What is Google doing about 2257 ?
 

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

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

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

they're not doing a damn thing.

good question :winkwink:

who cares.

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

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...

again, who really cares.

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.

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 came in #4:
http://www.ag0ny.com/misc/visit-my-website.jpg

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...

Can't say for google, but yahoo is alreday did alot. Just read this article:http://www.gofuckyourself.com/images/icons/icon1.gif Has Yahoo Been Affected by New 2257 Rules?

(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).

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

Ok, I get it now :)

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.

i dont think google is on the doj radar

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.

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.

Because nobody tells them?

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

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.

Google is exempt but their image search feature is not.

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...

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

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