 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: The new 2257 regulations go in effect in less than a month. My question is: What are | |||
| I’m getting out of the business. |
   
|
1 | 1.56% |
| I am feverishly trying to get my records in order. |
  
|
4 | 6.25% |
| I am beefing up my 2257 statement, but realize trying to get a model ID for every graphic on my site is impossible. |
  
|
6 | 9.38% |
| I am renouncing my citizenship to the US and moving offshore. |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| I am moving my company, servers, and banking offshore. |
  
|
1 | 1.56% |
| I am moving my company offshore. |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| I am censoring all of my content. |
|
2 | 3.13% |
| I am doing nothing, I am doing nothing. |
|
15 | 23.44% |
| I live outside the US. This does not affect me. |
|
20 | 31.25% |
| I am hoping Bush gets out of office and this all dies down. |
|
15 | 23.44% |
| Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
2004-08-02, 03:29 PM
|
#11 | |
|
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
  |
Quote:
As long as no explicit images are actually stored on your domains or websites, you are nor repsonsible for 2257 recordkeeping. So a text-only TGP is totally exempt from 2257, whereas one that captures explicit thumbnails is subject to 2257. I see a lot of talk about LLs & TGPs not linking to sites without 2257 info, but my attorneys say mere linking (to anything other than obvious CP, which is always an exception) is not an issue under 2257. If anyone has in fact been told differently, please advise what language in the rulemaking would make a webmaster responsible for what is on another webmaster's domain? |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Threaded Mode