2257 regs published in full

rollergirl · 2005-05-26, 12:47 PM

I was wondering and it was mentioned earlier, is this retroactive in that images created after June 23 are under this revision. I can abide reasonably with new content, but retroactive seems unconstitutional. Things that were fine under the old version should not be problems under the revison. Is there any clarification on this??

SexVideoContent · 2005-05-26, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rollergirl

I was wondering and it was mentioned earlier, is this retroactive in that images created after June 23 are under this revision. I can abide reasonably with new content, but retroactive seems unconstitutional. Things that were fine under the old version should not be problems under the revison. Is there any clarification on this??

I think the arguement they're going to make is that every time an image appears on someone's monitor, it is at that moment being 'republished' and subject to the new regs. So it doesn't really matter when it was uploaded to the server initially according to them.

Linkster · 2005-05-26, 01:00 PM

I guess the only real question I have in the back of my mind right now - I tend to think of Google and a thumb tgp as the same thing - as I never touch the thumbs - its all done by script when the submitter is submitting - seems that would be the exact same thing the Googleimage bot is doing
More importantly is the question of the Google/Yahoo/Archive.org caches of pages - I think these would have a bunch more implications than the thumb tgps as they are actually (although again by machine) storing copies of pages including images and serving those images from their servers - sounds like secondary publisher to me but then Im not a lawyer.

2005-05-26, 01:00 PM	#3
Linkster NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them. Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sex Delta Posts: 5,084	I guess the only real question I have in the back of my mind right now - I tend to think of Google and a thumb tgp as the same thing - as I never touch the thumbs - its all done by script when the submitter is submitting - seems that would be the exact same thing the Googleimage bot is doing More importantly is the question of the Google/Yahoo/Archive.org caches of pages - I think these would have a bunch more implications than the thumb tgps as they are actually (although again by machine) storing copies of pages including images and serving those images from their servers - sounds like secondary publisher to me but then Im not a lawyer. __________________ Pussy Chompers Porn Links NSCash

2005-05-26, 12:47 PM	#1
rollergirl I'm going to the backseat of my car with the woman I love, and I won't be back for TEN MINUTES Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 82	I was wondering and it was mentioned earlier, is this retroactive in that images created after June 23 are under this revision. I can abide reasonably with new content, but retroactive seems unconstitutional. Things that were fine under the old version should not be problems under the revison. Is there any clarification on this??