Quote:
Originally posted by jact
If they're in the US and not conforming to 2257 outright, yes, they're breaking the law (Some on that list are very blatently breaking 2257). Could some of the ones marked as non-compliant be made compliant in less than 5 minutes? Hell yes. Could all of them? Honestly, I doubt it.
As mentioned earlier, as for the records actually existing or the information being correct, that isn't as easy to determine, but the fact that the website needs to be labelled with 2257 information is pretty fucking simple. Simply saying "We're complaint" isn't.
Would I like to see everyone listed with an N there get up to spec? Of course, it's good for the whole industry. The less attention an individual draws to our industry the better off we all are. Wouldn't you at least agree with me on that point?
|
I do agree that it isn't a difficult issue to be in compliant with. Even if the interpretation is to the extreme, it probably can't hurt except in the case of the amateurs who are being advised they need to put their real names, and home addresses on their website in an easy to find location. My issue earlier about the information being inaccurate was simply to say that thinking someone is compliant because they appear to be doesn't necessarily mean that they are.