Originally Posted by Leexxx (Post 23361772)

of course and you sell an overprice AV service:)

Originally Posted by Leexxx (Post 23361772)

Every 3-4 years a "anti-porn" law is going to "terminate" the industry and here we are making more money than the prior year, elections are next year, politicians are just doing campaigns. They real "law" is the cc processor and the only one you should fear is your industry "peers".:2 cents:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 23361793)

You are mixing up 2257 and Age Verification.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 23361793)

I do not have to prove to the visitor if the models are over 18 but the visitor has to prove to me he/she is over 18, right?

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 23361793)

Then if you have a SFW tour with little to no nudity or sex acts displayed (descriptions are apparently fine)

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 23361793)

then when it comes time to get behind the pay wall that's when the age verification should kick in, and that should be the responsibility of the payment processors who are actually accepting the money and holding the cc info. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 23362269)

And that's because it's not about keeping kids off of porn sites. It's about shutting us down.

Originally Posted by xxxclusive (Post 23362635)

They should do it like Israel. Technically block all pornsites on internet provider level.
So when you book you internet tariff you can simply choose if you want to have it unblocked. It also would be smarter as then also the offshore pirate sites are IP blocked.

Putting the responsibility on pornsite owners seems really to bully them, end of the day most small sites will suffer most and be pushed out of the market and the big players will just get even fatter.

Originally Posted by NatalieK (Post 23362510)

I blame ignorant parents giving pre paid phones to their children :disgust

Originally Posted by NatalieK (Post 23362510)

I blame ignorant parents giving pre paid phones to their children :disgust

Originally Posted by CyberHustler (Post 23362752)

As someone who knowingly voted for this to pwn da libz, how are you feeling about this lib industry you're in starting to actually be pwnd now like you voted for?

😎🍿

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark (Post 23362750)

No I'm not. You said "shouldn't the cc processors (CCBill, Epoch, merch accounts, etc) be doing the age verification anyway?". My answer was to that.



Correct. You have to declare, via 2257, that the models are 18. And now, you have to be ready to prove, that *member* Dave Smith is over 18, and you now have to prove that *visitor* Joe Blow from Florida, is an adult too.




It must contain no nudity, and no, descriptions are not fine. Kris Kobach, the Republican (of course) Kansas Attorney General, has sued Met Art (SARJ LC)

https://www.wibw.com/2025/01/14/kris...site-operator/

Besides the image content, Paragraph 22 of the lawsuit says : "22. For illustration, on sexart.com’s “About Us” page, it advertises an “unrivalled collection of erotic 4K movies [that] brings together the best naturally sexy models, so whether you prefer voluptuous sirens or perky cheerleader types, you are sure to find your dream girl in action here.” One can “[w]atch genuine lesbians lick each other to intense orgasms, and horny cuties give their male lovers the ride of their lives. There’s plenty of superb group sex too, as [Defendant’s] adventurous beauties live out their wildest fantasies."





That would be awesome but of course that would not work. You would be making them legally responsible for your content. *You* are the one that has to be responsible for your content. The payment processor isn't selling your content, they are acting as the payment processor only.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 23362830)

Has the Met-Art case been settled or ajudicated? Because if not a suit means nothing until a verdict. Plus, that is Kansas, not every State.

But okay I will play along: no nudity, nice words only. Good to go?

And what about X, Instagram, etc? Places that show nudity or near nudity? If they also have to age verify....it will be interesting to see how they fight it.

But as far as the processors go: using that old argument of 'I'm not selling it I'm just collecting the money for it' wouldn't work in a strip club or whorehouse so why would it work for digital media? Supposedly 2257 had a safe harbor provision that the tubes thought they were following by NOT reviewing every video. What happened to all of that?

The real thing here, I think, is how strcit Visa and MC will be. Enforcement is an issue with millions of websites but if Visa/MC lay down 'the law' then everyone who wants processing will have to follow it.

What a shit show, eh? :)

Originally Posted by Holy Damage (Post 23362835)

I'm just wondering what kind of free site is actually gonna pay $0.30 per user or even $1k–$5k a year / domain just for people to jerk off on it?

Originally Posted by NatalieK (Post 23362755)

it´s not going to be like Israel, the world agrees with porn. It´s because too many under age are viewing porno, as said...

ban cell phones & internet without safe guard until 18, then would be ok :2 cents:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd (Post 23362830)

And what about X, Instagram, etc? Places that show nudity or near nudity? If they also have to age verify....it will be interesting to see how they fight it.

Originally Posted by xxxclusive (Post 23371005)

Here we go, a cheap solution so far, 3 ct per check. Self hosted even for free.

https://go.cam/

Originally Posted by CyberHustler (Post 23362752)

As someone who knowingly voted for this to pwn da libz, how are you feeling about this lib industry you're in starting to actually be pwnd now like you voted for?

😎🍿

Originally Posted by Retiree (Post 23371748)

Did anyone talk to a lawyer to confirm what will be actually enough? If the tour has to be completely SFW or if its fine to blurr the images/videos, so nothing explicit can be seen on the free tour?

But either way, if this is implemented on a large scale, the only ones who will profit from this are the websites hosted offshore, who won't give a fuck about it. And regular surfers will move to those websites...because 99% of people simply won't feel comfortable to verify with their ID on a random porn site. They will rather go elsewhere, so it will be a big loss for the legal side of the business, anyway.

Originally Posted by fuzebox (Post 23362087)

Also I hate that a DVTimes news spam thread is getting traction.

Originally Posted by roshnikhanna (Post 23361718)

I'll simply remove all HC pics from the tour, this should be fine for the beginning.

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 23371813)

The good old times are coming back then . . .

Originally Posted by NatalieK (Post 23372048)

no more freebies...

pay to see the porn :thumbsup :2 cents: