GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   I guess we don't have to worry about 2257 anymore (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=909773)

Blackamooka 06-09-2009 04:21 PM

I guess we don't have to worry about 2257 anymore
 
Microsoft is basically the largest porn site in the world now and I don't see a 2257 statement anywhere on their site, so why should we have to comply if they don't?

pornguy 06-09-2009 04:24 PM

Because they are backed by BILLIONS and you are not.

baddog 06-09-2009 04:24 PM

Let me know how that works out for you.

Blackamooka 06-09-2009 04:30 PM

Obviously I don't intend to drop all my 2257's, that wasn't the point I was trying to make....

Robbie 06-09-2009 04:31 PM

I've never "worried" about it anyway. We've all been keeping records of id's and model releases for years before that even existed anyway. :) Just slight modification of record keeping is all it amounts to. Basically a way for them to "Gotcha" if they ever turn their eye on you. Remember Al Capone went to prison for accounting discrepancies on his taxes. If the govt. ever comes after you, they are gonna find a way one way or another to put you in prison. Hell, look at Max Hardcore. Shot porn with paid models and went to jail and the govt. took his stuff. Best just to not ever get on their radar screen.

xenigo 06-09-2009 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackamooka (Post 15941511)
Obviously I don't intend to drop all my 2257's, that wasn't the point I was trying to make....

Not all of them? Just some of them? :winkwink:

pornlaw 06-09-2009 04:35 PM

There are exceptions for tube sites within 28 CFR 75. I think Bing.com falls within those exceptions. Remember 2257 was made easier for mainstream and adult companies to comply with this last time around.

jakethedog 06-09-2009 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 15941524)
There are exceptions for tube sites within 28 CFR 75. I think Bing.com falls within those exceptions. Remember 2257 was made easier for mainstream and adult companies to comply with this last time around.

And your thoughts on "Anti-piracy" in this issue if you could .. I am totally beside my self with this whole MS/Bing thing ...

pornlaw 06-09-2009 05:05 PM

In regards to "anti-piracy" are you talking about Bing's ability to play the video directly within their site ? I assume you wouldnt care if they would send traffic to your site.

candyflip 06-09-2009 05:11 PM

I notice that a few of the bigger sites who are indexed on Bing are redirecting the traffic to their main pages and not the page the video is on.

DaddyHalbucks 06-09-2009 05:35 PM

I'd still worry.

jakethedog 06-09-2009 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw (Post 15941613)
In regards to "anti-piracy" are you talking about Bing's ability to play the video directly within their site ? I assume you wouldnt care if they would send traffic to your site.

hopefully my content never ends up on there after being stolen .. it would make it no better than any of the large pirate tubes ..But I am sure there is already stolen content on there from companies trying to make some money in this shit economy .. that is what I am talking about .. making Bing no better than the rest, making our lives hell ..

SilentKnight 06-09-2009 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackamooka (Post 15941485)
Microsoft is basically the largest porn site in the world now and I don't see a 2257 statement anywhere on their site, so why should we have to comply if they don't?

Because justice is two-tiered ... you're on the lower tier.

$5 submissions 06-09-2009 07:14 PM

2257's sub issues haven't been fully litigated yet. In particular, the intersection between 2257 and the DMCA

Blackamooka 06-09-2009 07:53 PM

Well, I don't bitch about illegal tubes usually, because up until now I considered them to be the underbelly of the adult webmaster world and there is nothing I can do about it. But now one of the largest corporations in the world has legitimized them all. It's a big fat "fuck you" to everyone that has playing by the rules all along and I think people should be up in arms about this, but I guess I'm not surprised by everyone's complacency.

Anyways, that's my rant and now I'll go back to playing by the rules until the thieves have completely won.

Snake Doctor 06-09-2009 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackamooka (Post 15941485)
Microsoft is basically the largest porn site in the world now and I don't see a 2257 statement anywhere on their site, so why should we have to comply if they don't?

Let me know what the judge says when you present that argument to him. :1orglaugh


As to your other statements, alot of people are up in arms about it, but what the fuck can they do?

Nothing.

So you're better off trying to find a way to profit in the current environment rather than getting your blood pressure up worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Rochard 06-09-2009 11:00 PM

Doesn't this make M$ a secondary producer?

Fucking sweet.

Barefootsies 06-09-2009 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy (Post 15941498)
Because they are backed by BILLIONS and you are not.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :thumbsup

Paul Markham 06-09-2009 11:45 PM

I've been 2257 compliant for about 25 years and would not have it any other way. 2257 or keeping records that fulfill 2257 is for my benefit.

(A) I make sure the model is over 18.
(B) She is made to produce her documents for copying and has a clue this is a professional shoot.
(C) She signs a dated model release clearly stating I own the rights on her image on the content.
(D) If I buy in or broker I know the supplier is doing his job right and covering my ass.

As probably the only person here who has stood in front of a judge the fact that ALL my content was legal was something my lawyer rammed down the prosecutions throat when he brought the question of under age content up.

I don't think "I'm exempt because....." would of gone down very well with the judge.

With all the under age girls exchanging nude images and videos of themselves on chat rooms it is unbelievable how lax some people are about a bit of paperwork.

Barefootsies 06-09-2009 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15942389)
As probably the only person here who has stood in front of a judge the fact that ALL my content was legal was something my lawyer rammed down the prosecutions throat when he brought the question of under age content up.


Jack Sparrow 06-10-2009 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy (Post 15941498)
Because they are backed by BILLIONS and you are not.

Amen to that :):thumbsup

kmanrox 06-10-2009 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy (Post 15941498)
Because they are backed by BILLIONS and you are not.

ha! speak for yourself!!!

Chosen 06-10-2009 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmanrox (Post 15942474)
ha! speak for yourself!!!

:1orglaugh


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc