free hosting from sponsor as 2257 solution?
 

Here's a question for you. If I build a gallery, free site, etc for a sponsor using their content and their hosting, wouldn't their own 2257 info (which they have to keep anyway) be enough?

Any thoughts on whether this may be a way for gallery/freesite builders to get around documentation requirements for sponsor content?

2257 or not, I'm still against free hosting as far as sites that I link to on my Link Lists :(

the person who manages the content is the one responsible.

It'd work under the new 2257 regs - but I don't want to give everyone my idea :D

My take is that if you are not an actual employee of the company, you are still a secondary producer putting images up in cyberspace and are therefor responsible for 2257 docs.

Define employee.....ones who get paid to do a job??

Greenguy, what about freehosting with your own domain?

Unless the hosting company sends you an invoice for the bandwidth you use, it's free hosting - who owns the domain or email addy or tech support contact info means nothing.

No I agree it's freehosting, but my point was wouldn't you list those? I don't really see the difference between what we offer and a virtual hosting account - you get your own domain, admin, no banners, exit, 404 redirect, movies allowed etc... you just don't pay for it. And it's not cogent.
I completely understand that you don't want to list sites on a regular freehost which alters the sites, uses a shared cogent connection etc..., but I believe a lot of sponsors now offer decent solutions, which should be at least as good as a virtual account.

You set the standard for a lot of LLs, so I'm quite interested in knowing, if it worth for our webmasters submitting freesites from our freehosting or if they should concentrate on tgp/mgp.

Actually, it occurred to me this morning that if someone other than the sponsor owned the domain, then they would be in charge of the 2257 docs & thus, it really solves nothing in the eyes of 2257.

True but we do buy the domains and I think a lot of other sponsors don't mind paying 10 bucks for an affiliate to avoid 2257 problems.

BUT does it solve the problems and can webmasters be listed?

A couple of bad apple Free Hosts pretty much ruined it for everyone a couple years ago - I really see no need to bend the rules for a couple of people when it's much easier to just no allow any free hosting.

Hosting is cheap - if 2257 fucks you, then maybe you shouldn't be making sites with images on them.

Isn't this the biz in a nutshell - some bad apples ruining it for the rest!

But fair enough, just trying to get an idea of what we can do to help our US based webmasters.

Maybe this will even clean up our biz a bit - cut off the wannabees.

Remember those times where we had to buy our own content to promote someelses sites, pay for hosting etc...etc..etc.. ;)