Link lists requiring 2257 custodian of records

Surfn · 2005-12-23, 02:21 PM

If you read through the link list forum you will see I've never required it. I do think it sad that it takes months for others to come to the realization I've held from the beginning.

Hellpuppy · 2005-12-25, 02:16 AM

Yeah, 2257 really should be responsibility of only the site owners and those who are direct business partners like the processor.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but historically the safe ground for link lists and search engine has been to completely avoid exercising anything that might be considered editorial control. If you require 2257 compliance, then you're putting yourself in the position of having your users assume that's responsibility when they're on your site, and perhaps assuming a bit of liability.

That's unlikely and a bit of a stretch, but I dont see any advantage or positive impact from requiring it.

lassiter · 2005-12-27, 02:30 PM

The only list sites that are gonna potentially have responsibility regarding 2257 data (so far) are thumbnail TGPs. If your links are text only you bear no 2257 responsibilities whatsoever (though you have an ethical, and likely a legal, responsibility not to even text-link link to things that are clearly CP). Like another poster said, if anything about the submission smells funny, a responsible TGP or LL owner isn't gonna list it anyway, 2257 warning or not.

2005-12-23, 02:21 PM	#1
Surfn If you don’t take a chance the Angels won’t dance Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Earth on occasion Posts: 8,812	If you read through the link list forum you will see I've never required it. I do think it sad that it takes months for others to come to the realization I've held from the beginning. __________________ Surfn's Links Are you a partner?

2005-12-25, 02:16 AM	#2
Hellpuppy Rock stars ... is there anything they don't know? Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 16	Yeah, 2257 really should be responsibility of only the site owners and those who are direct business partners like the processor. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but historically the safe ground for link lists and search engine has been to completely avoid exercising anything that might be considered editorial control. If you require 2257 compliance, then you're putting yourself in the position of having your users assume that's responsibility when they're on your site, and perhaps assuming a bit of liability. That's unlikely and a bit of a stretch, but I dont see any advantage or positive impact from requiring it. __________________ Dollars for Doughnuts:Fat Fucking Cash!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

2005-12-27, 02:30 PM	#3
lassiter I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman! Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 473	The only list sites that are gonna potentially have responsibility regarding 2257 data (so far) are thumbnail TGPs. If your links are text only you bear no 2257 responsibilities whatsoever (though you have an ethical, and likely a legal, responsibility not to even text-link link to things that are clearly CP). Like another poster said, if anything about the submission smells funny, a responsible TGP or LL owner isn't gonna list it anyway, 2257 warning or not.