"this is so simple that a mentally handicapped rhesus monkey could understand it", and strangely enough you don't. There is no jurisdiction limit in 2257 as it is formed in US law, but I suppose you know that and the only purpose your post is serving is defending the listing of illegal sites that editors in adult like to do. I suppose if he said anything else, he could not continue listing those sites, could he?
Gworld, you're funny when you're bored. US/California law does not rule the universe. My dog wants to bite you, time to change my avatar.
Have you read TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257? Because I'm wondering where it talks about websites at all. It talks about people, producers of content. If you produce adult content, and live in the US, this law applies to you.
Lies, lies and more lies. Here is the text from 2257 regulation: (f) Internet means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating software, which constitute the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio. (g) Computer site or service means a computer server-based file repository or file distribution service that is accessible over the Internet, World Wide Web, Usenet, or any other interactive computer service (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(2)). Computer site or service includes without limitation, sites or services using hypertext markup language, hypertext transfer protocol, file transfer protocol, electronic mail transmission protocols, similar data transmission protocols, or any successor protocols, including but not limited to computer sites or services on the World Wide Web. Here is the truth directly from 2257 regulation and there is the lies from Sid, who do you believe?
Owner of web sites are considered publisher and need to have 2257 documents with the new 2257 regulation, previously only content provider (producers) need to have it.
I believe Sid, until the AOL lawyers change the rule we've been given. Sorry gworld, but you have a habit of quoting out of context. Nothing personal, it's a credibility thing. Ok, now I've let my mildest dog be my avatar. Nothing bothers him, you may proceed in safety. Please answer shygirls questions. Please, please, pretty please?
gworld, gworld, gworld... Although I'm sure it's quite obvious to everyone reading that is that you are grossly and intentionally misinterpreting the laws that you quote, I can't help but reply. Yes, those are the laws, and as any law in the US, they apply to US people, places, and things only. Duh... As I expected you would do, you failed to respond to the part where I asked you how US laws could apply to Germans in Germany. And as I said, this proves that you are full of it. And also as I said, you responded with insults (accusations that I want to list illegal sites). Which once again proves that you are full of it. Have you no pride man?
I believe Illegal acts and practices being 'promoted' and the subsequent law suits that may arise from it pertaining to Dmoz is the question being discussed ? Leaving Adult for a bit and highlighting some more innocent areas that may be affected.. Practising Midwifery in the UK is not illegal according to Californian law. However, the 'promotion' and listing of unlicensed Midwifery as an 'act or practice' in general and overall IS illegal under a directory which is or should be completely complicit with Gworld's A) : That ALL sites, every single one of them listed in Dmoz should comply and be legislated for under Californian law. That is where the confusion lies. Is midwifery ( again I'm just using this an example) as an unlicensed 'act' or 'practice' illegal ? Yes, under Californian law it certainly is. However, illegal acts etc differ from country to country, from state to state and all over Dmoz and given diversity of editors there, it makes sense for me to have a common set of conservative guidelines that all editors must follow in each category dispite this diversity. So either : a) Acts, practices or sites which don't comply with Californian law shouldn't be listed. or b) They should, using common sense guidelines put in place for all editors, to follow once given permissions in any category. B Is much simpler, really, and makes far more sense.
So according to you, if a person is citizen of France and engage in act of terrorism against US, then USA can not ask for their extradition to USA since they are not American and US law doesn't apply to them. How stupid do you think people in this forum are? Why don't you run to DMOZ and list your illegal sites while there is still time left that you can do that. Others who are not benefited by listings illegal sites, can compare your post with the actual text of the law and make up their own mind about how credible are you. Comparison of Sid nonsense with actual law.
This comparison is absurd because terrorism is illegal in both France and the USA. It illustrates that you don’t even faintly grasp the concepts involved.
I have quoted the actual law text in my previous post and DMOZ editors have posted their nonsense, I am quite happy to let everyone read both postings and make up their own mind about who is telling the truth.
If we could only use California Law I believe they would be left alone. However, in the real world we have International laws and treaties. Also, I think it would be safe to guess that France has laws of its own? Face it gworld, shygirl has won. It's time to think globally like the rest of us.
If by thinking globally, you mean supporting involvement of minor in pornography and listing illegal sites, I prefer my way of thinking.
Exactly! Thank you, ishfish. Thank god for at least this one grain of logic and common sense among DMOZ editors. sidjf, you are simply wrong.
But site illegality in US don't applies illegality it listing (adding hyperlink to it) in US. Listing child porn site is illegal. Listing porn site without 2257 statements not illegal.
How did you figure out this one? According to you because child porn is illegal and there is public pressure on DMOZ about it then listing the child porn site is illegal but even if a web site without 2257 declaration is illegal because listing of the affiliate programs are profitable for editors then this makes it legal. Why can't you just be honest about this? Just admit that there too many editors who are making money by listing affiliate doorway pages and they do not have the possibility to have proper documentation or they don't want to bother with it and that is the reason there is a resistance in DMOZ to obey by the law. It is easier to manipulate DMOZ to listing illegal sites than forging a 2257 declaration on their site and face the possible prosecution by government for fake 2257 declaration.