|
Quote:
that wasn't my scenario. i said 'what if your TGP script was set to auto approve any thumbnail submitted. how is that different than any of those countless 'image dump' sites on the net? and as far as 'reasonable' goes, is it reasonable if a TGP is a one person show who also works full time and cannot find the time to moderate the site every day? if you say "well that person then should not run a tgp" I say "well AOL or forum owners should hire more moderators or not run their service". again, this is moot point, since any small time operator that gets pinched isn't going to be able to afford the big time lawyers to fight this in a jury trial. they will plea. |
So a small webmaster that hardly makes anything out of his messageboards should monitor his board 24/7 and huge wemaster that makes hundreds of thousands of his board should do nothing at all (while he could just hire 5 paid moderators that can control this board perfectly)? Yeah could be very well be....same way as hundreds of other regulations.
|
Conclusion.. get so much content you can't possibly verify it all just like google images..
|
I wonder where they fall in the 2257 regs
|
Stop defending Google. They and every other site that shows content fitting the 2257 criteria should be held to the same standards as the rest of us, PERIOD.
And some of you sound like you are advocating 2257 the way you bash and berate and cock off at others for their lack of knowledge about it. Who gives a fuck if you know everything there is to know about 2257? I sure as hell don't. Fact is this is a major headache for webmasters, and the thing I support (and applaud) is anyone who is actively looking for ways to shoot holes in this new regulation. If someone says Google shouldn't be exempt then maybe instead of telling the guy how WRONG he is and what an idiot he is, maybe you should be looking for ways of how he is RIGHT. It almost seems like a few of you fuckheads work for the government. :D |
Quote:
Services like Google and AOL have generally not been held liable if they host CP or copyrighted material, why should they be liable if they host non-2257 content? As I said before, this is nothing new. |
i highly doubt it
|
All that is disgusting!
Google management need to be included in conspirancy charges and their operations closed down tomorrow. They are simply aiding and abetting porn sites by granting them PR ratings, tho we know there is no money in this. Seriously.. wait for the day some hypocritical freak - in an act of righteousness and cloaked in religeon, - actually tries that concept :-) |
Bump for WOJ
|
Quote:
In most old cases the focus is on search engine listing that by themselves dont constitute cp. But this is a whole new area.. google images , actually copies the images.. If google knowingly let cp images on google images they would be held liable i'm sure of it , just as a forum owner or website owner would, so i dont see how they suddenly would be exempt from providiing 2257. If i make a replica of google images for adults , then it should be 2257 exempt if google is.. A spider that searches through fhg's with my code on them , just as google does. |
woj is slow
|
Yep he missed it
|
Quote:
The fact that an corp handles large volumes of data is not an excuse under law. It is entirely up to that corp to manage their own data and comply with whatever laws apply. Google images could get contentious. Google put that package together - no one else, - and they are publishing it and should have full control over it or at least be monitoring it. On a constructive side, if they do monitor images and were to report clear violations of children, - that could be a more effective way of reducing CP than any US Civil Code. Tho that raises still more shit that would end up another "issue" in the US. But sure, there are mitigating factors and a decent defense lawyer helps :-) |
Quote:
Or does it need traffic qualifications? Will an index do? :1orglaugh I sale SE scripts! |
Ya people should calm down there is no way the exhisting 2257 will hold any water.
|
Quote:
They have specifically excluded services like Google, even going so far as to give them their own exclusion separate from ISPs and Hosts. I don't understand why anyone is arguing when it is pretty clear in the regulations. You guys can read the regulations and see where they have included the following: (4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following: (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. They have just described Google as well as large chat, forum, blog, image hosting, and many other sites. Think about the exclusion the government has always give hosts and ISPs in criminal cases. There is nothing new here - sites that cannot reasonably be expected to moderate all of their content have long been given some protection. This is just a continuation of that protection. |
This is covered by:
US TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 - Sexual Exploitation of Children http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1..._I_20_110.html Sites whose models/actors merely *look* like minors but are actually adults must comply with USC 18 § 2257, which requires producers of such sites to verify that their models/actors are over the age of 18, and requires these producers to keep records of the performers name, address, age, and every name, nickname or stage alias ever used. Additionally, they must prominently display a disclaimer on the site attesting to the fact that the performers are all legally adults. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257 Record keeping requirements http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...7----000-.html |
Quote:
Don't expect reading out of GFY Carry on. |
:pimp :girl
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123