2257 and hosting webmaster galleries - GoFuckYourself.com

bigdog · 06-05-2005, 05:45 AM

The idea of hosting webmasters galleries sounds like a good idea, but all you need is a rouge affilate or even a competitor to upload some questionable material and send the link to the DOJ

andrej_NDC · 06-05-2005, 06:22 AM

the idea could be to host only people you trust to, and on sponsor registered domains also, so the sponsor's address is in the whois and he will act like the custodian of records

PantieZ · 06-05-2005, 06:25 AM

I thinks it´s a GatorB topic ... you know , GatorB got an IQ of 130 !!

marketsmart · 06-05-2005, 06:31 AM

along the same lines, what happens if an angry admin or hacker posts content and then turns you in? The impression I am getting from all the posts on this topic is that if you dont have records, regardless of special circumstances you are fucked. Do you think that is going to be the case? I hear alot of talk about moving offshore, but there is always the trail back to the dough and now you are looking at a money laundering charge on top of 2257 violation. Any thoughts?

bigdog · 06-05-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

along the same lines, what happens if an angry admin or hacker posts content and then turns you in? The impression I am getting from all the posts on this topic is that if you dont have records, regardless of special circumstances you are fucked. Do you think that is going to be the case? I hear alot of talk about moving offshore, but there is always the trail back to the dough and now you are looking at a money laundering charge on top of 2257 violation. Any thoughts?

good point about the hacker, but i doubt you would get hacked every week, where as someone could post questionable content every week.

Mr.Fiction · 06-05-2005, 01:09 PM

I think that hosting companies are exempt from the regulations that I read:

(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.

Look at "iv".

06-05-2005, 05:45 AM	#1
bigdog Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 6,964	2257 and hosting webmaster galleries The idea of hosting webmasters galleries sounds like a good idea, but all you need is a rouge affilate or even a competitor to upload some questionable material and send the link to the DOJ

06-05-2005, 01:09 PM	#6
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	I think that hosting companies are exempt from the regulations that I read: (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. Look at "iv". __________________ Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU \| Free Speech Coalition \| EFF \| IMPA

06-05-2005, 06:22 AM	#2
andrej_NDC Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,760	the idea could be to host only people you trust to, and on sponsor registered domains also, so the sponsor's address is in the whois and he will act like the custodian of records

06-05-2005, 06:25 AM	#3
PantieZ Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Panty Land Posts: 1,441	I thinks it´s a GatorB topic ... you know , GatorB got an IQ of 130 !!

06-05-2005, 06:31 AM	#4
marketsmart HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sunnybrook Institution for the Criminally Insane Posts: 20,419	along the same lines, what happens if an angry admin or hacker posts content and then turns you in? The impression I am getting from all the posts on this topic is that if you dont have records, regardless of special circumstances you are fucked. Do you think that is going to be the case? I hear alot of talk about moving offshore, but there is always the trail back to the dough and now you are looking at a money laundering charge on top of 2257 violation. Any thoughts?