Tube sites do not need to keep 2257 docs ? - GoFuckYourself.com

SmokeyTheBear · 05-12-2011, 04:02 PM

The law seems to imply if you are giving away the videos for free you don't need to keep 2257

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which?
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

helterskelter808 · 05-12-2011, 04:04 PM

I believe it is because they don't know what their users are uploading.

ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE · 05-12-2011, 04:35 PM

Yup for some reason government wont pursue 2257 compliance. If they did tubes would be fuckin devastated. I have said this many times, no one gives a shit.

TubeKing · 05-12-2011, 04:40 PM

exempt, too hard to police.

L-Pink · 05-12-2011, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatOtherGuy

Yup for some reason government wont pursue 2257 compliance. If they did tubes would be fuckin devastated. I have said this many times, no one gives a shit.

Me too ....

blackmonsters · 05-12-2011, 05:00 PM

Tubes are "secondary producers" and that was the part of 2257 that got canned.

But thanks for making an issue out of a dead horse that most people already
understood.

Yeeha.

BV · 05-12-2011, 05:07 PM

tubes are not secondary producers

tube sites are considered the same as a web host

the users that upload are responsible for the 2257 docs

just like you are responsible for what you upload to your website (if you run a paysite for example) your host is not responsible

blackmonsters · 05-12-2011, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BV

tubes are not secondary producers

tube sites are considered the same as a web host

the users that upload are responsible for the 2257 docs

just like you are responsible for what you upload to your website (if you run a paysite for example) your host is not responsible

Thanks for making more shit up that ain't true.

L-Pink · 05-12-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BV

tubes are not secondary producers

tube sites are considered the same as a web host

the users that upload are responsible for the 2257 docs

just like you are responsible for what you upload to your website (if you run a paysite for example) your host is not responsible

Like most tubesites didn't start with uploading their own, but stolen, videos.

.

sabin · 05-12-2011, 05:16 PM

everything on the internet is considered "interstate commerce" as is pretty much everything in America. The interstate commerce clause is how Congress justifies passing federal laws that cover the whole US, since they are limited to only certain enumerated powers. This doesn't imply that giving videos away isn't commerce, in jurisprudence it almost certainly is.
*not legal advice*

ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE · 05-12-2011, 05:25 PM

Every single video that appears on a tubesite should have 2257 information before the clip plays or shown on the 2257 compliance notice page. TECHNICALLY.
Just like it is required of videos and other media materials in commerce. If not listed the producer is in violation and the tube site operator runs a risk in the event that the materials may not be legal for example CP.

It is a requirement only because authorities may need the information available to them in the event of an investigation. If its not on the tube site by some method they are in violation.

Technically speaking.

But like I said no one gives a shit.
I am not a lawyer but I have talked to a few about this in the past.

Perhaps down the road the government is just waiting for them to be worth pursuing and thats when the shit will hit the fan. Thats the day government get's its money after letting them get fat and worth sucking down the drain for a payoff.

Look how the government let the financial industry hang itself, now they are going after individuals and taking there money and locking them up.

$5 submissions · 05-12-2011, 05:27 PM

Any guesses on enforcement?

SmokeyTheBear · 05-12-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Tubes are "secondary producers" and that was the part of 2257 that got canned.

doesn't appear that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

But thanks for making an issue out of a dead horse that most people already
understood.

seems that not everyone feels the way you assume they do..

SDA CASH - Banned for Life AGAIN · 05-12-2011, 07:40 PM

I have sent DMCA letters to many tubes who steal my content.
These tube sites do NOT have my permission to post my content and they DO NOT have 2257 records of the talent in the content they steal without my permission.

Therefore they are getting away with violating Federal laws as the OP pointed out.

will76 · 05-12-2011, 07:55 PM

without reading any of that.... user submitted to a tube site, tube site doesn't need 2257 just like a dating site that has members post nude pictures of themselves or users on a forum. If the tube site puts the content up itself then it would need 2257.

blackmonsters · 05-12-2011, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

doesn't appear that way.

seems that not everyone feels the way you assume they do..

Well, I guess I will take off and retire my GFY lawyer hat then.

Konda · 05-12-2011, 08:26 PM

Most of them are probably not in the US anyway so they don't care about 2257 and whatever other US laws

dgraves · 05-12-2011, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

I believe it is because they don't know what their users are uploading.

ya right! try uploading a chick sucking off a horse to Pornhub and see if it gets displayed.

dgraves · 05-12-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Tubes are "secondary producers" and that was the part of 2257 that got canned.

But thanks for making an issue out of a dead horse that most people already
understood.

Yeeha.

if that's the case then anyone could have a tube site with 16 year olds getting railed and just claim that they didn't upload it and didn't have any clue it was on their site(server).

FrozenJag · 05-12-2011, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BV

tubes are not secondary producers

tube sites are considered the same as a web host

the users that upload are responsible for the 2257 docs

just like you are responsible for what you upload to your website (if you run a paysite for example) your host is not responsible

Correct.

There is more to it then that though but sums up decently.

blackmonsters · 05-12-2011, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

if that's the case then anyone could have a tube site with 16 year olds getting railed and just claim that they didn't upload it and didn't have any clue it was on their site(server).

Underage content is illegal with or without a 2257 requirement.

What planet are you living on that enabled you to draw that out of bounds conclusion?

Paul Markham · 05-13-2011, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatOtherGuy

Yup for some reason government wont pursue 2257 compliance. If they did tubes would be fuckin devastated. I have said this many times, no one gives a shit.

Agreed, the US Government never really enforced 2257.

Nathan · 05-13-2011, 12:22 AM

2257 (h) (2) (B) (v)

Quote:

In this section the term ?produces? does not include activities that are limited to the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230 (c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication.

230 (c) (2) (A)

Quote:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

Its really not this hard to understand.

just a punk · 05-13-2011, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BV

tubes are not secondary producers

Exactly. They even non 3rd or 4th produces either. They just pirate hosts for any kind of porn including illegal one.

dgraves · 05-13-2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Underage content is illegal with or without a 2257 requirement.

What planet are you living on that enabled you to draw that out of bounds conclusion?

lol, how would they know the girls are underage or not if they can't verify 2257? that's the purpose of 2257.

have you ever seen some 18 year old asian chicks? they look 14, but in a court of law it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

so, let's say someone uploads a scene with underage girl in it to a tube. who's responsible for verifying age?

halfpint · 05-13-2011, 01:12 AM

If they did enforce this on tubes they would simply move the sites to non US servers as 2257 means nothing in other countries

Davy · 05-13-2011, 01:18 AM

DMCA is protecting them. Or at least that's what they say.

adultzone · 05-13-2011, 02:14 AM

Tube sites should be shut down!

05-12-2011, 04:02 PM	#1
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	Tube sites do not need to keep 2257 docs ? The law seems to imply if you are giving away the videos for free you don't need to keep 2257 (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which? (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and (2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

05-12-2011, 05:00 PM	#6
blackmonsters Making PHP work Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: 🌎🌅🌈🌇 Posts: 20,226	Tubes are "secondary producers" and that was the part of 2257 that got canned. But thanks for making an issue out of a dead horse that most people already understood. Yeeha. __________________ Make Money with Porn

05-12-2011, 05:16 PM	#10
sabin Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2011 Location: USA Posts: 60	everything on the internet is considered "interstate commerce" as is pretty much everything in America. The interstate commerce clause is how Congress justifies passing federal laws that cover the whole US, since they are limited to only certain enumerated powers. This doesn't imply that giving videos away isn't commerce, in jurisprudence it almost certainly is. not legal advice __________________ Add to my Site: Add your URL \| Add a Pornstar \|

05-12-2011, 05:25 PM	#11
ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,241	Every single video that appears on a tubesite should have 2257 information before the clip plays or shown on the 2257 compliance notice page. TECHNICALLY. Just like it is required of videos and other media materials in commerce. If not listed the producer is in violation and the tube site operator runs a risk in the event that the materials may not be legal for example CP. It is a requirement only because authorities may need the information available to them in the event of an investigation. If its not on the tube site by some method they are in violation. Technically speaking. But like I said no one gives a shit. I am not a lawyer but I have talked to a few about this in the past. Perhaps down the road the government is just waiting for them to be worth pursuing and thats when the shit will hit the fan. Thats the day government get's its money after letting them get fat and worth sucking down the drain for a payoff. Look how the government let the financial industry hang itself, now they are going after individuals and taking there money and locking them up. Last edited by ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE; 05-12-2011 at 05:38 PM..

05-12-2011, 05:27 PM	#12
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	Any guesses on enforcement? __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

05-12-2011, 04:04 PM	#2
helterskelter808 So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,405	I believe it is because they don't know what their users are uploading.

05-12-2011, 04:35 PM	#3
ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,241	Yup for some reason government wont pursue 2257 compliance. If they did tubes would be fuckin devastated. I have said this many times, no one gives a shit.

05-12-2011, 04:40 PM	#4
TubeKing Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 541	exempt, too hard to police.

05-12-2011, 05:07 PM	#7
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	tubes are not secondary producers tube sites are considered the same as a web host the users that upload are responsible for the 2257 docs just like you are responsible for what you upload to your website (if you run a paysite for example) your host is not responsible

05-12-2011, 07:40 PM	#14
SDA CASH - Banned for Life AGAIN So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Scottsdale Arizona Posts: 1,100	I have sent DMCA letters to many tubes who steal my content. These tube sites do NOT have my permission to post my content and they DO NOT have 2257 records of the talent in the content they steal without my permission. Therefore they are getting away with violating Federal laws as the OP pointed out. Last edited by SDA CASH - Banned for Life AGAIN; 05-12-2011 at 07:41 PM..

05-12-2011, 07:55 PM	#15
will76 Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 18,037	without reading any of that.... user submitted to a tube site, tube site doesn't need 2257 just like a dating site that has members post nude pictures of themselves or users on a forum. If the tube site puts the content up itself then it would need 2257. __________________ ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread) FNCash \| Media Revenue

05-12-2011, 08:26 PM	#17
Konda ... Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,280	Most of them are probably not in the US anyway so they don't care about 2257 and whatever other US laws

05-13-2011, 01:12 AM	#26
halfpint GFY's Halfpint Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: UK Posts: 15,223	If they did enforce this on tubes they would simply move the sites to non US servers as 2257 means nothing in other countries __________________ Get FREE website listings on Cryptocoinshops.net

05-13-2011, 01:18 AM	#27
Davy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 4,323	DMCA is protecting them. Or at least that's what they say. __________________ --- ICQ 14-76-98 <-- I don't use this at all

05-13-2011, 02:14 AM	#28
adultzone So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: May 2010 Location: Southeast Asia (Philippines) Posts: 1,499	Tube sites should be shut down!