So...Ethics in the Mainstream Clips Section?

[Phineas]

I don't think pornhub is hosted in the US so those laws may not apply. They are based in Montreal, Canada I believe.

This is their 2257 page. I've bolded the relevant parts. Basically they circle around it by saying the content producers are responsible for collecting the 2257 paperwork, but that they expect producers to "verify the content", IE collect the relevant paperwork and verify that all models are over 18 years of age.

None of which has been done by people uploading the kind of videos we're discussing. Even if they don't fall under required compliance for 2257, they still need to verify that their "models" are over 18.

18 USC 2257 Statement: Pornhub.Com

Pornhub.com is not a producer (primary or secondary) of any and all of the content found on the website (Pornhub.com). With respect to the records as per 18 USC 2257 for any and all content found on this site, please kindly direct your request to the site for which the content was produced.

Pornhub.com is a video sharing site in which allows for the uploading, sharing and general viewing of various types of adult content and while Pornhub.com does the best it can with verifying compliance, it may not be 100% accurate.

Pornhub.com abides by the following procedures to ensure compliance:

Requiring all users to be 18 years of age to upload videos.
When uploading, user must verify the content; assure he/she is 18 years of age; certify that he/she keeps records of the models in the content and that they are over 18 years of age.
For further assistance and/or information in finding the content's originating site, please contact Pornhub.com compliance at [email protected]

Pornhub.com allows content to be flagged as inappropriate. Should any content be flagged as illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive or various other reasons, Pornhub.com shall remove it from the site without delay.

Users of Pornhub.com who come across such content are urged to flag it as inappropriate by clicking 'Flag this video' link found below each video.

I would also speculate that even if PornHub doesn't require compliance, if the uploader is from the US, he's still liable in some fashion.

 

[brotherted]

Honestly, I think we shouldn't traffic in this stuff at all. Mainstream clips, magazine scans... fuck "the community". It's all one massive copyright violation....

Respectfully, and I agree with some of your points, but it's not quite "all one massive copyright violation" -- posting links to YouTube videos is not a copyright violation. My view is that once something is already public, free speech rights supercede subjective condemnation of the content itself. That's because discussing controversial public content is healthy, even if the content itself isn't. The NY Times will do stories mentioning Nazi or Klan websites -- they don't omit them because some Jewish or black readers will be upset -- even though some will be. Of course that's an extreme example to make the point. But as I wrote before, in my view, I'd rather links to already public content I believe to be immoral be posted here and discussed, allowing me to make my case to people about why it's wrong, than suppressed from the jump.

The discussions can lead to enlightenment. As searingly brilliant as any one of us is, the person enlightened by a conversation may prove to be ourselves. 🙂

 

[Phineas]

Respectfully, and I agree with some of your points, but it's not quite "all one massive copyright violation" -- posting links to YouTube videos is not a copyright violation.

I was referring specifically to the movie/TV clips, magazine scans, and other artwork/media that this forum has been trading since day 1. YouTube clips are OK depending on whether or not they're said media, because a lot of the stuff posted on YouTube is pirated content that the uploader doesn't have the rights to.

 

[Yote]

I understand people's points that when you upload something publicly to the internet, you have the potential risk of attracting unwanted attention. But the thing is, people seem to be forgetting what's mainstream and what isn't. A homemade video that includes people playfully tickling each other isn't really mainstream for example.

Uploading someone else's video without the original owner's permission is never ok though. Especially if you're monetizing it, uploading it to a porn site, or both.

 

[RobAce]

In the 30 years I’ve been a part of the community the issues come and go, but it all boils down to this: We as a community need to police ourselves and up to this point we’ve done a pretty good job at it. We can tell what’s legit, what isn’t. What’s creepy, and what gives the community a bad name. Those who have given a black eye to our community in the past (I’m not delving into individual cases if you don’t know your better off not knowing) have been dealt with or are no longer part of the community as a whole out in the open. As a subset of the BDSM world we here can be seen as the “red-headed” step child and until recently our “mainstream” appearances have been limited. But with all the you tube and challenge videos out now, it is getting harder to maintain our “clean fetish”’or “harmless fetish” standing. But as a community in the past we rose to such challenges and kept things on the up and up. We need to continue to do that by pointing out the obvious and not supporting such actions. If we as a community do not support the “creeps” and such, they will continue to stay in the virtual shadows and we can continue to focus on the good and fun within our fetish.

Rob