Web site's proprietor or some other third party informs the user of the site's URL.  Some

Web sites, for example, send out mass email advertisements containing the site's URL,

the spamming process we have described above.   

Second, the search engines that software companies use for harvesting are able to

search text only, not images.  This is of critical importance, because CIPA, by its own

terms, covers only  visual depictions.   20 U.S.C.   9134(f)(1)(A)(i); 47 U.S.C.  

254(h)(5)(B)(i).  Image recognition technology is immature, ineffective, and unlikely to

improve substantially in the near future.  None of the filtering software companies

deposed in this case employs image recognition technology when harvesting or

categorizing URLs.  Due to the reliance on automated text analysis and the absence of

image recognition technology, a Web page with sexually explicit images and no text

cannot be harvested using a search engine.  This problem is complicated by the fact that

Web site publishers may use image files rather than text to represent words, i.e., they may

use a file that computers understand to be a picture, like a photograph of a printed word,

rather than regular text, making automated review of their textual content impossible.  For

example, if the Playboy Web site displays its name using a logo rather than regular text, a

search engine would not see or recognize the Playboy name in that logo.  

In addition to collecting URLs through search engines and Web directories

(particularly those specializing in sexually explicit sites or other categories relevant to

one of the filtering companies' category definitions), and by mining user logs and

collecting URLs submitted by users, the filtering companies expand their list of harvested

59