Will Your Link List Require 2257 Info?
 

Got this yesterday ...

"Dear Webmasters,

Begining June 21st 2005, we are going to require you have a "2257" statement on all galleries or links submitted.

With the pending changes to 2257, we must enact we want to be in compliance, as you should too.

However, any links or galleries submitted before June 21 2005 will not be required to have them.

We are sorry for any trouble this causes you, we are all in a uproar over this new law.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Best regards, "

Have you decided to be the policeman too? Discuss.

-- art

I haven't decided on whether I want to just say 'no' or write a long post about how ludicrous it is for a link list or TGP to demand a 2257 statement on YOUR pages eventhough the regulation cleary does not demand a statement on minor sub-directories or individual pages within. So, I'll have to get back to you on this. ;)

So far I have no plans too.

Someone doesn't understand the regs, or is just trying to "look" like they're trying to comply. Since it's a LL, they really have no compliance obligations regarding 2257 links on submissions. The effective date on the regs includes all content produced after July 3, 1995. Only requiring submissions after June 21st to have 2257 statements isn't really doing much in terms of "compliance", they'll still have a whole site full of galleries and links that have no 2257 statement.

To answer your question, no I will not be a policeman. My TGP's will NOT require 2257 statements on gallery submissions. It's your responsibility to have one on the homepage of the domain you're using for your galleries.

I have to agree with the rest here
I am not a policeman and the regs do not apply to links.
I will have 2257 for my own stuff under my domains for any photos used as banners or logos on those sites, as well as my own free sites and galleries.

I have enough trouble keeping my own shit in order, and I'm not about to start policing other peoples' pages. Certainly, I recommend that everyone effected by 2257 be in compliance. However, my review process will not change. I already decline and/or blacklist anyone promoting "young" anything, since I don't want it listed. I look at source code and check out meta-tags if my gut tells me someone is trying to promote pseudo CP.

In the end, however, your compliance is your business...not mine.

art, spit it out... who sent you that?

Alex

i aint requirin shit





..

Exactly.

I may start to require naked pics of the submitters' wives/girlfriends/or most attractive female cousin. A blood sample would be good too.

Come on Art, answer Alex's question. Who sent you that email?

I stumbled on the rules of one link list today who has posted the need for a 2257 statement in his/her rules. He/she is otherwise a very sensible and likeable webmaster. I understand why people are doing this, but it simply isn't necessary.

I saw one the other day but can't remember who it was. As all my freesites have that info anyway, it wasn't something I took a whole lot of notice of. My TGPs on the other hand, I need to get to work on.

like i have always put on my linksites:
We are not responsible for the sites content in which we link . We Do Not host these sites if any sites are found in violation of any laws please contact the site providers email found on the site. The owners and creators of this site are not held liable for any violations from sites in which we link at the present time,

i still think the same, have had some discusions with others about my thinking about this in the past, but its not my duty to check the legal thing with pics and all on those sites, if by my rules i accept.....

The last year i made my free sites and tgp all have the 2257 link on it, i am realy not worried about the new 2257, also not for my old sites, i have enough bought content to switch content on the sites wher it is needed

Dabro from search-4-porn.com is the winner!

Totally agree - there is no requirement for you to police this BS - no changes here - HOWEVER - I do know of at least one TGP thumb software package that has that built in for submits - and most WMs just leave it set to the default of on - so I guess for some TGP WMs they are doing that without realizing it - BTW its Comus thumbs that has that built in

I guess it all depends on how "known major entry points, or principal URL" is defined.

"(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture,
shall contain the required statement on its homepage, any known major
entry points, or principal URL (including the principal URL of a
subdomain)"

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm

That's not the one that I found today. I'm sure there are plenty more we will see in the next couple of weeks.

Well, a free site certainly isn't a principal URL and 'known major entry point' is indisputably vague and up for speculation. I wouldn't consider a free site to be a major entry point by any means, but some douchebag somewhere with little understanding of how things work will think so.

I won't require them on any of my link lists or tgp's

|waves|

If the want a link on the gallery/FS page, those scripts that count links better allow for an extra one.

Personally I put the link as a text link(hacked), that can be copy/pasted real easy if you're not a complete computer moron. The link off the root is clickable though.

Just out of curiosity. How many LL and TGP Owners are going to list only softcore if the law stays as it is?

I am going even farther. Begining June 21st 2005, I am going to require you have a "2257" statement and your certificate of vaccination on all galleries or links submitted.

Why would we list only softcore? We can list whatever legal pages we want to link to. The law is not making hardcore content illegal. It's just making it more of a pain in the ass to build with for Americans.

Note to self: Call and make an appointment to get my shots. |haha

They mean on any known entry points on *your* domains. Even DoJ isn't so dumb that they would expect you to ascertain which total strangers may have decided to link to your pages. Otherwise, all DoJ would have to do to bust you is put up a dummy link list, add all the free sites of webmasters they want to bust, and then go to it.

Exactly - only *images* are covered, not text links. The only list owners affected will be thumb TGPs (though explicit sponsor ads/banners that you host will also require you to have 2257 docs for any model on the banners).