Quick 2257 question

[collegeboyslive]

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

[gaybucks_chip]

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

[basschick]

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.

[gaybucks_chip]

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.

[collegeboyslive]

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

[gaybucks_chip]

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.