GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   A thought - what will archive.com mean to the new 2257? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=482592)

pussyluver 06-19-2005 08:34 AM

A thought - what will archive.com mean to the new 2257?
 
Guess they wouldn't count not being a primary or secondary source. BUT, they will link to your illegal site. Also prove that you weren't legal on time etc.

Just another brain fart.

pussyluver 06-19-2005 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pussyluver
Guess they wouldn't count not being a primary or secondary source. BUT, they will link to your illegal site. Also prove that you weren't legal on time etc.

Just another brain fart.


ops, they would link to their copy of your illegal site and banners.

Gawdy 06-19-2005 08:36 AM

yep, so for many people taking down the sites and galleries wont be enough

chadglni 06-19-2005 08:36 AM

There is no on time, everyone is actually illegal currently if they don't have at least an ID. Remember the crazy rules are for June 23 but there are rules that have been in effect since 1995. This is also why all the sponsors refusing to send model ID's are breaking the current law because even though they want you to take it down, if it was up anytime after 1995 you need whatever is called for on that content. One big clusterfuck.

pussyluver 06-19-2005 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni
One big clusterfuck.

Ditto that!!!!!

Chimmy 06-19-2005 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni
There is no on time, everyone is actually illegal currently if they don't have at least an ID. Remember the crazy rules are for June 23 but there are rules that have been in effect since 1995. This is also why all the sponsors refusing to send model ID's are breaking the current law because even though they want you to take it down, if it was up anytime after 1995 you need whatever is called for on that content. One big clusterfuck.

This is not entirely accurate. Yes the 2257 regs have been on the books in a slightly different format for a number of years. But, in the past, if you were not the primary producer of the material, then you simply needed to have a 2257 link on each page, which would then list all of the content supplier custodians of records. In the past, adherance to 2257 was actually quite easy.

chadglni 06-19-2005 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimmy
This is not entirely accurate. Yes the 2257 regs have been on the books in a slightly different format for a number of years. But, in the past, if you were not the primary producer of the material, then you simply needed to have a 2257 link on each page, which would then list all of the content supplier custodians of records. In the past, adherance to 2257 was actually quite easy.

The law has been there for years. It was stated that all content since 1995 requires X amount of documentation (1 ID I think) and that the law is RETROACTIVE all the way back to 1995. That means if they come knocking about an image you had up 5 years ago you better have the ID for it.

Giorgio_Xo 06-19-2005 09:36 AM

Nothing a .txt file won't fix. You can have all your sites removed from archive.org with 2 minutes of work. Drama over.

chadglni 06-19-2005 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giorgio_Xo
Nothing a .txt file won't fix. You can have all your sites removed from archive.org with 2 minutes of work. Drama over.

Please tell me how. I have an old site I want to get out of there.

Chimmy 06-19-2005 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni
The law has been there for years. It was stated that all content since 1995 requires X amount of documentation (1 ID I think) and that the law is RETROACTIVE all the way back to 1995. That means if they come knocking about an image you had up 5 years ago you better have the ID for it.

Wrong about the ID requirement in the existing 2257 regs, unless you were the producer of the content.

But anyhow, I too am interested in this txt file that will remove sites from archive.com

chadglni 06-19-2005 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimmy
Wrong about the ID requirement in the existing 2257 regs, unless you were the producer of the content.

But anyhow, I too am interested in this txt file that will remove sites from archive.com

They expanded the regulations to include more people under secondary producer. The requirements before June 23rd have always been there.

Repetitive Monkey 06-19-2005 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni
Please tell me how. I have an old site I want to get out of there.

Put this in your robots.txt:

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /


It will prevent Archive.org from both indexing you as well as showing already indexed content.

mikeyddddd 06-19-2005 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Repetitive Monkey
Put this in your robots.txt:

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /


It will prevent Archive.org from both indexing you as well as showing already indexed content.

Thanks
..

Scootermuze 06-19-2005 10:36 AM

Pages shown on their archive are on their server.. not yours..
It may show what you had in the past, but if the current content on your server is ok, then shouldn't be a problem..
Unless the feds really wanna mess with someone..

I have a feeling they're gonna be checking the tgps and sites with lots of pics and even then on a random basis..


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123