2257 rules: All sig posters will need 2257 info? - GoFuckYourself.com

RawAlex · 04-04-2007, 06:27 PM

I am thinking that anyone with a sig file with an image in it is going to need to send a copy to GFY to prove the content.

Interesting issues coming down the road.

BoyAlley · 04-04-2007, 06:28 PM

-Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.

JD · 04-04-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

-Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.

yep and it's total bullshit imho

BoyAlley · 04-04-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPeRMiNaToR

yep and it's total bullshit imho

Especially considering message boards and p2p are the top ways that real CP are distributed in the first place! Owners of those sites have virtually no responsibility, while owners of sites that use by adult for adult content are subjected to this muck-a-muck.

StarkReality · 04-04-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Especially considering message boards and p2p are the top ways that real CP are distributed in the first place! Owners of those sites have virtually no responsibility, while owners of sites that use by adult for adult content are subjected to this muck-a-muck.

Very true, but it's like always: If you can't catch the big fish (real criminals), you catch the small ones (webmasters) and call it success.

The Sultan Of Smut · 04-04-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

-Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.

I don't see how Google is the same since users post the material on a public forum (which is acting as the carrier of goods from one party to another) as opposed to Google who goes out and seeks/repackages/redistributes the content on their own without the permission of at least one of the parties involved.

Like the other guy said it's total bullshit. Large companies with the resources to put up a fight are given a pass while the smaller guys get fried.

Oh, this is one interesting tid bit to extend the common carrier arguement since there still seems to be a level of accountability on the part of Google if it is in fact a common carrier:

"A common carrier is absolutely liable for goods carried by it"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

Bloomer · 04-04-2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPeRMiNaToR

yep and it's total bullshit imho

How are you so sure?
Where is your law degree?
I would also like to see some sort of proof to this claim that they WONT have to comply show it in writing if you can that these Within the U.S. companies are exempt from this!

BoyAlley · 04-04-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloomer

How are you so sure?
Where is your law degree?
I would also like to see some sort of proof to this claim that they WONT have to comply show it in writing if you can that these Within the U.S. companies are exempt from this!

Bloomer, you've made a total jackass out of yourself in every other thread you've posted in, why bother continuing that trend in this one?

IllTestYourGirls · 04-04-2007, 07:01 PM

it is all bull shit, like i have said before "land of the free

to go fuck yourself

Bloomer · 04-04-2007, 07:11 PM

those days of being free are gone just like the sitcom

After Shock Media · 04-04-2007, 07:39 PM

I think my sig is exempt.

RawAlex · 04-04-2007, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

-Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.

I have a feeling that won't carry much water in this case. GFY isn't a common carrier, they do edit posts, ban people, and limit the content of sig files. By nature, the exercise editorial control over the content of the board, and as such are not "blind" common carriers, but a service provider (and secondary producer as a result).

That nice picture of Sunny is the corner will certainly need a 2257... as will many of the images from the pheonix forum.

Also: I am wondering how this will affect Fubar and JFK... some of those images are explicit, and not all of them are taken at public events (no "news" exemption).

Anyone?

BusterBunny · 04-04-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

-Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant-

There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes.

GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.

good to know

see sig

stickyfingerz · 04-04-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloomer

How are you so sure?
Where is your law degree?
I would also like to see some sort of proof to this claim that they WONT have to comply show it in writing if you can that these Within the U.S. companies are exempt from this!

Thats what my lawyer worries about. You should be SUPER worried with your 600+ sites, all those tgps and blogs. lol

04-04-2007, 06:27 PM	#1
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	2257 rules: All sig posters will need 2257 info? I am thinking that anyone with a sig file with an image in it is going to need to send a copy to GFY to prove the content. Interesting issues coming down the road.

04-04-2007, 07:01 PM	#9
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	it is all bull shit, like i have said before "land of the free to go fuck yourself __________________

04-04-2007, 07:39 PM	#11
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	I think my sig is exempt. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

04-04-2007, 06:28 PM	#2
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	-Begin I am not an attorney but here's my opinion rant- There are common carrier exceptions to the 2257 statutes. GFY is covered under those, as are sites like Google.

04-04-2007, 07:11 PM	#10
Bloomer So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 654	those days of being free are gone just like the sitcom