Aren't tubes putting a hole in the entire 2257 scare from not long ago? - GoFuckYourself.com

Fletch XXX · 08-13-2009, 06:53 AM

Having been on GFY for a few years, I seem to recall all the hysteria about 2257 and that if you didnt have 2257 on every page you were going to be arrested and thrown in Guantanimo! LOLz

One thing for sure seems the whole 2257 scare was bullshit considering the way tubes are so prevalent now and I am certain they dont have 2257 for all the content LOL

Lace · 08-13-2009, 07:47 AM

Fuck laws, it's all about money apparently.

Dirty Dane · 08-13-2009, 07:48 AM

Well there are more stuff in chapter 110, which can put you away for looooonger than 2257. And no one is excempt from that

RadicalSights · 08-13-2009, 07:49 AM

what's 2257

spazlabz · 08-13-2009, 07:51 AM

where are they hosted? Title 18 is US law, I doubt hosting companies in other countries give a shit about US Law unless it happens to violate their laws in some way as well

spaz

Tom_PM · 08-13-2009, 08:06 AM

It's all about who is responsible for maintaining the site as I recall. Not who owns the domain, not where the physical server is, but the person who maintains the site.

I could sit here in the US with a host in china and a domain owner in russia and if I'm the one ftp'ing files, it's my ass.

That was my rudimentary understanding of the whole deal. Been a long time since reading it though.

spazlabz · 08-13-2009, 08:09 AM

refresher
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

spaz

crockett · 08-13-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Having been on GFY for a few years, I seem to recall all the hysteria about 2257 and that if you didnt have 2257 on every page you were going to be arrested and thrown in Guantanimo! LOLz

One thing for sure seems the whole 2257 scare was bullshit considering the way tubes are so prevalent now and I am certain they dont have 2257 for all the content LOL

dunno but I just saw a video on xhamster of that 14 year old girl that stripped for her boyfriend. The news about the vid even hit the NYtimes which is how her age was confirmed

Yet it was uploaded on xhamster on 2007-12-04 and has yet to be removed. I wonder if they could get hit with CP charges over it?

seeandsee · 08-13-2009, 08:14 AM

2257 eat small kids?

slapass · 08-13-2009, 08:14 AM

you would think all the stuff marketed as below 18 would be worse then a possible 2257 violation and that also seems to be no big deal on the tubes.

spazlabz · 08-13-2009, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Yet it was uploaded on xhamster on 2007-12-04 and has yet to be removed. I wonder if they could get hit with CP charges over it?

Don't know. wouldn't it depend on what she was doing in the video? I mean if she was just getting naked or something then they might be able to beat the charge, but if she was masturbating or something sexually explicit then probably they could

I have wondered for awhile how these user submitted sites can possibly be legal since it would be so easy for illegal content to make it on them. I am actually surprised it hasn't happened already....unless of course the submit form they have is bullshit and only designated people can actually upload vids

spaz

Tom_PM · 08-13-2009, 08:23 AM

I think it's simple. Just imagine if cnn ireports didnt even bother to ask people to confirm who they were and if they had the right to distribute what they were about to upload. People would care, and it would be on cnn's lap, not the unknown masses.

Joshua G · 08-13-2009, 08:38 AM

2257 has always been a big fucking joke. Feds only prosecute on CP & obscenity.

The anti-porn crowd does not mind one bit that tubes are hurting the business. & the last thing they will do is use 2257 to help the industry.

Fletch XXX · 08-13-2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

2257 has always been a big fucking joke. Feds only prosecute on CP & obscenity.

Exactly, and the people who are in adult industry trying to scare people about 2257 are the ones who ended up trying to profit from that fear, old trick.

The Duck · 08-13-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

It's all about who is responsible for maintaining the site as I recall. Not who owns the domain, not where the physical server is, but the person who maintains the site.

I could sit here in the US with a host in china and a domain owner in russia and if I'm the one ftp'ing files, it's my ass.

That was my rudimentary understanding of the whole deal. Been a long time since reading it though.

TheAmericanCannibal · 08-13-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Exactly, and the people who are in adult industry trying to scare people about 2257 are the ones who ended up trying to profit from that fear, old trick.

Not true Fletch.
I can tell you that I give webmasters everything they need to be covered.
My company is still not profitable.

It's very expensive to give webmasters complete piece of mind- PCI- DSS compliant hosting is NOT CHEAP.

I find it laughable that so many people whoclaim this is their full time source of income haven't bothered to get themselves familiar with the new 2257 laws.

If people here owned restaurants I am sure they would know they have to meet health codes for inspection purposes.

Why do so many webmasters not even bother to take the time to their their homework?

Fletch XXX · 08-13-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAmericanCannibal

Not true Fletch.
I can tell you that I give webmasters everything they need to be covered.
My company is still not profitable.

What is not true about what I said?

That many people who promoted the "fear of prosecution regarding 2257" also tried to profit from it?

I dont know anything about your company but if you claim I am wrong at least prove what i said is wrong. There were alot of big names around here pushing the "you need protection or youll end up in Guantanimo" and those type of people tried to profit from it... this is my observation and it is far from incorrect.

Again, what did I state that was "not true" as you claim?

My post is here:

Quote:

the people who are in adult industry trying to scare people about 2257 are the ones who ended up trying to profit from that fear

I have no problem with people trying to make a buck, but nothing I said is wrong...

Davy · 08-13-2009, 11:04 AM

2257 gives the feds a reason to raid your house whenever they want to.

pornlaw · 08-13-2009, 11:24 AM

The problem with 2257 for webmasters is that IF the feds want to throw the switch on prosecutions they could very easily. A bot could easily see who does and who doesnt have proper notices on their sites. Even if you have the docs but do not have the notice requirement correct, its a felony.

The feds are also using 2257 as an add on for obscenity prosecutions and as Kevin pointed out for CAN-SPAM Act violations. They have conducted, I think, 27 inspections and so far only several companies have not had violations.

As for civil side of not having 2257 correct, it opens up a potential to be sued by a competitor for unfair business practice claims -- see the Vivid v. Pornotube litigation.

And remember they just issued new regs. Regs that will be harder to overturn on Constitutional grounds. Perhaps the Feds are ignoring 2257 or they are waiting to make sure that they got it right this time. Either way I dont see 2257 going away, but then again I dont see mass criminal prosecutions as well.

Its a law, like any other. If you chose to comply you are in a much better position then if you dont. It really comes down to how risk adverse a webmaster/owner/blogger ect is.

www.2257Safe.com gives the industry an inexpensive solution to this problem. If people choose not to protect themselves I dont think fear is going to motivate them. Either they like risk or they do not.

08-13-2009, 06:53 AM	#1
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	Aren't tubes putting a hole in the entire 2257 scare from not long ago? Having been on GFY for a few years, I seem to recall all the hysteria about 2257 and that if you didnt have 2257 on every page you were going to be arrested and thrown in Guantanimo! LOLz One thing for sure seems the whole 2257 scare was bullshit considering the way tubes are so prevalent now and I am certain they dont have 2257 for all the content LOL __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

08-13-2009, 07:47 AM	#2
Lace Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,116	Fuck laws, it's all about money apparently. __________________ Your Paysite Partner Strength In Numbers! StickyDollars \| RadicalCash \| KennysPennies \| HomegrownCash

08-13-2009, 08:06 AM	#6
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	It's all about who is responsible for maintaining the site as I recall. Not who owns the domain, not where the physical server is, but the person who maintains the site. I could sit here in the US with a host in china and a domain owner in russia and if I'm the one ftp'ing files, it's my ass. That was my rudimentary understanding of the whole deal. Been a long time since reading it though. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

08-13-2009, 08:14 AM	#9
seeandsee Check SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe (Skype: gojkoas) Posts: 50,945	2257 eat small kids? __________________ BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year Contact here

08-13-2009, 08:23 AM	#12
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	I think it's simple. Just imagine if cnn ireports didnt even bother to ask people to confirm who they were and if they had the right to distribute what they were about to upload. People would care, and it would be on cnn's lap, not the unknown masses. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

08-13-2009, 07:48 AM	#3
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Well there are more stuff in chapter 110, which can put you away for looooonger than 2257. And no one is excempt from that

08-13-2009, 07:49 AM	#4
RadicalSights So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Europe Posts: 1,595	what's 2257

08-13-2009, 07:51 AM	#5
spazlabz Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Kentucky Posts: 6,548	where are they hosted? Title 18 is US law, I doubt hosting companies in other countries give a shit about US Law unless it happens to violate their laws in some way as well spaz

08-13-2009, 08:09 AM	#7
spazlabz Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Kentucky Posts: 6,548	refresher http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm spaz

08-13-2009, 08:14 AM	#10
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,625	you would think all the stuff marketed as below 18 would be worse then a possible 2257 violation and that also seems to be no big deal on the tubes.

08-13-2009, 08:38 AM	#13
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	2257 has always been a big fucking joke. Feds only prosecute on CP & obscenity. The anti-porn crowd does not mind one bit that tubes are hurting the business. & the last thing they will do is use 2257 to help the industry.

08-13-2009, 11:04 AM	#18
Davy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 4,323	2257 gives the feds a reason to raid your house whenever they want to. __________________ --- ICQ 14-76-98 <-- I don't use this at all

08-13-2009, 11:24 AM	#19
pornlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,891	The problem with 2257 for webmasters is that IF the feds want to throw the switch on prosecutions they could very easily. A bot could easily see who does and who doesnt have proper notices on their sites. Even if you have the docs but do not have the notice requirement correct, its a felony. The feds are also using 2257 as an add on for obscenity prosecutions and as Kevin pointed out for CAN-SPAM Act violations. They have conducted, I think, 27 inspections and so far only several companies have not had violations. As for civil side of not having 2257 correct, it opens up a potential to be sued by a competitor for unfair business practice claims -- see the Vivid v. Pornotube litigation. And remember they just issued new regs. Regs that will be harder to overturn on Constitutional grounds. Perhaps the Feds are ignoring 2257 or they are waiting to make sure that they got it right this time. Either way I dont see 2257 going away, but then again I dont see mass criminal prosecutions as well. Its a law, like any other. If you chose to comply you are in a much better position then if you dont. It really comes down to how risk adverse a webmaster/owner/blogger ect is. www.2257Safe.com gives the industry an inexpensive solution to this problem. If people choose not to protect themselves I dont think fear is going to motivate them. Either they like risk or they do not. __________________ Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com Last edited by pornlaw; 08-13-2009 at 11:27 AM..