Will Your Link List Require 2257 Info?

[Jel]

Originally Posted by MadMax

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.

Exactly.

[Useless]

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.

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

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.

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

[Linkster]

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

[mikeyddddd]

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

[Useless]

Originally Posted by mikeyddddd

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

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.

[spookyx]

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

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by mikeyddddd

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

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.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

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

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.