Hate to interrupt this pissing contest.. but I, for one, would like to hear more from others interested in discussing the probability of new legislation being passed and its implications on the industry.

Also, there is one other item that hasn't been discussed yet:

Several have mentioned that going "off-shore" will be the solution... but isn't it entirely possible that other countries will follow suit? Couldn't a massive domino effect take place with other nations drafting similar legislation? Aren't the Christian right concerns of parents, conservatives, etc. the same worldwide? And aren't their methodologies also similar?

Could the world face pressure to adapt to .xxx?

Does it really matter one toss who in the US legislature supports or does not support this? The track record all round in the legislature has been a very sad joke and extends to far more than issues over a TLD and has sure not been in the interests of the people voting these idiots into office.

Bottom line... The only item of civil code introduced within the US has been 2257. In practice, this has not been enforced in real terms and I got serious doubts that *any* further versions will be enforced either.

Any person or legislature/government of any country requires far more than the ramblings of US Senators to effective enact net laws or agreements for child protection. This is not a US domestic issue and pointless if it is ever considered as such.

Regarding the US economy. I've never saw much concern over any fiscal policy in the last few years. Why do you think anyone has a braincell to count porn dollars? Porn sure as hell is no "driving force" in any economy.

If you mean by "offshore", outside the US? Yea.. anyone, apart from corps and webmaster who actually reside in the US, are better out of the US. There is no benefit since the time hosting costs became comparable elsewhere.

I've never heard of any other country particularly ranting about the net and child protection recently, tho sure, there are going to be some who want to introduce some legislation.

Only my :2 cents: worth, adult offshore will be much the same as the financial offshore biz - namely, an earner for certain jurisdictions. There is also the situation where if one offshore area ceased to be active in this area, another 100 are waiting in line to take up the business.

Na.. the Christian right in the US are something not of this planet. Sanity, with the exception of sects in other countries, prevail. You ever noticed how only folks with a problem keep talking about religion and rights?? :) Everyone else have their beliefs and rights and take them for granted without a discussion.


PS.. Tho side note!! Blair in the UK started trying his religous beliefs on the population lately in an attempt to copy Bush, - but that sank like a lead brick.

I see what you mean webby, about the US being somewhat of a "special" circumstance in this regard. Yeah- it's bastardization of the word special, but you probably get my point.

However, in my naive and totally un-political view, there seems to be somewhat of a rift developing worldwide between Judeo Christian and Muslim forces. The war, terrorism, chaos, cartoons and violence have spread to several continents and each side seems to be rallying hard for support against the other. Feels like large-scale polarization to me. This is all fine and good, except that neither side likes porn.

I fear marginalization as possible fallout:

We may feel large and unified because we've got a board that moves at the speed of light, and can earn a decent living in an industry that seemingly knows no bounds. But I think the reality is that MUCH larger forces are currently at work to lure the populace towards a life that doesn't recognize this industry.

Don't want to be the boy that cries wolf, but from where I'm standing.... WOLF! And it's not just this bill, although whether it passes or not, this bill is certainly a significant development.

Those politicians are so clueless. With all the things going on in the world, they spend their time creating ridiculous legislation to try and regulate/restrict porn on the internet.

yeah but during reagan era adam and eve spent 1 million dollars fighting the feds.Read about the Meese Commission or see the documentary about deep throat thats was Nixon. During Clinton porn grew in leaps and bounds his Atty general felt going after adult porn was a waste of government resources.

i own gfy.xxx and gofuckyourself.xxx the starting bid is 10 million cash

exactly! they should prioritize bills that is really beneficial to the country not just to oppose this biz.

It won't pass believe me :-) Porn is Free Speech, as they say in school

Little doubts there is polarisation ASC! From the few folks I know who happen to be of Muslim face - frankly, they seem as disappointed in the way things are going as the Christian side (excluding for a moment, the US sect type "Christianity" - that's no better the the bin Laden version of the Muslim faith). I seriously doubt folks around the globe are interested in their lives being screwed by either external interference or by extremists like Osama - they just want peace from disruptive trash. It's only me, but I got nada problem with anyone, irrespective of their faith - it's their right to do as they wish.

But, yea... smell times are changing and other influences are at work - some of it is blatantly transparent, other stuff is more subtle. There is also a changing economic world where what were "third world countries" are shifting upwards economically. For the current "status holders" this is a threat and for the developing countries, it may be they are now attempting to show "the way it will be", hence possible polarisation.

IMHO .. politics has hijacked a number of elements in a society that were held in high regard - religion being one. The "political biz" has reached the gutter and where they will attempt to represent anything to get votes. The same applies to the Muslim faith. I never knew govts were elected based on faith - I thought they were elected to manage economies and build roads. :)

I may be cynical, but sure there is an element of "righteousness" in the current proposals by the US govt for child protection and little more than "appeasement" to any instance of CP or related issues picked up by the US media. The principle is valid and with some folks, it may actually be well-intentioned. The fact that the US DOJ felt the need to make a public statement on the multi-jurisdictional CP issue yesterday is probably meaningful. What other govt got their legal rep to say anything? It appears there are far more relevant issues to be addressing that a specific CP investigation. It may be more useful to address the problems in New Orleans first.

It's only by :2 cents: worth, but also smell desperation setting in and attempts to "do something" which will gain approval - porn is an easy target and mix that with children and ya got a cocktail which follows along the lines of "preferred control".

It may have been forgotten, - when "someone" tapped into VISA US and they then made decisions to invoke fees, track paysite membership data and establish the owners/operators of paysites, that this information is now accessible to any US prosecutor who wishes to "play". No other banking region agreed to the kind offer from VISA.

I got no problem with killing access by children to adult sites, but seriously doubt this is within the capability of one country. It needs international agreement (which can, again, bring problems to this biz if the people agreeing have little clue). Tho, any computer savy kid will access sites, irrespective of barriers and it may be more an issue with parents having control over their children.

Hell.. enough rambling!! :1orglaugh

PS.. Are you actually in Costa Rica? I'm in Escazu :)

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

How funny! Yeah- I'm in San Pedro. Let's grab a beer.

What you described concerns me. A lot. I'm a great lover of personal freedoms and grey-area activities like smoking pot and nude sunbathing, and other things you could in all 50 states 10 years ago, but could do hard time for today.

I have no idea what will happen with this bill, but I'm afraid the .xxx will prevail.

coming from an idiot that cant even spell seriously properly.

suckmyhairyballs.xxx

:1orglaugh A few bottles of Imperial is a good idea! :drinkup

I bet nude sun bathing is a public indecency offense with a term of 5 years?? :winkwink:

There appear to be even more webmasters heading this way to escape - and also for varied other reasons :winkwink: I know a few US and Canadian folks moving here soon and also some from the EU - it sounds like a community is developing.

Who knows, but kinda doubt the current proposals will end up as legislation. From what has been published so far, it appears too simplified and weak with no consideration of other issues going on re ICANN, TLD control and country representation.

If it does pass into law, it will obviously cause problems for webmasters in the US and likely give a few other countries some hosting business. Fortunately all others don't operate under US law, but ya kinda feel pissed on principle for those it may affect.

I agree with Ronaldo on this one, and besides yacking about it on an adult webmasters board, it should be presented as a press release to the mainstream media for what it is, a solution to keeping children from viewing adult matter.

Not to mention a little backround on 2257 and the other bills out there, I find it abhorrent that the U.S. Govt is spending all this time and $$$ trying to stamp out porn, and if Joe and Jane Sixpack knew about it, they too would more than likely be up in arms about it.

hm i cant comment on it but hope you're right

Exactly :thumbsup :thumbsup
And it's in place now.

Example:



<meta NAME="Voluntary Content Rating" content="adult">
<meta NAME="rating" content="adult">
<meta NAME="classification" CONTENT="Adult Entertainment">



<meta http-equiv=\"pics-label\" content='(pics-1.1 \"http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html\" comment \"ICRAonline EN v2.0\" l gen true for \"http://pussyluvers.com\" r (na 1 nb 1 nc 1 nd 1 ne 1 nf 1 ng 1 nh 1 ni 1 vz 1 la 1 lb 1 lc 1 oa 1 ob 1 oc 1 og 1 ca 1) \"http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html\" l gen true for \"http://pussyluvers.com\" r (n 4 s 4 v 0 l 4))'>


All could be solved with any of the above almost overnight. Oh wait, not complex enough!!! The other thing is that it makes it easy to find the adult sites when the Internet Police come looking...

Holy shit this is a crazy stupid bill. Have these legislators no clue as to how to even spell the word practicality? How in the world will ALL the adult domains ever get registered within 60 days?

More ridiculous is how in the world all the domains pushing joins through IPSPs will ever get all the adult domains VISA approved in 60 days. ALL OF THEM run through the VISA song and dance routine in 60 days? Try 60 months maybe you dumbass USA Senators.

I am so disgusted with all the crap happening in Congress that is anti-adult industry these days. 2257, COPA, Obscenity, and not mandatory dot XXX? Folks we have problems, I find it hard to believe we can outrun all these attacks. Eventually some of this shit they are slinging is going to stick.

Get a clue about how political shows work folks.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Ya guess I cant spell Laughing out Loud either. LOL What a testical sore you are. Retard. :1orglaugh

Very true. :thumbsup

As a kid, you dont stop with legislations, if u want porn you get it, and no rules will stop you, they will delay you maybe a week or a month, but they wont stop you.

Yep. .kids is the way to do it. All new computers would be set to only access .kids by default.

.xxx would be horrible. It wont pass.

Even during the porn hearings recently, only one mentioned support for it, and nobody on the panel agreed with him. Another on the panel even made a nice statement about how he supervises his children while they're on the computer and how it's not all that difficult to do.

I think this is bullhonky made for elections, nothing more.

These fucking politicians are fucking idiots. Why dont they go after aol and yahoo and myspace for giving a venue for child predators.

for affiliates if this bill does go through, expect traffic to go down by 90% and conversions to shoot up the ratio!

:thumbsup

Agree Tom :thumbsup

The desperation of a politician on a political trail knows no ends or depths. If pigs could vote, they'd be kisses their asses.

Tho even pigs might object to that :winkwink:

Hmmm, interesting..

And when a website moves offshore it stops paying the US taxes....

Agree... There are also 1000's of other non-US webmasters who may currently simply be hosting within US territory who are likely to give that hosting business to other countries with more favorable laws.

Bump

Duke

The (reported) revenue based on web-based businesses will probably not be missed at all in return for what conservatives believe would be "cleaning up the internet".

For those that are briefly paying attention, i would recommend really paying attention to this new law and all the other 2257 related angles that are being used to force a moral agenda.

.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?

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.

Conservatives make it seem like a kid surfer would be on a kid-friendly webiste and then click by some "bad" website.

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.

.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.

There are other technological ways, but conservatives want knee-jerk / short-sighted solutions that do little to really solve the problem.

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.

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.

When the time comes for action, the ringing of the bell to get people motiviated to write to congress or do some kind of action to demonstrate your rights as Americans is needed.. i hope that many will come to FSC's calling.. because fighting off a bill like this .XXX will take even more $$$ and action from people.


Fight the apathy!

I would love CCBill, Net Billing, and third party billing companies to chech their records to see if and what porn sites Senators Max Baucus (Dem, MT) and Mark Pryor (Dem, AR) joined. I am sure our there is many in our government that buy and have bought porn online.

Exposing thier porn interest will shut the fuckers up.

Instead of letting kids surf the internet, why don't they just send them to church. I'm sure they will be safe there, especially with the catholic priests... lol (edit :Oh crap )

I don't know what is more scary: The politicians and their entirely unworkable schemes or "leaders in the webmaster community" that love to stir the shit, fan the flames, and secure their position on the top of the heap as a result.

Alex

8 characters in search of an exit

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.

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.

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"?

Totally agree!!

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. :)

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.

bump

duke

.XXX is a bad idea (period) (exclamation mark)

But, since congress is going seriously down the road to passing such legislation, then you can try to blow up the rails of that train, slow it down, or help to alter its course.

The idea of suggesting the "safe harbour" if you use a .XXX domain (and put the .com on the shelf) is to throw back to those who support .XXX when they claim it will protect children.

If .XXX will protect children, then why not give safe harbour?

This will probably not occur, since the religious groups are upset about .XXX for fear of "legitimizing" porn, and having a safe harbour statue, would mean more porn would come to the US as i stated.

So if no safe harbour is given, and .XXX is passed with its draconian and see-no-porn-purist attitudes, then it does signal a strong "get out now you fool" signal, for those companies that are still in the US.

Yes, the exodus to move overseas has been going on, but mainly by the larger companies that can afford to incorporate offshore.

The big companies like Playboy and Hustler won't be going offshore, they will have the resources to ride out the flood, once the the heavy rains rall.

I have heard the arguments against .KIDS... that they say look how many signed up for .kids.us

This is a lame citing by the .XXX supporters. An organization like IFFOR should be the one to monitor the .KIDS TLD, and companies like AOL, google, have great private sector power to enforce the rules that kid specific sites should have a .KIDS domain to allow acccess, etc.

I have heard that they said there is no money in .KIDS

This is a very revealing statement....so this isn't about protecting kids, its really about making money? Yes, we all know the almighty dollar is the driver for most things, but there can be a great economic opportunity for .KIDS domains, where the domain may cost $200/year because of the maintenance and support needed to ensure that .KIDS domains don't go rogue and change to adult offerings, etc.

.KIDS could also help with spam.. that kids would have a hotmail.kids or aol.kids address, and an amendment to CAN-SPAM that sending the bad email to a .kids email address is a felony.

I have heard some say that .KIDS will help the pedos find the kids by going to those specific sites.... hello, pedos know where the kids are. they are in AOL chat rooms, in myspace chat rooms, etc.... a .KIDS domain doesn't make the website a bullseye for pedos..

There is alot of ignorance and spin that is being thrown around by .XXX supporters (and as you have read from the bill, DEMOCRATS are onboard with this idea as well).

Gone are the arguements that if .XXX is made mandatory that businesses will leave, taking their tax base with them. The .XXX supporters won't worry about that. They will be wearing the blinders to think that it is good that the pornographers are driven outside of the US, but it only means more porn will be imported into the US, rather than already here (hence the futileness of their "solution")

These issues do get complex and involved due to politics, ignorance, and personal agendas.

My intent in my postings is to make those that are concerned over this issue to be vigilant and to be ready to act when FSC rings the bell.

If you ask Joe Average on the street if they think having a .XXX TLD is a good idea, most will say yes. They will say atleast you know that it is a porn site.

The masses viewpoint is hard to argue against, they don't see the 1st amendment, they don't see the obscenity prosecutions, they see the simple fact that the .XXX extension could let people (and kids) know what the website content will contain.


Fight the .XXX!

ICM Registry as stated that they have $250K set aside to prevent .XXX from being mandatory....



here is their statement:
http://www.icmregistry.com/ICMCyberSafety.html

ICM Registry comments on the proposed ?Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2006?

While we are gratified that the Senators seem to understand the value of ICM Registry?s proposal, we are concerned that the legislation ignores the fact that ICANN was established as a privately controlled, international organization and not as the arm of any government.

Contrary to the assertion in the proposed legislation, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Department of Commerce (DOC) and ICANN contemplates that the DOC and ICANN will collaborate on developing policies and procedures for creating new TLDs. The MOU does not give the DOC authority to select the top level domains that would be added to the root system. That approach is unworkable given the Internet's global reach and is antithetical to the concept of private sector management on which ICANN rests.

Anyone who followed the recently concluded World Summit on the Information Society understands that unilateral US action in the absence of any threat to the security or stability of the root is unacceptable to the global Internet community.

Furthermore, a mandatory domain of any sort is fundamentally incompatible with the open and voluntary nature of the Internet. Only a voluntary system that provides incentives for websites to use the domain can hope to be effective.

Any mandatory adult domain would instantly face constitutional problems. For example, for the past eight years the United States has tried to defend the Child Online Protection Act from a First Amendment challenge, and the Supreme Court in 2004 upheld an injunction barring its enforcement. That law has never gone into effect, and it appears doubtful it ever will.

Any legislation to impose a labeling or ratings system on Internet content providers would face insurmountable First Amendment problems, as well. ICM Registry has committed to oppose any such mandatory proposal and has also provided a White Paper explaining in detail why this is true. The Congressional Research Service recently analyzed this issue and stated in a report that any such mandatory plan would raise constitutional doubts.

ICANN has followed a thorough and rigorous process for evaluating new TLDs, including the ICM Registry proposal ? a process that has taken more than 2 years. A voluntary TLD can provide the benefits sought by this Bill and can be operational within months. Under a mandatory approach, however, those benefits face years of legal challenges and may never see the light of day.


Fight the copy/paste!