legals... use of HTML frames
 

How good a legal defense is the use of a frameset? ie your host/server/domain etc had no infringing content but a framed external site (which was not yours and you had no control over it) did.

But because of frames it could appear that it was on your site to someone who doesnt understand frames/HTML??

sorry what was the point or question i was to busy looking at your sig :upsidedow

Even better: how about a mod_rewrite on each jpeg file? <IMG SRC>s will show your urls, but apache will redirect each file to a different server owned by a non-US person and hosted offshore?

great post azguy... do we have anybody who can comment on this?

If it shows your URL, you are the publisher.

If frames was a way around 2257 don't you think there would be tons of sponsors around here hawking their 2257 frame pages? :upsidedow

I would have to concur. I truly believe this is what they meant by the "enter into a contract to... / conspire to..." bit.

okay what if it wasnt 2257. what if the frame contained something civil ie, copyright, slander, etc

My guess is that it wouldn't matter. If you make it a part of your page it is a part of your page. If you framed a page offering Star Wars downloads for free you would likely be zapped just as quickly as the guys who hosted torrent files.

Consider that if you get your ass in court on a 2257 charge, every single person in that courtroom, other than you and maybe your lawyer, wants you convicted.

It is the anti kiddie porn law, and if the issue against you is unrelated to kiddies... who cares.

The legal expression is.. If it walks like a duck, if it sounds like a duck, it is a duck.

The judge will like that expression much more than your expensive expert witness explaining how the pic on your site was not really on your site.

:2 cents:

okay now what if you framed a movie site which fine. the movie site then puts up links to a star wars download?

or you remove the framed link as requested but George Lucas still sees the old version of your site possiby through proxy cache, IE cache, google cache etc.

this question doesnt relate to 2257

I would think his response would apply to any case involving a site you host.

It's all about intent. A jury will be more persuaded by the prosecuter who says you were trying to use tricks to get around laws than the defense who could only say you didn't host the materials, but wouldn't be able to argue that you didn't intend to disseminate them. Would be even worse if you had "ref codes" in said frames :upsidedow

You better hope you can show the court that a perfectly legal site suddenly switched and prove you have no involvement with them whatsoever. :2 cents: