2257 changes the end of user uploaded adult material? link.

[seeric]

http://mashable.com/2007/10/19/new-l...r-social-porn/

2257 is the best thing that could happen to people who shoot and distribute their materials.

i personally dont think users should be able to submit content to communities without showing that they are 18 and older. what are the odds that there are underage people uploading to youporn and adult community sites?

me thinky the odds are good.

[sortie]

If the internet was only in america then you might actually have something.

[halfpint]

nude.com do this allready.....

[EZRhino]

I forsee that youporn is going overseas.

[seeric]

so moving overseas would then make it ok for a 15 year old girl to upload her blowing her boyfriend?

the problem when people move their businesses overseas is most want to still live in the u.s. this is where they end up getting into trouble.

i would expect to see government task forces closely watching these kinds of moves after the law is defined in concrete here soon.

my 2 cents though.

[LadyMischief]

It forces people to be responsible and make sure people are of age.. That is not a bad thing. ;)

[seeric]

Originally Posted by halfpint

nude.com do this allready.....

nude.com is a nightsurf site full of ads and refs.

[seeric]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

It forces people to be responsible and make sure people are of age.. That is not a bad thing. ;)

i agree 100%

[halfpint]

Originally Posted by halfpint

nude.com do this allready.....

opps I ment to say rude.com, they are a social networking site and they require people to prove that they are 18years of age with their ID

It is a good idea

[seeric]

Originally Posted by halfpint

opps I ment to say rude.com, they are a social networking site and they require people to prove that they are 18years of age with their ID

gotcha. i was confused for a second.

[halfpint]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

gotcha. i was confused for a second.

sorry...I confuse myself most of the time

[EZRhino]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

so moving overseas would then make it ok for a 15 year old girl to upload her blowing her boyfriend?

the problem when people move their businesses overseas is most want to still live in the u.s. this is where they end up getting into trouble.

i would expect to see government task forces closely watching these kinds of moves after the law is defined in concrete here soon.

my 2 cents though.

WTF, I never said anything like that. What the fuck is wrong with you. All I said that the site and company would most likely go over seas. I never said it was ok to put up videos with minors in it. Just stating obvious next move a company who doesnt want to comply to US standards and patent law. Move some place they can be safe. I made a simple of observation. Stop reading so far into a post.

[seeric]

Originally Posted by EZRhino

WTF, I never said anything like that. What the fuck is wrong with you. All I said that the site and company would most likely go over seas. I never said it was ok to put up videos with minors in it. Just stating obvious next move a company who doesnt want to comply to US standards and patent law. Move some place they can be safe. I made a simple of observation. Stop reading so far into a post.

not pointed at you. if the whole point of the law is to make people provide ids, then the point of moving it off shore would be for the site to do whatever the fuck they want and disregard the law. don't read so much into a post. and for god sake don't take it personal. my comment was to the effect that if moving it overseas would shelter them from 2257 then why would they move it overseas and obey 2257? i am positive that that site has underage people in videos. guaranteed. don't be defensive, i didn't say you said that. god text based perception goes out the window on gfy because the board is built on attacks and defense.

[EZRhino]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

not pointed at you. if the whole point of the law is to make people provide ids, then the point of moving it off shore would be for the site to do whatever the fuck they want and disregard the law. don't read so much into a post. and for god sake don't take it personal. my comment was to the effect that if moving it overseas would shelter them from 2257 then why would they move it overseas and obey 2257? i am positive that that site has underage people in videos. guaranteed. don't be defensive, i didn't say you said that. god text based perception goes out the window on gfy because the board is built on attacks and defense.

Sorry your right, I flew off the handle, it felt that you were point a finger at me. I will never condone sites that knowingly put minors on their sites and profit from it. Sensitive subject for me lately.

[Quentin]

I recently asked an attorney with extensive knowledge on the subject about the prospect of user-post sites fitting into the so-called "ISP exception" to 2257. Due to the complexity of the question, and the fact that it is so fact-specific, he declined to go on the record with his response... but here is what this attorney-who-shall-remain-nameless had to say, off the record:

You latch on to the issue I spend countless hours advising clients about. I can?t get deep into the answers to that question, because it is really an issue for competent legal advice, and not statements in an article.

Suffice to say that these social networking sites, along with all other kinds of user submission sites (swinger, dating, adult dating, forums, girlfriend, voyeur, etc) all want to fit into the exemptions carved out for hosts, ISP?s, search engines, and the like. This comes up in reference to 2257, Section 230 immunity, and DMCA safe harbor. Each evaluation is a little different, but the fact remains that these exemptions were written for certain types of Internet businesses.

While some user submission sites may fall into the exemptions for certain purposes, this is a highly factually-intensive analysis, and the law has not developed sufficiently to give a definite answer. Much depends on the specific content submission procedure followed by each website.

Fortunately, the cases interpreting Section 230 and DMCA have been fairly liberal in applying the protections to a variety of sites beyond the traditional ISP. Webmasters must be very careful when evaluating the 2257 exemptions, however, because we just have one case (the Connections Case dealing with the swingers site) interpreting that issue, and that decision came down before the Adam Walsh Act slightly modified the statutory exemptions. Even if a site can avoid the ?producer? definition, the ?distributor? definition may still apply.

In other words - these user-post content sites are taking a pretty big risk with respect to 2257. It's arguable that they qualify for the ISP 'loophole' - but if a court decides that they do not....

[seeric]

Originally Posted by EZRhino

Sorry your right, I flew off the handle, it felt that you were point a finger at me. I will never condone sites that knowingly put minors on their sites and profit from it. Sensitive subject for me lately.

nah, no worries man.

its coolio for sure.

im not always the clearest person when i write.

[EZRhino]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

nah, no worries man.

its coolio for sure.

im not always the clearest person when i write.

Cool man, hit me up on ICQ, buy you a drink in LA for the November Webmaster Access.
139394424

[OzMan]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

nah, no worries man.

its coolio for sure.

im not always the clearest person when i write.

why do you hate my Mother??? you've never even met her?

[tony286]

The sites that have stolen product arent in the us so unfortunately this really wouldnt effect them.

[rapmaster]

Originally Posted by Quentin

I recently asked an attorney with extensive knowledge on the subject about the prospect of user-post sites fitting into the so-called "ISP exception" to 2257. Due to the complexity of the question, and the fact that it is so fact-specific, he declined to go on the record with his response... but here is what this attorney-who-shall-remain-nameless had to say, off the record:

You latch on to the issue I spend countless hours advising clients about. I can?t get deep into the answers to that question, because it is really an issue for competent legal advice, and not statements in an article.

Suffice to say that these social networking sites, along with all other kinds of user submission sites (swinger, dating, adult dating, forums, girlfriend, voyeur, etc) all want to fit into the exemptions carved out for hosts, ISP?s, search engines, and the like. This comes up in reference to 2257, Section 230 immunity, and DMCA safe harbor. Each evaluation is a little different, but the fact remains that these exemptions were written for certain types of Internet businesses.

While some user submission sites may fall into the exemptions for certain purposes, this is a highly factually-intensive analysis, and the law has not developed sufficiently to give a definite answer. Much depends on the specific content submission procedure followed by each website.

Fortunately, the cases interpreting Section 230 and DMCA have been fairly liberal in applying the protections to a variety of sites beyond the traditional ISP. Webmasters must be very careful when evaluating the 2257 exemptions, however, because we just have one case (the Connections Case dealing with the swingers site) interpreting that issue, and that decision came down before the Adam Walsh Act slightly modified the statutory exemptions. Even if a site can avoid the ?producer? definition, the ?distributor? definition may still apply.

In other words - these user-post content sites are taking a pretty big risk with respect to 2257. It's arguable that they qualify for the ISP 'loophole' - but if a court decides that they do not....

very nice, thanks for that

[FRAUD]

you are a complete fucking moron!