More 2257 info
 

http://www.********.com/read.aspx?ID=10230

According to this article if it's true, this guy called the DOJ and did an in depth interview with them. Asked a lot of questions and got a lot of answers that I don't think many will like.

Also as far as the DOJ interview goes there is no difference in text links vs thumbs.. They seem to expect you to have the info on the performers even if you link via text.

So according to this interview with the DOJ the difference between text and thumbs is a mute point. Seems like it would be easier to run your own paysite than to run a link list, blog or tgp and follow the rules.

no difference between text links and thumbs? lmao........

Dang !

Read the interview.. the answer was they still expect you to be in compliance even if you just link via text. Reason given was because your helping them make sales for the content.


quote from the interview

you are not responsible for images/content on other people's servers...

read the quote I added..

the second guy they inspected they didnt even look at his database

That's kinda a mute point, because it doesn't mean they won't look at the next guys database.

That article is from 6/22/2005

histeria. misinformation. at that time, the DOJ themselves didn't know the answers.

He should have asked if the DOJ is following up on the complaints from the hundreds of webmasters that were ripped off by iBill.

ADG Webmaster

that "interview" (if its real) is old news..posted over 1 year ago and has been discussed here before..its full of holes and misinformation and regardless of what the answers by the supposed DOJ person are in that interview..they do not fit in line with what 2257 actually says.

Ahh glad you caught that, because I didn't even notice that it was 05.. I just saw 6/22..

Hummm guess that what I get for being up since 6 am

that's interesting...

aren't we supposed to follow the new amendment just pased?

this is old news!!!

Boy that will suck for all the search engines then.... :1orglaugh

How is this relevant if the article is from the last year?

Wow, I feel like Im back in 2005... 2257 articles that old are TP now.

"She laughed and said, "Oh that's not going to happen." Then went on to say, that while this ruling is very in depth and invasive at times. The logistics of them investigating EVERY company that is in the US any time soon just isn't feasible. That investigators will first and foremost go after companies that have had complaints gainst them. Companies that the DOJ has been watching in the past. And companies where individuals set up a company, then close it a couple of months later to just set up a new one. Etc. But for really large companies, it will take time to assemble a team of investigators, and for all the myriad of hundreds if not thousand so of other companies out there, unless something brings them to theforefront, makes them stand out, or appear that they are not complying with the regulations.

The odds of actually seeing an investigator at their door are minimal."


now if you think about it, what she is saying makes sense.

the guy at nowthatsfuckedup with classified war photos..

complaints were made about chof.

just two examples.

This board is hilarious. :1orglaugh