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)
-   -   ASACP's official statement on .XXX (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=475752)

SteveLightspeed 06-02-2005 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMan
(Hope y'all can read JManese :1orglaugh )

I can read JManese, I'll translate:

ASACP sold us out. :321GFY

tony286 06-02-2005 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed
I can ready JManese, I'll translate:

ASACP sold us out. :321GFY

Amen Brother Steve :thumbsup

Jman 06-02-2005 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed
I can read JManese, I'll translate:

ASACP sold us out. :321GFY


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.

Connor 06-02-2005 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMan
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.

Exactly, my friend! :thumbsup

baddog 06-02-2005 04:49 PM

[QUOTE=Joan]
Quote:

Originally Posted by JPeterman
who serves on the ASACP committe.

This information is on the ASACP site - http://www.asacp.org/aboutus.php


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.

tony286 06-02-2005 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMan
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.

THey have done honorable work in the past, that doesnt make this honorable. If you cant understand that I dont understand.Also they changed their name, they used to be adult sites against child pornography not anymore now its a very vague name looks to me like they are distancing themselves from us.

tony286 06-02-2005 04:53 PM

Remember the words of Cyndi : Money ,money changes everything

baddog 06-02-2005 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMan
It's how we will as an industry, Roll with the Punches that will make a difference.


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.

directfiesta 06-02-2005 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim
Damn, Joan, you must have said you don't like SUVs at some time, so the government raised the price of gas to try and get them off the road.

Personally I see the .xxx as someone's idea of a way to make money. From that standpoint, I'm sorry I didn't think of the idea myself and figure out how to get a cut off every one of the registrations. When .xxx becomes a fact, what registrars will handle it? The same ones that handle .com, .net, .biz, etc? If so, I guess quite a few people stand to make some money on it.

To the industry, it's a fucking joke. Child pornographers don't care about .xxx, they don't care about .com, they don't care about anything. The vast majority of them aren't in the US would be my guess.

The government is going to do everything it can in the next few years to cripple this industry. I think that so many people's time could be so much better spent figuring out how to keep their legs under them than bickering with every other segment of this industry.

I'd use my herding cats statement but that one's been appropriated over the years by so many other people I don't like the taste of it in my mouth any more.

:thumbsup

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.

TheGoldenChild 06-02-2005 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog
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.

It's not ISPS and processors- It's Mastercard and Visa that you have to worry about

They are the next ones that will be punishing us because now it will be easier to find all of us..

xxxjay 06-02-2005 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor
Joan -

I'm glad that you replied, and I have a tremendous amount of repsect for you personally. I'm sorry that we're on opposite ends of this issue, and I'm sure there will be other issues on which we both agree. Dot XXX will never be one of them, however.

The problem is that ASACP in fact DID support the creation of dot xxx. That's what you're doing when you send in a letter to ICANN during the application process saying that you "applaud" and "support" ICM. You are helping to make something possible that affects the ENTIRE industry.

I don't know who at ASACP made that decision... was it the advisory council? Was it you personally? Whoever made that decision made a choice that affects a whole lot of webmasters, and made it IN SPITE of the fact that the only public industry meeting on .XXX resulted in a DOWN vote. If that choice goes bad for a lot of people then certainly you can see how they would be a little upset at the people who affected their business. ICM needed the support of industry groups in order to get their application approved. Your organization helped tham get that approval, and without that approval we wouldn't be facing the significant censorship threats that we are now facing.

As far as comparing this to applying for funding... come on Joan, that's not a very effective way to explain this. There were strings attached to this funding, and to accept the money you had to support something that can significantly harm the industry. Will the funding be worth it when some Senator tries to make dot XXX mandatory? Will the funding be worth it when Visa decides only people on .XXX sites will be processed? I thought the adult industry was doing a fantastic job supporting ASACP. In Sacramento, I can't think of how many times I plugged ASACP to one of the senators or councilmen I spoke to on behalf of the industry. So many companies have stepped up with donations. Weren't we as an industry doing a good enough job supporting ASACP? Why did your organization have to accept funding from ICM when you KNEW that doing so could result in all kinds of problems for the adult industry as a whole?

Frankly Joan I don't think you're in a defensible position. All this may be old news to you, but it's not to a lot of the industry. And I think it's only going to get worse when the first congressman announces his plan to make dot XXX mandatory and the industry is facing YET ANOTHER big legal fight, this one brought about by small groups of people INSIDE the industry. And if private industries start using dot XXX against us... oh man!

I spoke with you about this several months ago and pointed out some of my concerns. I asked you to consider revoking your support of dot XXX, but didn't hear back from you. I didn't know at that time that ASACP was getting funding for their support. I know that funding is important for any organization, but there HAS to be a point where the damage caused by accepting the funds isn't worth it.

I agree. I assume it would be the FSC that would be the main opposition to this. I found this quote here, which I find kind of worrysome:

"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

Mr.Fiction 06-02-2005 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay
I agree. I assume it would be the FSC that would be the main opposition to this. I found this quote here, which I find kind of worrysome:

"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

Is that a quote from AVN? I thought they just said they didn't take a position on .xxx?

Connor 06-02-2005 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle
It's not ISPS and processors- It's Mastercard and Visa that you have to worry about

They are the next ones that will be punishing us because now it will be easier to find all of us..

Agreed KB, that's a HUGE concern.

Connor 06-02-2005 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction
Is that a quote from AVN? I thought they just said they didn't take a position on .xxx?

I just asked Tom about this... he's going to post soon, so I'll leave it to him.

Connor 06-02-2005 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay
I agree. I assume it would be the FSC that would be the main opposition to this. I found this quote here, which I find kind of worrysome:

Nice find... that's an interesting read!

TheGoldenChild 06-02-2005 05:53 PM

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...ate=psarsc.3.2

Connor 06-02-2005 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Clever. Then sue for "trademark infringement" when someone else gets pussy.xxx, and yank the domain name from them. This is going to be one giant mess.

fireorange 06-02-2005 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

hmmmmm, NOT GOOD!

TheGoldenChild 06-02-2005 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor
Clever. Then sue for "trademark infringement" when someone else gets pussy.xxx, and yank the domain name from them. This is going to be one giant mess.


BINGO!!!!

TheGoldenChild 06-02-2005 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction
Is that a quote from AVN? I thought they just said they didn't take a position on .xxx?

They lied to you ...

baddog 06-02-2005 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle
It's not ISPS and processors- It's Mastercard and Visa that you have to worry about


Actually, I misspoke when I said processors, I was referring to Visa and MC as they are end result (in most cases).

JFK 06-02-2005 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog
Actually, I misspoke when I said processors, I was referring to Visa and MC as they are end result (in most cases).

dont talk with your mouth full :1orglaugh

polish_aristocrat 06-02-2005 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Grant Media = Gary Kremen = Sex.com?


:uhoh

TheGoldenChild 06-02-2005 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat
Grant Media = Gary Kremen = Sex.com?


:uhoh


BINGO again!

Hymes 06-02-2005 06:18 PM

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.

Kimmykim 06-02-2005 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta
:thumbsup

Women with brains turn me on ....

Why, thank you, I'm blushing!

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.

XPays 06-02-2005 06:23 PM

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.

xxxjay 06-02-2005 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XPays
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.

Yep, that is 100% correct. We trademarked everything for OCCash. At the time, I thought it might have just been a waste of lawyer money, but if this .xxx thing goes through -- it might be the best money we've ever spent.

Connor 06-02-2005 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim
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.

A year ago I would have completely agreed with that statement. But I'm not so sure now. I've seen a tremendous amount of support for the FSC, and the FSC is finally concentrating on internet issues. One of the reasons why webmasters were never organized was because there wasn't much of a mechanism by which they COULD organize. KK, are you going to Cybernet Expo? I'd love to chat with you about FSC, and maybe introduce you to Michelle, the Executive Director.

tony286 06-02-2005 06:41 PM

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.

Webby 06-02-2005 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly
.xxx is a stupid, stupid idea. That's what the bitching is about. It has nothing to do with fighting CP.

Totally agree Holly!! :thumbsup

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.

tony286 06-02-2005 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hymes
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.


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?

xxxjay 06-02-2005 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor
A year ago I would have completely agreed with that statement. But I'm not so sure now. I've seen a tremendous amount of support for the FSC, and the FSC is finally concentrating on internet issues. One of the reasons why webmasters were never organized was because there wasn't much of a mechanism by which they COULD organize.

I don't know about that. There needs to be some unity, but instead we have schism. There has been so much mudslinging between the FSC, the ASACP, AVN, XBiz, dot xxx, and all the profiteering running rampant from this debacle, etc...I don't think webmasters organize until it is from the confines of dayroom at Club Fed or their new job at McDonalds after this is done with.

Watching the way this "community" acts / reacts makes me ashamed to call myself a "webmaster" sometimes.

Connor 06-02-2005 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay
I don't know about that. There needs to be some unity, but instead we have schism. There has been so much mudslinging between the FSC, the ASACP, AVN, XBiz, dot xxx, and all the profiteering running rampant from this debacle, etc...I don't think webmasters organize until it is from the confines of dayroom at Club Fed or their new job at McDonalds after this is done with.

Watching the way this "community" acts / reacts makes me ashamed to call myself a "webmaster" sometimes.

You will NEVER get every single person in this industry to agree on everything. And you don't need complete and absolute consensus. That's something I've learned over the past few years. The trick is to know what you think is worth fighting for and find like-minded individuals. I think 2257 is worth fighting against. I think .xxx is worth fighting against. And there are a lot of people in this industry who feel the same way. Some don't, but that's to be expected. There are enough people who agree to make a solid difference and put up a fight. That, I truly believe.

XPays 06-02-2005 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404
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.

that is a sticky subject due to the fact that you can have people after the same domain - one with the dot com and no trademark and the other with a valid trademark and no dot com for example.

Kimmykim 06-02-2005 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor
A year ago I would have completely agreed with that statement. But I'm not so sure now. I've seen a tremendous amount of support for the FSC, and the FSC is finally concentrating on internet issues. One of the reasons why webmasters were never organized was because there wasn't much of a mechanism by which they COULD organize. KK, are you going to Cybernet Expo? I'd love to chat with you about FSC, and maybe introduce you to Michelle, the Executive Director.

I'll be there Monday afternoon -- email me before the show and let's plan a time for it :)

Connor 06-02-2005 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim
I'll be there Monday afternoon -- email me before the show and let's plan a time for it :)

Cool... looking forward to that.

xxxjay 06-02-2005 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor
You will NEVER get every single person in this industry to agree on everything. And you don't need complete and absolute consensus. That's something I've learned over the past few years. The trick is to know what you think is worth fighting for and find like-minded individuals. I think 2257 is worth fighting against. I think .xxx is worth fighting against. And there are a lot of people in this industry who feel the same way. Some don't, but that's to be expected. There are enough people who agree to make a solid difference and put up a fight. That, I truly believe.

I really hope that is true. :)

TheGoldenChild 06-02-2005 10:33 PM

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?

stev0 06-02-2005 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireorange
Fuck you and your sigs and fuck the wannabe internet police aka ASACP

Why, do they threaten you?


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