How do amateur submitted pages get away from 2257?

[Mariainc]

How do websites like watchersweb.com and projectvoyeur.com get around 2257 compliance. As far as I can tell from looking at their alexa rankings they and other websites seem to be based in Europe and as such not subject to the laws. So do they just get around it by basing themselves outside of the United States? If thats true, what do you have to do so that your company is "based" outside of the united states for such a venture? Thanks for your info.

[Hammer]

When you see someone stealing a car, does it mean they're getting around the law and if you can just figure out how, you can steal cars with impunity too?

The only way you can be considered to be operating outside of the U.S. is to live outside the U.S., host outside the U.S. and if you use any processing companies, they need to be based outside the U.S.

Of course, if you do something particularly heinous, it also would mean you should never step foot in the U.S.

ProjectVoyeur is operated in the Netherlands and uses a Dutch hosting company.

WatchersWeb has this on their legal page.

c) Watchersweb.Com Amateur Content is in full compliance with18 USC 2257, knowledge or possession of model releases.

Which would seem to imply that they have the necessary documents for any explicit content on their website.

They are based in Australia.

[Mariainc]

Thanks Hammer

I certainly am not looking to skirt the law by any stretch of the means. I am just looking to see how their business model works. Hammer(or anyone for that matter) maybe you can clear something else up. Watchersweb says that they are in compliance with 2257, but in their submission process they never ask for any identification. Are they just saying that they comply and have the safety of being able to fall back on being hosted in Australia?

[Hammer]

My guess is that they feel they're safe since they're based in Australia and just added the 2257 stuff to try to look like they were aware of it and maybe fool someone into not checking.

The real issue with a site like that, if it was operated in the U.S., would not only be 2257, but the fact that they may very well have underage content hosted on their website and would have no way to prove the model's age, in which case they would be arrested for child porn and 2257 would be the least of their worries.

[Mariainc]

So then the next question is would they be given a take down notice first or would they go directly to jail do not pass go don't collect $200? Is there a simple way of collecting someone's 2257 information or a disclaimer they can use to protect themselves?

[balls_deep]

Originally posted by Mariainc
Is there a simple way of collecting someone's 2257 information or a disclaimer they can use to protect themselves?

sure is. You get the docs when you own the content or buy the content. Most sponsors aren't going to give up 2257 docs.

the disclaimer would be a clear cut warning page and the required 2257 page.

[Hammer]

Well, let's put it this way. If you have a photo or video on your website that is of a 16 year old girl doing something explicit and you don't have a copy of that mode's photo ID, you're going straight to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

You might want to follow the Joe Francis (Girl's Gone Wild) case that is going on right now.

[mynameisjim]

Not to derail a rare 2257 thread but did anyone hear about that blackmail case involving Joe Francis where a intruder tied him up, made him put a dildo in his ass, then admit he is gay on camera. I swear to god it's a true story.

That guy lives too far on the edge not to end up dead or in jail sooner or later.

[phuckbunny]

Yes!!! I saw a show on the telly about it and it was fucking hilarious. It might have been one of those 20/20 type of programs and aired a while back.

[mynameisjim]

Speak of the devil, Joe just got indicted on a $20 million tax evasion rap. A day after he was arrested getting off a plane on an unrelated charge.

If you're going to dabble in borderline illegal videos at least have the common sense to pay your taxes.

[Uncensored]

Well I want to know how yahoo is permitted to host hundreds if not thousands of adult groups filled with user submitted adult content? Most of which is copyrighted material and obviously posted in violation of the DMCA. They sure as hell have no 2257 records and they sure as hell are in the USA.

I have posted my own content and I never have been asked for any 2257 records. Nor did their terms of service specify that I had to be in compliance with 2257 in order to post. Granted I have not checked these terms recently. However I have posted in the last year and am yet to be asked by them to provide any documents in support of 2257.

There must be some legal opinion they are relying on to justify them offering this service....

[mynameisjim]

If the copyright holder contacts Yahoo with their copyright info then Yahoo would have to take it down according to the DMCA.

As for record keeping and 2257, Yahoo is somewhat protected by Safe Harbor laws. Similar to why your host does not need to keep 2257 records for pictures you upload onto their computers, you need to keep the records.

[Uncensored]

My problem with this theory are that the spirit and letter of the law are designed to protect the host when the host is not responsible for the content. Eg: yahoo hosting. However yahoogroups is a whole different ball of wax. Here yahoo is partially responsible for the content as they advertise heavily on everything associated with their groups. Difference being when you pay them for hosting they are not advertising on your site or influencing your content in any way. This is what allows us as a webhost to remain irresponsible and/or not liable for our clients content. Provided we act on complaints of illegality against any of our clients.

Originally posted by mynameisjim


As for record keeping and 2257, Yahoo is somewhat protected by Safe Harbor laws. Similar to why your host does not need to keep 2257 records for pictures you upload onto their computers, you need to keep the records.

[Hammer]

In the case of newsgroups, Yahoo is not the publisher, you are. They are simply providing the hosting. They did not produce the content and they did not upload it to the Internet.

This is the same rule that sites like WatchersWeb believe will protect them, but the huge difference is that they are the publishers because someone submits the content to them and then they publish it.

[Mariainc]

So Hammer your contention is that the yahoo group moderator is the one screwed in the process then. Is there any particular reason the groups haven't been investigated more?

[Uncensored]

I disagree the content is being posted to a domain provided by and controlled by yahoo. The fact that yahoo provides for the transmission of said content does not excluded them because they can reasonably control the content distributed. This fact is evident by the enormous amount of advertising they control allow and subject viewers to on each page and every facet of the groups.

The DOJ's position are:

The exclusion of providers of web-hosting services who reasonably cannot manage the content of the site will be clarified to exclude providers of web-hosting services who reasonably cannot manage the sexually explicit content of the site (for either technical or contractual reasons).



If yahoo can manage the advertising I do not see why it is unreasonable for them to manage the sexually explicit content. Especially since they are using the same to profit from the advertising the subject viewers too.

I believe the spirit if not letter of this section are designed to exclude the webhost who reasonably can not manage the sexually explicit content of the site. Not a webhost who creates a safe haven for the transmission of non compliant sexually explicit material for the purpose of profiting from the same while managing a significant portion of the content while hiding behind a loophole.

Yahoo! did not have to create nor sponsor these groups. They do so to make money and they should not have the luxury of circumventing 2257 compliance unless they are willing to abandon management of the content entirely. A perfect analogy would be the motorist who claims they are not required to wear a seatbelt because they are not in control of a vehicle. Despite the fact that they are in the drivers seat with the engine on and changing the radio stations. That person may not intend to drive the vehicle but they are certainly in control of said vehicle and subject to click it or ticket!

Originally posted by Hammer
In the case of newsgroups, Yahoo is not the publisher, you are. They are simply providing the hosting. They did not produce the content and they did not upload it to the Internet.

This is the same rule that sites like WatchersWeb believe will protect them, but the huge difference is that they are the publishers because someone submits the content to them and then they publish it.

[Hammer]

You aren't disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the law, because 2257 clearly states that it applies to "publishers". Yahoo is in no way, a "publisher".

2257 says that you are considered a "publisher" if you produce the content or upload it to a website. Yahoo does neither of those things.

Google falls in the same category with their image search. Search for anything sexual and you'll find pages of hardcore thumbs linking to the websites that those image appear on. Every one of those thumbs is hosted on Google's servers. Does that make them a "publsher"? I don't think so.

I'm not arguing that Yahoo and Google shouldn't be responsible for the content they make available to the public, but I'm saying that there's a big difference between a Yahoo group and a website that allows amateurs to submit explicit photos of themselves or their friends, reviews the photos, manipulates the photos by resizing them and making thumbnails, uploads those photos to a server and then makes them available to surfers for profit.

What about PornoTube or any of the YouTube type sites that post explicit videos?

[Uncensored]

Yahoo! groups does exactly what you described here and more. Hence my contention they can reasonably manage the sexually explict content allowed in their groups and ineligible for the webhost exemption.

Granted they are not primary producers. However I do think they are secondary producers. Of course currently there is no requirement for the secondary producer to comply with 2257 record keeping and the same are the reason sites with user submitted sexually explicit content are in compliance at the moment. However if the DOJ wins the battle regarding secondary producers this will jeoporadize millions of advertising dollars for Yahoo and/or force the closure of sites with user submitted sexually explicit content.

Originally posted by Hammer
I'm saying that there's a big difference between a Yahoo group and a website that allows amateurs to submit explicit photos of themselves or their friends, reviews the photos, manipulates the photos by resizing them and making thumbnails, uploads those photos to a server and then makes them available to surfers for profit.

What about PornoTube or any of the YouTube type sites that post explicit videos?

[Hammer]

Explain to me how they qualify as a 'secondary producer'. I don't see the difference between Yahoo groups responsibilities and Uncensored Hostings responsibilities. Do you consider yoursleves 'secondary producers'?

They do not upload anything to their server, the user does it directly. They simply provide the place for the user to upload their content.

The same is true of PornoTube. I can upload an explicit video and they make it available to their visitors, but the entire process is handled by their software. No one that works for Yahoo or PornoTube is ever physically involved with working with the content.

A webmaster is considered a 'producer' (formerly a 'secondary producer'), because even if he did not actually produce the content, he handles it. He resizes it, sharpens it, color corrects it, adds his url to it, places it on a web page and then uploads that page and the content to a server.

Like I said, I agree that Yahoo could control the content, but according to 2257, they are not required to keep records. Even if they have cp on their servers, in all probability they would just have to remove the content when it was pointed out to them. They can't be held liable anymore than Uncensored Hosting can, unless it can be proven that you were aware that the content was on your servers.

[mynameisjim]

They can't be held liable anymore than Uncensored Hosting can, unless it can be proven that you were aware that the content was on your servers.

This is the key statement and it is my understanding this is what Fox will be fighting in it's lawsuit against youtube/google.

As these sites monetize their pages more and more it's going to become increasingly difficult to claim they are just a passive intermediary.

The claim is when you provide targeted advertising on certain pages you are thereby acknowledging you are aware of the content, even if it is completely automated.

Should be interesting.