Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: Quick 2257 question

  1. #16
    Today the USA, tommorrow the World collegeboyslive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    749
    The law is insane and unreasonable. But FSC is apparently asleep at the switch and hasn't even filed an injunction against enforcement.
    thats a good point. did everyone at the FSC go on vacation or something? their site dosnt even seem to have been updated on anything in a while
    Video feeds and content available to webmasters:
    http://demo.collegeboyslive.com http://affiliates.collegeboyslive.com


  2. #17
    On the other hand.... You have different fingers
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,548
    Quote Originally Posted by collegeboyslive View Post
    I thought it was every page that CONTAINED sexual pictures / video. thus you dont need it say on a menu page in a frame set ( am i correct?)
    What we were advised on that issue was to assume that the Justice people reviewing the site are HTML-ignorant, meaning if the URL in the address bar at the top points to your server, anything displaying on that page you should have records for, regardless of whether it's in a frame that is coming from a different server.

    It's uncharted territory, but I don't want to be the one trying to explain to a jury of little old ladies from rural Tennessee that no, the picture of some guy getting plugged in the ass isn't my responsibility becuase it was actually served by somebody else's server in some other location


  3. #18
    chick with a bass basschick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    7,922
    yes, you do need to have 2257 info for what's in those frames, or so said the two lawyers i talked to about this - and it's also how i interpreted it. the law doesn't say anything about content you host. it basically says content used in your site. a pic showing up on my page is in my site regardless of who hosts it.


  4. #19
    On the other hand.... You have different fingers
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,548
    It's all a big gray area that no one wants to be the test case for, so my advice is pick your battles and your risk comfort level.

    Obviously a site using all plug-in feeds, each with their own windows that display the plug-in's URL at the top is going to be less risky than a frame with somebody else's content in one window of the frame. But Patti is right -- no one definitively knows whether "in a site" means any content accessible from your members area, including plug-ins, or any content hosted on your servers, or yet some other definition.


  5. #20
    Today the USA, tommorrow the World collegeboyslive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    749
    you misunderstood what i meant, say you have a page that has no pictures on it, just text, like a header page. you probably are ok not having to try to squeeze a 2257 link on THAT page
    Video feeds and content available to webmasters:
    http://demo.collegeboyslive.com http://affiliates.collegeboyslive.com


  6. #21
    On the other hand.... You have different fingers
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,548
    Quote Originally Posted by collegeboyslive View Post
    you misunderstood what i meant, say you have a page that has no pictures on it, just text, like a header page. you probably are ok not having to try to squeeze a 2257 link on THAT page
    Ah yes. Pretty sure you're correct on that. But the thing is so poorly worded that who knows what they might try to argue.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •