![]() |
Quote:
ASACP sold us out. :321GFY |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hahahahah indeed you do my friend. Something must be done for Child Pornography and if they on the ball on that, God Bless. But if you are HERE on GFY and say you are part of OUR Industry then start sitting on our side and look at the big picture. |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=Joan]
Quote:
ummm, Joan, that isn't what he said. He did not ask who served on the board, he said, "remember that NO ONE VOTED or HAD ANY SAY AT ALL into who serves on the ASACP committee." Pretty big difference. |
Quote:
|
Remember the words of Cyndi : Money ,money changes everything
|
Quote:
I think I am pretty well known for being against any Chicken Little, the sky is falling issues that have come along. My theory is that the strong survive, however, .xxx could be a pretty heavy knockout blow, when you take into consideration things like processors and ISP's and how they can use it against us. |
Quote:
Women with brains turn me on .... Note to self: put more time in you mainstream business, even if you have to suffer and immediate loss of income. |
Quote:
They are the next ones that will be punishing us because now it will be easier to find all of us.. |
Quote:
"Tom Hymes, AVN Online ?There is also a strong case for having a content-specific gTLD (and corresponding SLDs under ccTLDs) such as .xxx or .sex. Sexually explicit services could then be legally required to operate with domain names in this gTLD (or SLD under a ccTLD) that would make it much simpler and easier to control access to such sites to protect children from the whitehouse.com problem, for example. This would not be to impose censorship or restrict free speech, but would restore an effective means for consumer choice which sites like whitehouse.com subvert by exploiting that present ?inherent propensity to confuse?). Similarly, non-commercial sites, including sites for abuse or complaint might usefully be allocated a specific SLD for that purpose.? [9]" http://www7.nationalacademies.org/it...tml#P161_39485 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
BINGO!!!! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Actually, I misspoke when I said processors, I was referring to Visa and MC as they are end result (in most cases). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:uhoh |
Quote:
BINGO again! |
Damn, nice find. I wrote that as a journalist probably five years ago, looking at both sides of the issue, when I still still unclear about the ramifications and what it would all mean. It was theoretical, and had nothing at all to do with this .XXX application. I Always do that when working things through, much the same as I did with 2257, which I might have supported if it were reasonably written and only used if there was a good faith belief that a minor had been used in a production. But that's not how they're written, so I can't support them, and neither do I support .xxx. I had no idea someone had pulled that one paragraph into a white paper to use for that purpose, so shame on them for doing that and shame on me for making an incorrect idea sound so compelling. When I read it now, it's bullshit, but I can't reverse the clock, and my evaluation of these issues has improved in that I think about them far longer before I comment.
Also, Paul Fishbein has stated that he turned the .xxx offer down, so that right there should clarity the AVN position. The FSC position is the same, and always has been, that it does not now, never has, and never will support a .xxx tld. |
Quote:
At the end of the day, the webmasters bitching on this board will be no more organized and concerted in an effort to work together for the industry as a whole as they've been since this industry began. It's simply not the nature of the beast. I'm not sure why someone chose to bring Mastercard and Visa into the equation, they have nothing to do with this situation at all. As a matter of fact, our merchant underwriting company has just signed a new tri-partite agreement with Mastercard to underwrite lots of new business. As for AVN, Tom Hymes no longer works there and that looks like an editorial, not a statement from the magazine, to me. |
I am sure a lot of trademark holders will agree:
If anybody cybersquats on our shit with .xxx registrations - get ready to get turned inside out. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think the way they are going to do it is, if memory serves me right. If you own the .com version you have 45 days to get the .xxx after that its fair game.
|
Quote:
And neither has USC 2257 (amended) have anything further to offer in respect of protecting children. Also.. considering the track record of the US DOJ in several pedo cases, - the last thing on their minds is "protecting children". It does seen very odd that they have not instigated one action under USC 2257 since this became law in the 90's. I'd also add that I have witnesses several cases first hand where individuals in an org have wasted over two years "negotiating" with the US DOJ when they had been presented with overwhelming evidence of multiple cases of child abuse and this was never disputed, - but never cared to act until they were threatened with embarassment elsewhere. To now claim USC 2257 (amended) is protecting children is absurd - it always has protected children - that is, if they cared to enforce it. |
Quote:
Mike south said :This was taken from a white paper submitted to the National Reseach Council By Jason Hendales, It was also presented to ICANN and others." So you writing for AVn at the time it must of had their approval? |
Quote:
Watching the way this "community" acts / reacts makes me ashamed to call myself a "webmaster" sometimes. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I will pledge to help in this fight any way I can to make sure this does not happen. I will be as vocal as I can be-
It simply won't be enough. Nor will the FSC be able to conquer this gargantuan task by themselves-- Larry Flynt could help us if he truly understood all of the ramifications of .XXX. As well as if he had the energy to fight- we all know that Larry is no fan of this administration. This has been an issue on the table for about 5 yrs. We knew this was inevitable, and the industry as a whole was apathetic. Most of us sat around saying that "the Government can't ever inact this kind of legislation because we are a global industry". That may have been your thoughts pre- 2003- however that year's Superbowl with Janet and Justin's "Nipplegate" coupled with the FCC fines handed down to Howard Stern as well as the copius amounts directed towards broadcast companies for indecency. Should have been a real wake up call for the online adult business. Hopfully those of you who understand this kind of modern day " McCarthyism" ( that is if you are educated enough to know who he was) will finally realize the graveness of this issue and write to the liberal politicians in your respected states. .XXX is the equivalent of wearing Hester Prynne's " Scarlett Letter" I may have been in a lot of media, and I know I call a lot of attention to myself - However I don't want to wear a .XXX on my chest for the rest of my life, do you? |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123