Search Engines...TGP's and 2257

[theking]

Since the new 2257 rules have not yet been published...and only the proposed 2257 rules are known...I still ask this question? Does anyone that is knowlegeable about the proposed 2257 rules state with reasonable certainty (having had legal advice) that the proposed 2257 rules do not pertain to text links.

In other words Search Engines and some TGP's use only text links but yet those links will display porn that is hosted by someone other than the Search Engine or the TGP...does this place them in the category of secondary producer/publisher?

In addition TGP's are advertisers of Affiliate Programs...so as advertisers do they have any legal culpability to see that those they advertise for are meeting their full 2257 legal requirements?

BTW...legal advice from a singular attorney is not the definitive end all...as attorney's have different opinions as to the interpretation of law. It is like many issues...one has to garner a consensus.

Anyhow anyone care to take a crack at these questions?

[Lycanthrope]

Go read what Section 2257 is actually meant to regulate then see if this question makes sense.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

Go read what Section 2257 is actually meant to regulate then see if this question makes sense.

I have read it...thank you very much. I take it you can not answer the questions with any certainty?

[Nate-MM2]

I sale fake government id's for text links.

[Lycanthrope]

Your question is like asking what effect the oil disposal regulations have on making napkins.

Here is a hint: "18 USC Section 2257 REGULATES THE CREATION of images of actual, explicit sex that are used or intended to be used in interstate commerce...

are you creating, producing, recreating, reproducing an image? No? Then 2257 doesn't apply... there is nothing for you to be compliant with.

[2257]

All tgps will be shut down

[theking]

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

Your question is like asking what effect the oil disposal regulations have on making napkins.

Here is a hint: "18 USC Section 2257 REGULATES THE CREATION of images of actual, explicit sex that are used or intended to be used in interstate commerce...

are you creating, producing, recreating, reproducing an image? No? Then 2257 doesn't apply... there is nothing for you to be compliant with.

A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service [JDO: No "commercial" purpose included here.] that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

Note the word publishes...note the words who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy".

Thus when one is advertising for an Affiliate Program...is one a secondary producer/publisher and is one entering into a contract/agreement to publish the Affilate Program's images/videos...even though said images/videos are only linked to via text links?

In addition as an advertiser is one legally liable if the Affiliate Program that one is advertising for is not fully 2257 compliant?

[Lycanthrope]

You are reading way too much into this and just adding to the confusion.

Again, if you do not create, reproduce... etc. and do not show any images, 2257 does not apply.

[zzgundamnzz]

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

You are reading way too much into this and just adding to the confusion.

Again, if you do not create, reproduce... etc. and do not show any images, 2257 does not apply.

Theres no point in arguing with him. Just tell him what he wants to hear that needs to sell his site because its not compliant. Even though his site is text and the sexually explicit material(pictures, video) isn't even on his server.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by theking

In addition as an advertiser is one legally liable if the Affiliate Program that one is advertising for is not fully 2257 compliant?

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

are you creating, producing, recreating, reproducing an image? No? Then 2257 doesn't apply... there is nothing for you to be compliant with.

To make one thing clear: 2257 is about record keeping requirements, and there ARE other things to consider before making money in this biz, than 2257.

Read:

Originally Posted by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 110, § 2251

(c)
(1) Any person who, in a circumstance described in paragraph (2), knowingly makes, prints, or publishes, or causes to be made, printed, or published, any notice or advertisement seeking or offering?
(A) to receive, exchange, buy, produce, display, distribute, or reproduce, any visual depiction, if the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and such visual depiction is of such conduct; or
(B) participation in any act of sexually explicit conduct by or with any minor for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct;
shall be punished as provided under subsection (d).
(2) The circumstance referred to in paragraph (1) is that?
(A) such person knows or has reason to know that such notice or advertisement will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed; or
(B) such notice or advertisement is transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mailed.

Further:

Originally Posted by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 110, § 2256

(3) ?producing? means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;

So it does not really matter if you are using thumbs or textlinks. You are still liable for what you link (advertise).
My best advise is to check the laws and their sponsors before they start importing galleries into their TGPs. "I did not know" will not hold in court!

[Lycanthrope]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

To make one thing clear: 2257 is about record keeping requirements, and there ARE other things to consider before making money in this biz, than 2257.

Read:


Further:


So it does not really matter if you are using thumbs or textlinks. You are still liable for what you link (advertise).
My best advise is to check the laws and their sponsors before they start importing galleries into their TGPs. "I did not know" will not hold in court!

Correct, I didn't mean to make it sound like there was nothing at all to worry about... just that 2257 didn't apply.

[Net41]

Originally Posted by Nate-MM2

I sale fake government id's for text links.

I buy fake ids!

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

Correct, I didn't mean to make it sound like there was nothing at all to worry about... just that 2257 didn't apply.

Yes, it will at least reduce the paperwork

[theking]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

To make one thing clear: 2257 is about record keeping requirements, and there ARE other things to consider before making money in this biz, than 2257.

Read:


Further:


So it does not really matter if you are using thumbs or textlinks. You are still liable for what you link (advertise).
My best advise is to check the laws and their sponsors before they start importing galleries into their TGPs. "I did not know" will not hold in court!

Yes...that was the second part to my question. As I read it...even using text links makes one a publisher and certainly an advertiser if one is advertising for an Affiliate Program...and even though one uses only text links...if one advertises an Affiliate Program's FHG's/sites and they are not fully 2257 compliant does this make the advertiser legally liable under the new proposed 2257...as one has entered into a "contract/agreement".

If there is a legal door open to them...I am satisfied that they will use it...if they so choose.

[Webby]

Mmmm... What's all the fuss over some US law that has little meaning to the rest of the world? 2257 is not new, tho they can change the goal posts till hell freezes over - it will still remain irrelevant to most of the world.

The easy answer.. which was an answer 10 year ago and still applies today, - don't have anything to do with countries who stuff up obstacles and don't operated under their laws. Read that to mean, no US servers or US corps (tho a problem if you are a US citizen) - that saves time in even *having* to read 2257 bullshit.

Tho... the original purpose of 2257 is valid - but again - that is common sense, irrespective where you live or do business.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by theking

Yes...that was the second part to my question. As I read it...even using text links makes one a publisher and certainly an advertiser if one is advertising for an Affiliate Program...and even though one uses only text links...if one advertises an Affiliate Program's FHG's/sites and they are not fully 2257 compliant does this make the advertiser legally liable under the new proposed 2257...as one has entered into a "contract/agreement".

If there is a legal door open to them...I am satisfied that they will use it...if they so choose.

Im not a lawyer, but in that case it makes sense that textlinking makes you an advertiser, but not publisher. If the model is 18+, and the sponsor is not fully 2257 compliant, the sponsor might risk punishment alone. However, if the model is 18-, you are both in trouble, and its up to you to convince the judge.
But why even speculate on this? I say 1st priority is to cover your ass, before doing anything else.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Im not a lawyer, but in that case it makes sense that textlinking makes you an advertiser, but not publisher. If the model is 18+, and the sponsor is not fully 2257 compliant, the sponsor might risk punishment alone.

How is that any different than before the new 2257 rules?

If you advertise any illegal product or service (especially child porn) you can get in trouble. 2257 has nothing to do with that.

[Judas_Hansen]

who gives a shit????? only AaronM

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

How is that any different than before the new 2257 rules?

If you advertise any illegal product or service (especially child porn) you can get in trouble. 2257 has nothing to do with that.

Yes, that's what I also refering to above in § 2251; You can still be punished for advertising illegal products/services, with or without 2257. 2257 apply to record keeeping requirements. Nothing more.
We have not seen the new published 2257 yet, but it sounds like its going to be more much more stricter.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Webby

Mmmm... What's all the fuss over some US law that has little meaning to the rest of the world? 2257 is not new, tho they can change the goal posts till hell freezes over - it will still remain irrelevant to most of the world.

I suppose you may be correct as long as one's "porn" business has zero connection to the US.