2257 Query for free site submitters

[bluebrit]

Morning all,
Here's a question for all you link list owners out there

I have regularly added 2257 details to the bottom of each freesite page i build but i'm wondering if this is really necessary any longer. All of the sponsors we use have these details in place should they be needed and have been for some time. As long as i use sponsor content either from the promo or member sections, or the content i use is private and i have copies of this 2257 information, do i really need to show a 2257 link?

I'm not in the US so it won't really affect me by not showing a link but how do you all feel about the need for a link in the first place?

[Surfn]

You don't need the link to be listed with me

[Greenguy]

The law is still up in the air, but if it's passed in it's current writing, you'd have to get the docs from the sponsors since you're hosted in the US.

[Stomped]

They are some linklists than doesn't accept freesites without a 2257 notice, even if they are cartoons or you live outside the US and have hosting in other country.
Theredcherry is one

[bluebrit]

Good point GG and hi btw , I hadn't considered the hosting side of this. Guess i'll carry on adding them and see what happens. Its no great problem anyway to put a link back to a 2257 page... I was merely curious about the rules regarding the need for them.

[RawAlex]

GG, good point, but not entirely correct. Even if your servers are in the US (as mine are) 2257 applied to the point of publication. Nobody has been able to settle that the server is the point of publication, and it is likely not to be, otherwise the 2257 records would have to be kept with the server, which would not be a very useful way to do things.

You don't need 2257 on every page, read the rules. It needs to be on the root index page of each site (and potentially may only be required at the root of the domain, but that will require clarification). There is no reason to have it on every page, especially if it is a link off. You may want to put an unlinked URL instead.

Alex

[Linkster]

I certainly wouldnt require anything that is not a final ruled law - and even if it were to ever get ruled on as required - I wouldnt expect to see it on submitted free sites - the law as written says the root of the domain as Alex said - and if you have subdomains they would require it - but not directories (at least right now).
If it wer on a free site it would be checked and the page that it goes to had best not have advertising - as some sponsors have done - as then it would count as a link. It would also have to fulfill the other rules like not opening in a new window etc - But why in the world would you put a traffic leak on a free site? Unless of course you submit free sites built on the root domain

[Chop Smith]

Sec. 75.8 Location of the statement.
(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), or in a separate window that opens upon the viewer's clicking a hypertext link that states, ``18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement.''

[ladydesigner]

I don't require that a 2257 link be on free sites submitted to either of my link lists. However, I do put a link to my 2257 page on my own free sites. I might start unlinking it though. I'll have to think on that.

[Greenguy]

Since it's still just a proposed law, this entire thread is speculation

But I doubt anyone will hold it against you if you wanted to play it safe & put the links up now.

[bluebrit]

I agree this is speculation but i have been adding the link to each gallery page as well because i had been under the impression that 2257 links were required on pages showing graphical content as well as the entry page. Bearing in mind what has been said here and agreeing with your comments from now on i will put a valid link to 2257 details on the index page and an unlinked url on the rest. it may not be required at the moment but if it comes into effect its going to save me a lot of work further down the line. Thanks for clarifying things on this subject, i know there is more than enough speculation going around without adding to it but it's good to hear other peoples views on this.
regards to all
bluebrit

[MrYum]

Since I haven't run into any lists that are counting the link as an outbound (providing of course the page ONLY contains the 2257 info), I'm putting it in a small text colored link at the bottom of all pages. No big deal for it to be there...it doesn't have any outlinks on it to lose the surfer. Actually, it's a plain white page with black text and noindex,nofollow in the metas...IF a surfer clicks on it...I'm sure he immediately heads back for the porn. Until we know more on how all this is gonna shake out...just a little extra cya

[RawAlex]

I check most 2257 pages to make sure they are actually 2257 pages, and are not backdoors to the paysites or other areas. Some people seem to think that 2257 pages are good places to put banners, link farms, and other sundry junk. It is a page of your site like any other, and I check them.

I am NOT thrilled about people linking directly to their sponsors 2257 page, that pretty much seems to be a waste. The reason you added the 2257 notice was for a new rule that said you have to have your own records. Linking to someone else's list isn't exactly gonna help you out.

Alex