Lack of 2257 To Bring Down Tube Sites?
 

There are lots of discussions on GFY about tube sites, if they're evil, how to bring them down, are they fucking up everyone else's money, etc., so I was wondering something....

Isn't it a regulation that a 2257 must appear directly on porn videos (on the actual video before any porn is shown)? I'm not sure I've ever seen a tube site where a clip had a 2257 statement before the clip's content began. If this is the case, aren't they in violation?

Tubes are certainly running everything lawful with the exception of the 2257.

but isn't the lack of 2257 the point?

Sweet justice.

There is a whole world outside the US, most of which could care less what rules, or laws you want them to follow.

you're right...i should've said us-based sites.

This has been discussed a thousand times. But here is the brief version of it:

User uploaded videos aren't required to have 2257 docs. It's a nice loophole that has made the 3 or 4 big tube sites a fortune. Not only do they not have to worry about copyright, but they also don't have to worry about 2257.

I'm thinking about putting a user upload button on Claudia-Marie.Com and instead of uploading to my server via FTP I'll just create a "user" nick and upload our scenes that way. Then I won't have to worry about keeping all these 2257 docs anymore. :1orglaugh

And no, it doesn't make any damn sense does it?

2257 is SUPPOSED to "protect children" by stopping the bad porn people from shooting sweet innocent babies. Reality is...the ONLY people who keep 2257 docs are the people who have no interest in shooting minors. The real bad guys shoot 'em all the time and don't keep any docs since their entire operations are underground and illegal.

So basically, with the "user upload" loophole...any asshole can create a tube site make a "user" and then start uploading any damn thing they want to. Underage, beastiality, etc.

And the only thing that can be done is to have someone ask nicely to take it down (I don't want to call that a DMCA because it's not a copyright issue...but you get the idea)

OK so you kill maybe 50% of tube sites at most.

And they dont care about 2257 and tube sites because they know its hurting the industry...

I have always wondered why a conservative right wing christian fundamentalist hasnt taken up this fight -- I saw that Pat Robertson's lawyers filed a brief in the FSC case supporting 2257. Why arent they fighting against free porn easily available to kids and urging the FBI to use 2257 to go after them... Strange world we live in...

I think they are watching it destroy the adult business and are calculating that if they just let this go on a little longer it will do what neither they or the govt. were able to accomplish because of that pesky U.S. Constitution.

good point. i forgot about the user-uploaded content loophole. well....not just a loophole, but it's also a protective measure against the unknowing bigger guy (like an isp, hosting co., etc.) getting fucked because of what a customer puts on their hosted website or emails to someone.

it not also a protective measure that what it was designed to do, of course people like robbie will always consider it a loophole.

user uploaded tube sites = legal

That's because scumbags have made it a loophole by using it as a way to get away with bullshit that honest people can't get away with. If it were only used in the manner in which it was intended then it would be just fine. But the fact that a producer is required to keep all kinds of records at great expense and possible prosecution and jail time from the govt., and then some asshole can just put up a tube site and an "upload" button then create a username for himself and upload anything without worry is not fair, not right, and it's destroying many of the major studios.

It's only a loophole because anyone with a brain understands that the "user submissions" on these large tube sites are anything but. No way to prove that in a court of law of course but cmon.

What everyone should be looking at is to see if there's any other possible industries where this business model of getting everyone's copyrighted content, using "user submission" to get it online, pleading ignorance as to any of it being copyrighted material, only having to take it down when you've been asked to, and making tons of money off of it. I'm not sure if there's other industries with this kind of business model but hell, see how well it works for the big tubes?

they have safe harbor if they have actual user generated content

They also need to be registered as an ISP with the US copyright office to be exempt from liability, which I doubt many of them did. They also need to show the lack of "direct financial benefit" from infingement, which is also doubtful when they're selling advertisement by clicks and damn sure they're directly interested in every click the infringing video can bring them.

Pink Visual vs Brazzers lawsuit will clarify alot of these points.

The tube sites have actually co-opted the safe harbor for "hosts" provision that was made available for hosting companies. They are not an actual host, but only a website that hosts user content.

Maybe everybody should just file a 2257 complaint with the FBI everytime they send out a DMCA takedown. If they start getting 10,000s of legal complaints, sooner or later they will have to act, or else force the government to change the laws.

The same thing with using DMCA-512(H), maybe flooding courts with 10,000s of them would probably get some attention to the problem.

And as far as non-USA based tubes, a lot of them are based in countries where porn is illegal. One wonders if the mass copyright filings(30,000???) against heavy uploaders in Korea last year, had more to do with outing people to the cops in a country where porn is illegal vs. actual copyright enforcement.

Lousy loopholes

This loophole will be here until youtube and other mainstream video upload sites exist. Because all that youtube does is removing illegal content, too. They are surely quicker than adult tubes, but you can upload an illegal movie to youtube, too. They will delete it sooner or later, but it will be there for a while. And google has way too much money, nobody will make a law against them, money = political power.

Adapt or die bitches

It's not unlike gun control :1orglaugh

except that arguement is total bullshit because the if you can PROVE that is what they are doing the safe harbor and this exception does not apply.



your bitching because the concept of innocent until proven guilty
the fundamental principle protects people from being railroaded makes it difficult to procecute them.

of course that same principle keeps you out of jail when little jim steals his dad credit card to gain access to your site, so the question comes down would you want principle struck down for everyone including yourself.

you really need to get a dictionary and lookup the term direct and indirect.

your grasp of the english language let alone the laws astounding.

it is a loophole, because it puts blind eye on control of content and at the same time allows any content legit or not freely distributed.

Exempt is the word for today kids.

Can you contact me on any of the messengers, or can i contact you by those or email you?

copyright has always been a conditional monopoly people should always have a right to use copyright material in fair use(s) like commentary and parody.



the producers of downfall should never have had the right to take down the 43 video parodies before the eff successfully defend that right with this video.

if anything the dmca is to copyright holder friendly since they can censor such parody videos with no penalty until someone )thank you eff) spends 100,000 defending the right for themselves.

there should be a three strikes rule for making false takedown request do it 3 times an all your content goes into the public domain.

* "lookup" should be "look up"
** "term" should be "terms"
*** "the laws astounding" should be "the law is astounding" or alternatively "the laws is astounding"

I don't think it's very bright to call someone out for being illiterate, if you are illiterate yourself.

You can email me at michael(at)fattlegal.com

IMO, the tube owners should require the uploader to post their 2257 info, since in this scenario the uploader is the publisher

there is a huge difference between someone not knowing the difference between a word and it EXACT opposite

and a person gramatical skills are admittedly lacking because of a reliance on spell checkers /grammer checker(which unfortunately gfy does not have)

only a world class moron would not realize the difference.

"user uploaded" my ass - we all know that this is not the case. just gideon still believes in that and the toothfairy

there should be rewards offered to those tube site employees who upload the "user generated" content and are willing to rat out their owners - including screenshots etc.

no you idiot i am saying the presumption of innocents should work for everyone, not just yourself.

if you can prove they are doing it internally then you have no issues with the safe harbor provision
because it does not apply

your arguement is that i can't prove it but i believe it so let just punish them as if i could prove it.

Which is total bullshit.



idiot if you ever bribed some employee to do that the tube site would simple claim you created the situation with your reward.

the employee only uploaded the content to claim the reward.

can someone please post the link to legal statement that exempts user uploaded porn content from 2257?
I dont think there is any such beast

Good point - Sorta Nutto if you ask me.
In re. the assumed ignorance of the site owner - I'd like someone to subpoena the ip's of these "uploaders" and see if they're not the same as the site owners...

If you think the current tube model is bad wait until you see whats comming.. A whole new way to make money using a specific advertiser which I wont mention here Once this gets out I can see a lot of tubes doing the same thing :2 cents:

And to be honest if its done correctly with purchased content (long movies) The user wont have to spend a penny, but the owner of the tube will make $$$

The site owner could use proxies but saying that

I had a problem with a guy who exploited a script and attempted to send 500 of my members on a mainstream site emails to join a diff site which they claimed was a sister site. Together with my host we traced the IP back to the town in the UK which he either lives in or was using the computer from and found out which ISP he was using. I have since sent the ISP all the logs and the emails between myself and my host in the hope that they stop him from using their service. I know he will just go somewhere else if they do decide to stop his service but at least its a start.

From the DOJ's own Small Business Guide to 2257...

If you can fully understand that you are smarter than the average bear -- and probably more than 99% of the FBI agents on the inspection team.

Here's a link to the entire guide...

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/optf...nce-guide.html

Good to see you followed that through though:thumbsup

thank god i'm done argueing with you personally :glugglug

well that is the business model of all the file hosting sites, rapidshare megaupload etc certainly

good to see that you finally realize how wrong you are.