free hosting and 2257

[Zester]

webmaster is not disclosed when using a free host without using his own domain name. (e.g: http://username.freehostaddress.com)

other than his IP and email he gives no information about himself.
in this case, the webmaster who should be responsible for the 2257 thing - isn't.

seems like the blame falls on the free host this time.

anyone know http://www.toplist4free.com ?

they give you a free toplist on their servers. that's what they do.

here are a few example toplists hosted there:
http://www.google.com/search?biw=10...oplist4free.com

I have a toplist on those servers, the question is (take a deep breath): who has the responsibility of holding 2257 model info on the models in the banners of the accounts in the toplist hosted on toplist4free.com ?

[mardigras]

Very few are truely anonymous on the internets.

[Lycanthrope]

Technically, no hosting provider should be responsible, paid or free. The arguable issue is of course the "editorial control" the freehost operator has over account holders free hosted sites. Does placing / changing banners (even though you are more than likely using a script) on free hosted sites / pages constitute editorial control? etc.

In a logical world, the freehost operator should be responsible for any banners that are automatically placed on the pages (ie: headers and footers), and the account holders responsible for the actual content of the page. Unfortunately, I don't think logic will come into play much and is one reason why I killed my freehost.

However, the responsible provider of free hosting SHOULD take steps to avoid completely anonymous signups. Email address confirmation, etc.

Should freehosting services be exempt per the regs, freehosts should see good times again. However, should they somehow be deemed responsible for all content, I would expect that US based freehosts close up shop.

[Zester]

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

Technically, no hosting provider should be responsible, paid or free. The arguable issue is of course the "editorial control" the freehost operator has over account holders free hosted sites. Does placing / changing banners (even though you are more than likely using a script) on free hosted sites / pages constitute editorial control? etc.

In a logical world, the freehost operator should be responsible for any banners that are automatically placed on the pages (ie: headers and footers), and the account holders responsible for the actual content of the page. Unfortunately, I don't think logic will come into play much and is one reason why I killed my freehost.

However, the responsible provider of free hosting SHOULD take steps to avoid completely anonymous signups. Email address confirmation, etc.

Should freehosting services be exempt per the regs, freehosts should see good times again. However, should they somehow be deemed responsible for all content, I would expect that US based freehosts close up shop.

this sounds like a grey area.
what do you think the DOJ will do in such a case of none 2257 compliance ?

[Lycanthrope]

Originally Posted by Zester

this sounds like a grey area.
what do you think the DOJ will do in such a case of none 2257 compliance ?

I have no clue what they will do which is again why I pulled the plug.

Worst case - they hold the freehost operator responsible and try prosecuting the operator.
Best case - they ask the freehost operator for any and all information they have on the non-compliant account holder and order that freehosted site / page shut down. The freehost operator would then of course capitalize on the 404 traffic.

I can honestly see either of these happening.

[FilthyRob]

That is a tough one. Pulling the plug at this point may have been the only option.

[Zester]

my question now is: who will go to jail in this case ?

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by Zester

my question now is: who will go to jail in this case ?

Everyone they can wave in front of their constituency