc is needed for Miss GFY as it is not sexually explicit, but the explicit ads hosted at GFY would need it. There is disagreement as to the requirements for images displayed on one site and hosted by another because of the various provisions made for different entities. __________________ AdultStarProfits AmbyaCash AnilosCash AzianiGold ColdHardCash FlashTheMoney IdolBucks MediumPimpin NSCash Nubiles PussyCash ScoreCash Sextronix SpunkyCash TubeTitans Twistys

02-11-2007, 04:07 AM	#26
chris01282 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 370	2257, I thought that was a shame from the US government to scare people, but it was never followed through... or am I wrong? afterall, how many sites have taken down their explicit content? Just a thought... __________________ [img]http://****************/sig/fhv3_b_468x60.gif[/img]

02-11-2007, 12:16 PM	#29
Lifer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Working Posts: 871	I guess what some are saying is that adult boards feel they are exempt... but according to the law, if they post sexy pictures of topless models such as sponsor banners that are not explicit, then they are still required to have a statement - in that case an exemption statement explaining why the site is 2257 exempt. Isn't the bottom line that an adult site must either have a 2257 complience statement or they have to have a 2257 exemption statement?

02-11-2007, 12:22 PM	#30
CyberHustler Masterbaiter Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 28,156	what a friend of mine put on his forum... 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement 2257 EXEMPTION STATEMENT This site is a mere distributor of content Exemption Statement: The Publisher of this website is exempt from the record keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and 28 C.F.R. § 75. This Publisher is engaged in mere distribution of content, and does not take any actions involving the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of any persons in the depictions on this website. This site is an electronic communications service, which is not managed by the Publisher of this website, but merely stands as a conduit of communication between its members. Accordingly, Publisher does not and reasonably cannot manage any actual sexually explicit content on this site as that term is defined by 28 C.F.R. § 75. __________________ “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

02-11-2007, 12:59 PM	#31
sumphatpimp Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 5,235	where is the note from your mother saying it is ok for you to post on the big grown up board? back to telletubies with you.

02-12-2007, 12:01 PM	#32
Lifer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Working Posts: 871	I had hoped to get a statement from someone at GFY since they know the real answer