2257 and Linking

[Electra]

Forgive me if this has already been covered, I have been reading the threads for about half an hour and can't find anything, so if it's already been discussed perhaps someone can point me to the thread.

I would like to know how or if 2257 affects "linking to porn sites"..for instance will it include link lists? I'm wondering how anything like that could be enforced especially with the big search engines like Google and Yahoo.

I've read the whole 2257 law half a dozen times and still can't understand about a third of it

[Linkster]

Electra - using text links would keep you from being affected at all - the problem for LL owners and TGPs comes in when you use banners and thumbs - but here I kinda differ from a lot of peoples "opinions" in that they say that Google doesnt have a problem as they use a script to generate the thumbs and cached pages for thier LL (search engine results)
Im of the opinion that since I dont touch the submitted galleries and dont crop thumbs manually for my thumb tgps, then Im in the same boat
Banners on the other hand are something Im physically adding to the pages so for those, the sponsor would have to provide 2257 docs even if they are the censored versions as they originated from hardcore depictions
Again - this is just my call on it for right now

[Toby]

The consensus opinion at this point is that if you have text links only, no thumb previews, then you have nothing on your site that would require you to keep 2257 records.

*DISCLAIMER* I am not a lawyer, this is just my opinion. Speaking to a lawyer versed in this type of law is highly recommended.

[emmanuelle]

What happens if the submitter hosts his/her own thumb?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

What happens if the submitter hosts his/her own thumb?

I don't think that makes any difference, since the image ("depiction") is still published on the page. Where it's hosted doesn't matter. Same would apply to Friends Page Top Lists. I've already rec'd a number of email requests from lists that I belong to, asking everyone to make sure their thumb or banner image is not sexually explicit.

[Linkster]

Toby - thats where I think a lot of people are getting onto the wrong track - this isnt about whether the picture on the banner or thumb is explicit or not - its the source of the picture i.e. the photoshoot that will be whats scrutinized - unfortunately there is a lot of bad circulating that if you only use softcore images that you are safe - unfortunately that is almost entirely wrong

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Linkster

...this isnt about whether the picture on the banner or thumb is explicit or not - it's the source of the picture i.e. the photoshoot that will be whats scrutinized...

Yes, I realize that. But it's also highly unlikely that a toplist that includes nothing but non-explicit thumbs, each hosted on different domains, will draw much attention from the DOJ. For many of these sites their Friends toplist is a primary source of traffic.

[Linkster]

Toby - I guess Im one of the "the sky is NOT falling" crowd - I happen to believe that a toplist is the last place DOJ is gonna look for an example case - I would be looking at the top content producers and fringe websites first - why spend a nickle chasing after little WMs when you can bag a huge producer or name brand video studio - they arent stupid and us little fokes just dont offer much in the way of publicity for their effort - I would be willing to bet that they go after L Flynt or Sweet or somebody that is a name to really portray this whole industry.

[RawAlex]

Linkster, I also think that even if YOU don't crop the thumbs yourself, you are still responsible for the material published on your site. If someone submitted a CP thumb, you would reject it - therefore you are editing whch implies you know and control what is on your site.

If I was in the US, I would NOT run a thumbtgp anymore.

Alex

[Linkster]

Alex - if that were the case then wouldnt you agree that Google and Yahoo (and the oldies like altavista etc.) all would be just as culpable(if not more) as a thumb tgp since they do exactly the same thing as a thumb script except that they go looking for the pics and videos vs us that actually review the material before allowing to appear?

Secondly I would think that those same SEs as well as Archive.org would have issues (I guess we could throw in whois.sc and alexa to spice things up) since they are placing copies of that material on their own servers (sure its a script, but I can guarantee you that there is C*P on all of those sites)

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Alex - if that were the case then wouldnt you agree that Google and Yahoo (and the oldies like altavista etc.) all would be just as culpable(if not more) as a thumb tgp since they do exactly the same thing as a thumb script except that they go looking for the pics and videos vs us that actually review the material before allowing to appear?

Secondly I would think that those same SEs as well as Archive.org would have issues (I guess we could throw in whois.sc and alexa to spice things up) since they are placing copies of that material on their own servers (sure its a script, but I can guarantee you that there is C*P on all of those sites)

Linkster, I agree with you in theory, but in practice, there are differences. Automation, and not applying any filters to that material (except to exclude certain words from image search) puts them in a whole different world. They have been playing along with the fair use clauses.

With the changes to 2257, they would appear to be liable for whatever is on their servers. I am sure the DOJ won't go after them, but that does leave you.

Actually, it leaves sites like http://www.younghoes.net/ in the lurch. One look at that site shows me that some of the models COULD be underage (just looking) but I know they are not. However, the DOJ won't care about maybe... they will come in and they will ask.

What size does an image have to be before it is an image? I think that I wouldn't bet my business on that concept.

Lower end webmasters are BETTER targets, because they are likely to fold like a house of cards. The scare factor alone of screwing with some low end webmasters will be enough to be everyone running. Knock off one decent size thumbtgp and suddenly everyone will be running for the hills (or Europe).

Alex

[Electra]

Why go after some really big guy who has deep pockets enough to defend themselves and tie up the process when they can go after a bunch of small fry who can't fight back. I don't think its going to matter a lot to to them how small the person is..its whether they can get a conviction, or a bunch of fast convictions. Remember what Acacia said about "low lying fruit", that's what most of us small webmasters will be.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Electra

Why go after some really big guy who has deep pockets enough to defend themselves and tie up the process when they can go after a bunch of small fry who can't fight back.

Small fry don't make much of a splash in the news.

[walrus]

But small fry's set precedence and that makes it much easier to go after the big fish. A bunch of small easy victories makes it much easier for them once they start after the big guys.

I'm not a "sky is falling" type either and am going to take a long wait and see approach but this does have the capability of changing the way porn sites are marketed!

[Linkster]

Electra - for the same reason they did when they went after L Flynt to test the waters on the obscenity laws when Charles Keating was the head of the President's commission on pornography under Nixon - (hmmm does that name sound familiar?? Later Keating was indicted on fraud and many other charges after the Lincoln Savings debacle)
and went after Flynt - of course we know that the obscenity charges were overturned but for some reason that is the type of publicity this "movement" within the government starting with the Cinncinati based Citizens for Decent Literature back in the 1950s and ever since. Its all about showing publicly to the right wing church supporters of the Republican party that they are doing something for them - thats why I think that low-hanging fruit in this case is the major producers.
Hanging a bunch of free site WMs out on a branch wont do anything major to stop the flow of pornography on the net - and that is after all the major thrust of all of these new changes in the regs.

[Linkster]

Alex - although I respect that opinion that Lassiter puts forward I still disagree with the concept that the DOJ would do something along those lines - that takes way too many resources away from actual c*p investigations - as well as the fact that there have been "big news" stories about the adult web played on CNN and others in the past that didnt last more than a day or two - and then faded - the government needs something that will last for a long time so that they have something to report to congress on their inspections (after all isnt that the whole reason the regs got changed after they got embarassed)

I guess its really a toss-up but I think that enough people out here already seem to have good plans in place for their records making it a little tougher if they would go the route of the little WMs.

And finally - I think that the point of little WMs has been over stated on some legal fronts to garner biz which to me just hits the wrong chord - its not that I dont know what direction it will take that bothers me the most - its the vultures out there yelling the sky is falling (ONCE AGAIN) that has me aggravated

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Hanging a bunch of free site WMs out on a branch wont do anything major to stop the flow of pornography on the net - and that is after all the major thrust of all of these new changes in the regs.

Very true. Little webmasters, even by the dozens, don't produce big headlines. The DOJ is a political office. They want and need headlines, not little cases scattered across the land. I'm just not seeing this as all that everyone would like to trump it up to be.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Toby

Small fry don't make much of a splash in the news.

They'd make a splash if DoJ busted a few hundred of them in one week. The newspapers would headline with "Over 300 web porn operators were charged with violations of federal anti-CP laws in a nationwide DoJ dragnet." "Many of the charged pornographers were found to be operating out of suburban residences. Neighbors said they had 'no idea'..."

You can see where this could easily go...

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by lassiter

They'd make a splash if DoJ busted a few hundred of them in one week. The newspapers would headline with "Over 300 web porn operators were charged with violations of federal anti-CP laws in a nationwide DoJ dragnet." "Many of the charged pornographers were found to be operating out of suburban residences. Neighbors said they had 'no idea'..."

You can see where this could easily go...

Lassiter, you hit it exactly. It isn't about the truth, it's about the headlines. That's exactly how it will play, big picture cnn.com stuff.

Alex

[Electra]

Originally Posted by Toby

Small fry don't make much of a splash in the news.

This is true..but let me play devils advocate for a moment. It doesn't make much of a splash in the news, agreed but it will look good statistically when the DOJ can go to people and say "look..we have over 500 convictions..look how well this law is working." Maybe they aren't trying to make a splash in the news just building up an impressive conviction rate.

I'm in agreement with those who have posted that we all need to consider ourselves targets..at least until we can get better clarification of everything the 2257 law actually means. I still don't understand a big chunk of it.

[RawAlex]

Linkster, again, I don't disagree, except there are a couple of outside factors at work here:

First off, (and I don't remember where I read this, but not chatboard source) DOJ has apparently hired and trained a whole crap load of people for this new process. for some reason a number between 40 and 80 seems to be what I remember. With a number like that, they could dispatch them to 10 major cities, perform 2 searches per day for a week, and hit 140 people. I don't think they would have to go more than half a day at most places to find huge holes in the records when compared to the new "rules".

You also have to remember that this IS the fight against CP, at least as far as the DOJ's spin on the issue is. They have a fair number of people on that part of the game, and they could very likely pull them over for the week of June 23rd to go stir some shit. Hit another 10 cities, 2 per day for a week, and now you are looking at near 300 site visits in week 1.

Want to bet that 250 or more of them would fail to some extent? I suspect the number would be closer to 290 if they choose wisely.

Say each webmaster has 250 galleries... 15 images each. 290 X 250 X 15 = over a million undocumented images REMOVED FROM THE NET!

Picture a Lou Dobbs doing a doctor evil... "One MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllion undocuments CP pictures removed and over 290 arrest warrents issues in 30 cities".

It plays so well - could Bush resist it?

Alex

[Robbo]

Kind of like the napster syndrome too. Where the record companies target the little guys and send out the scare wave. Easy pickins and big yield.

And as far as headlines just look how CNN presented this latest 2257 development.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/17/chi...egs/index.html

help us.

[RawAlex]

Robbo, that is the "setup", and after june 23rd will be the "knock it down". How they wrote the press release that got turned into that article shows the direction and intentions of the DOJ in this area. They will keep playing the CP card no matter WHO they go after.

Deep pocket defendants are NOT the best choice, IMHO.

Alex

[Sinistress]

It could fall either way.

They could go after a big name to make a statement, or they could go after several smaller names.

The sad part is that it is going to COMPLETELY delude the public. Innocent webmasters are going to end up fined or worse in jail simply because of lack of proper documentation, headlines will go that "X-# of webmasters were arrested for being in violation of.." etc, and the public eyes and ears, not understanding what the new laws details are like, are going to think "Oh this is great, that means there's that much less CP out there" when in fact, it won't be true.

[ngb1959]

http://www.girlspooping.com/

http://www.girlspooping.com/pressr.htm

This is probably old news to you guys, but I just found it.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/...050023/-1/news