free hosting from sponsor as 2257 solution?

[eksites]

Here's a question for you. If I build a gallery, free site, etc for a sponsor using their content and their hosting, wouldn't their own 2257 info (which they have to keep anyway) be enough?

Any thoughts on whether this may be a way for gallery/freesite builders to get around documentation requirements for sponsor content?

[Greenguy]

2257 or not, I'm still against free hosting as far as sites that I link to on my Link Lists :(

[bdld]

the person who manages the content is the one responsible.

[Greenguy]

It'd work under the new 2257 regs - but I don't want to give everyone my idea :D

[tickler]

My take is that if you are not an actual employee of the company, you are still a secondary producer putting images up in cyberspace and are therefor responsible for 2257 docs.

[N J]

Define employee.....ones who get paid to do a job??

Greenguy, what about freehosting with your own domain?

[Greenguy]

Unless the hosting company sends you an invoice for the bandwidth you use, it's free hosting - who owns the domain or email addy or tech support contact info means nothing.

[N J]

No I agree it's freehosting, but my point was wouldn't you list those? I don't really see the difference between what we offer and a virtual hosting account - you get your own domain, admin, no banners, exit, 404 redirect, movies allowed etc... you just don't pay for it. And it's not cogent.
I completely understand that you don't want to list sites on a regular freehost which alters the sites, uses a shared cogent connection etc..., but I believe a lot of sponsors now offer decent solutions, which should be at least as good as a virtual account.

You set the standard for a lot of LLs, so I'm quite interested in knowing, if it worth for our webmasters submitting freesites from our freehosting or if they should concentrate on tgp/mgp.

[Greenguy]

Actually, it occurred to me this morning that if someone other than the sponsor owned the domain, then they would be in charge of the 2257 docs & thus, it really solves nothing in the eyes of 2257.

[N J]

True but we do buy the domains and I think a lot of other sponsors don't mind paying 10 bucks for an affiliate to avoid 2257 problems.

BUT does it solve the problems and can webmasters be listed?

[Greenguy]

A couple of bad apple Free Hosts pretty much ruined it for everyone a couple years ago - I really see no need to bend the rules for a couple of people when it's much easier to just no allow any free hosting.

Hosting is cheap - if 2257 fucks you, then maybe you shouldn't be making sites with images on them.

[N J]

Isn't this the biz in a nutshell - some bad apples ruining it for the rest!

But fair enough, just trying to get an idea of what we can do to help our US based webmasters.

[N J]

Maybe this will even clean up our biz a bit - cut off the wannabees.

Remember those times where we had to buy our own content to promote someelses sites, pay for hosting etc...etc..etc.. ;)