Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
.XXX in the abstract is not a bad idea. Having an organization like IFFOR define business practices, etc is a bad idea. Having .XXX is not necessarily a bad idea, *IF* save harbour was given for content that had the domain (and would presumely have to give up the .COM or atleast have it not be active)
If conservatives really believe that .XXX will protect children, then why not give safe harbour to those (U.S.) webmasters that use it?
|
In abstract, would you trust a govt with the track record it has?? .XXX is a shit idea under these circumstances.
Re IFFOR - I wish people would stop kidding themselves and running out setting up "organizations" purporting to represent adult webmasters and their interests - including advocating .XXX TLD's, ripping off grandiose policies on human rights, claiming to set forth a declaration of good business practices simply because a domain is a .XXX TLD (with the implication an adult webmaster who did not care to join the .XXX TLD club was not operating "good business practices") and along with the usual Washington crap about the noble aims of protecting children. Does IFFOR have any track record? Doubt it.
Since when did any government agree to give safe harbour unless there large amounts of revenue flowing to interested parties? The prospect of any government on this planet giving safe harbour to the adult biz is very remote. Governments change their minds and the rules each Monday morning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
The unintended consequences is that MORE porn sites will come to US hosting for billing, bandwidth, and corporate logistics. Those that want to do deceptive marketing and show very graphic depictions, will simply go off-shore.
|
You think? What do you think has been happening over the last couple of years? Individuals and companies have moved hosts to other regions outside the US simply because of the unstable verbal coming out of Washington. The US is not a favourable location for hosting. This has little to do with "graphic depictions" or "deceptive marketing", but more a matter of common business sense. Corps are not noted for locating in areas not conducive to their business.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
The .XXX bill could very well get passed because it is a "feel good" decision to vote for it by congress, but it will surely cause alot of grief for business owners who run a clean ship, and now are thrown under the bus with the bad/deceptive websites.
|
Agree it can possibly cause grief, tho why do you assume this relates to "bad/deceptive websites"?? Is there a suggestion that not having a .XXX means a webmaster runs "bad/deceptive websites"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
.KIDS is certainly the best way of how white-listing approach can be very effective, but the lawmakers are many times ignorant of technology, especially when they believe that having a .XXX domain will be the magic shield that will protect children.
|
Totally agree!!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
Those FBI agents who haven't been pulled onto homeland security duty who go out and bust pedos, are being pulled of those CP cases to deal with obscenity.
|
Really? I thought the frenzy of the day was CP. So much for addressing CP and concern over protecting children. Why would the FBI now turn their resources over to obscenity? The logic is missing, but would be little surprise.
I assume everyone with a .XXX TLD will of course, have safe harbour.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FightThisPatent
Credit card processors are increasingly feeling the heat because CP distibution is UP, and it's hosted and being processed right here in the US by mainstream sites and companies.
|
Don't doubt it is up generally, the scum are everywhere. But you ask CCBill if they are feeling the heat? I never knew reputable processors transacted for CP websites in the US, tho there was an issue with one adult webmaster over a stuffed yellow penguin which CCBill appear to have resolved. Seriously, what's the problem with this? Where are the lawdogs? I assume they are now busy addressing obscenity as an issue?
Bottom line... Operating in the adult business within the US is a liability for many reasons, among which are VISA US practices in that region where data on surfer memberships, site owners/operators blah is available for government inspection and also because of the purported dribble concerning child protection with the unenforced edition of 2257, the "new" 2257 and the .XXX bullshit. If ever there was a desire for control as in many other areas of life in the US, this is it.
In practice and in keeping with the track record, the effort to *actually* take action for child protection has been weak at best. Pedo webmasters are a relatively easy capture and don't doubt the FBI is aware of many. There was minimal checking of 2257 records since the introduction of this piece of Civil Code - forget the prospect of any increased checking in any "new 2257". On child offenses, the government still have a problem passing over bodies of US citizens charged with sex offenses against minors in other nations. There is a element of cheap talk and a fair degree of hypocracy and this is noteable in comparison with many other nations who "appear" to act and not just talk about it.
If you are seriously saying the attraction of a .XXX TLD in the US will have such an appeal that "MORE porn sites will come to US hosting for billing, bandwidth, and corporate logistics" under these conditions - I'm really missing something along the way.
Today it is .XXX, tomorrow it will be goose pimples on models or gay rights for tranny webmasters. For any business in a position to reallocate and not operate under US laws, - it's a major plus not having the baggage.