|
 |
|
|
|
 | | |
 |
|
|
|
07:45 PM EST, Tuesday Jan 12, 2010
|
|
 |
White label sites - 2257 |
 |
|
Hello,
Having briefly run an adult links directory, before concentrating on mainstream Internet Marketing, I'm familiar with the 2257 regulations as they were 4+ years ago.
I'm exploring the possibility of doing business once again with adult sites and I've been reading how 2257 has changed in the intervening years. From what I've read so far, it appears to be stricter than it was previously but just as ambiguous.
I have the following questions:
If an affiliate was to use a co-branded or white label site, is he or she deemed to be a secondary producer? From having read the answer to the 'Who is required to maintain records?' question here, I would, initially, assume not.
However, does the fact that a white label site would be accessible under a domain name owned by an affiliate mean that he or she is considered to be a secondary producer?
In a situation where the company that provides the white label site is a secondary producer itself and isn't compliant with the law due to it having a 2257 statement that defers responsibility for all content to the unnamed primary producer, what legal ramifications are there for the affiliate? Could he or she be subject to legal action due to the affiliation with the offending white label provider?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12:46 AM EST, Thursday Jan 14, 2010
|
|
|
Interesting question, as the person [entity] presenting the whitelabel has little or no control over the content on the domain that is served by servers under a ''primary producer's'' control.
Your question of ''guilt by association'' is an interesting one. I would think, just a guess mind you (unless, someone has a citation of some actual trial case), that foreknowledge and ''mens rea'' would play a major role at trial.
Not offered as legal advice.
_________________
Live Sex Cams XloveCam.com Adult Affiliate Program - AWCM - 30% Lifetime Revenue Share +more ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02:18 PM EST, Thursday Jan 14, 2010
|
|
|
I tend to agree. I would assume that the guilt for non compliance with 2257 is shared by all those who agree to be associated with the entity breaking the law as ignorance isn't a defense.
However, would the DOJ really have the resources to pursue all the many affiliates who have branded white label sites when all such sites could be removed simply by closing down the offending white label provider?
I guess being an affiliate with a branded white label site is just another risk one has to assume when dealing with the ambiguity that is 2257.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
