Well, there wouldn't be much left of free porn. I know a lot of guys theorize that if TGP's hadn't been around we would all somehow be much richer and sell more porn. But I can tell you that I sold around 10 million dollars worth of PAYSITE memberships from 1997 to 2006....and I did every bit of it with hardcore galleries. I was getting massive amounts of traffic. My very successful experience has been that "YES" you do make sales by giving out free porn. But in a controlled manner.

Tubes and torrents have all but killed affiliate sales to paysites. I know that from both ends of the spectrum. As an affiliate I no longer have that big traffic (we all know where it is now) and the only thing I can sell seems to be dating or cams.
And as a paysite owner I see that my "big" affiliates from 2 years ago went from sending 20 thousand hits a day to sending a couple of hundred hits a day. And my type-ins to affiliate sales ratios to Claudia-Marie's site are like 90% type ins vs. 10% affiliate sales.

So with affiliate sales to paysites already almost dead...I would say that taking away their ability to even run our nude and hardcore hosted materials and banners would take them down to almost nothing. And the only thing left would be non-nude blogs and google traffic. And paysites can easily dominate that for themselves. Hell, most paysites are already cultivating their own traffic and sales.

If porn were put behind a firewall again, and you were able to generate interest and traffic via SEO and non-nude teaser material for your own sites, then why wouldn't affiliates simply do similar things as well?

I doubt this new bill will go through, but if it does, sites like NonNude2ube.com could be an excellent affiliate site idea for example.

I agree. It will never happen. Adult would go back to 2001 levels of raining cash though.

A few opinions of mine and only mine.....

1.) I agree that this bill will probably never pass.

2.) Don't kid yourself....something very similar to this WILL pass one day.

3.) If the UBO (Ultimate Beneficial Owner) of a company lives in the US, then you will be held to US Law. It does not matter where your servers are, where your processing is, or where your "office" is. Always remember the government motto, ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY.

4.) This bill, nor anything like it, will eliminate free porn on the internet. It will only eliminate the number of US Citizens that make money from said free porn.


--T

well, I :1orglaugh

I do agree with it all - there is far too much hardcore out there which is a very very bad thing?

However, unless someone comes up with a killer age verification system for virtual non-paying transactions, then all this can mean is non-locked (eg members area) hardcore == illegal. But only in the US, and so it won't clean up the internet at all.

As for visa and mastercard controlling things - bullshit. All someone has to do is have none nude, teaser trailers/tours to get the site approved and push all the hardcore to the feeder sites/affiliates, located offshore.

Yes, but that kid can look at the Penthouse if his mom allows him to look through a box of magazines which she knows contains a Penthouse. Which is essentially what is happening when his mom allows him to use the internet unattended.

So they might have to enter a credit card to view your tour?
The day this law passes you will see prechecks on the warning page.
Duke

for once i agree with Baddog - how so?

german affiliates only use soft material to promote german sites

whats next? a porn tax too.maybe we need to go live in japan or china. starting to get that way here already.

Its like government is proud to cost someone their job. cigerrette sales are down 20% in Fl because of $1.00 tax. so who does that hurt the smoker? no cuz it still smokes, but the business owner makes less sales, then the tobacoo industry has to cut back because they make less sales, then more people who are factory workers with only industry type skills are out of work because smoking is bad? So alchohol can cause sever liver disease. Prohibition again? Weed? i really never heard of anyone dying from it. (no i don't smoke it) hell what teen cares about porn when they can fuck their girlfriend and see them naked. teens today are running wild. maybe they need to focus on teens seeing real live nudity from their lovers instead of beating off to a picture and causing severe distress. These stupid ass government officials need to think back to when they were kids and needed something to jerk off to... they would have killed for a playboy back then. the sears catalog just dosent do it for me. Maybe they should just ban alcohol in being visualy seen by a minor. it may scar them for life. or you can't smoke a cig in front of them either. that could also fuck them up. i think im going to start writing some really nonsense bills and posting them on the net. who's with me....

our lord and savior obama would never let such a thing happen!
I mean, the democrats are supposed to save us from the evil republicans!








sheep :1orglaugh

I would worry more about Paygea and ICC-CAL ruining it for everyone than anything else.

irrelevant.

All i can add is...
1) tubes torrents p2p will be non-impacted, since they already ignore things like laws & ethics.
2) Both political parties are absolutely disgusting the way they use the bill of rights like toilet paper.

well, this bill will most likely not pass so I would still worry about losing the ability to process visa cards.

This is a bigger problem than people realize. In all the years I ran porn stores I never became desensitized to porn the way I am now, and this generation has everything at their fingertips. When a 12 year old can see a woman blowing a horse online for free why would they give a rat's ass about buying a membership to a porn site with the usual porn star suspects getting fucked? Porn sold a hell of a lot better when it was still considered taboo...

It doesn't matter if its Blue or Red Kool-aid your drinking, its still all Kool-aid... :winkwink:

Having been a 12 year old once I can tell you that yes it IS possible to buy a Penthouse from a convenience store. Those are the same type stores that sell cigarettes and booze to minors. And they exist. And I've done it. When I was 16 I worked at a small grocery store that all kinds of porn mags. Not just Playboy. I'm talking Hustler, Oui, Swank etc. The chick working at the checkout lane that I went to high school with had no problems letting me purchase said magazines as long as no one was around. This was in the 80's WELL before the internet as we know it. Not to mention half your friend's dads either had a magazine and/or video collection lying around that they made no effort to lock up. In fact a lot of dads didn't give a fuck if you looked at their porn as long as you didn't fuck it up. I turned 18 before most of my friends so when I able to legally buy porn mags or rent porn movies I had no problem buying a mag or renting a movie for one of my not yet 18 friends if he gave me the money. So what was that you were saying about minors not being able to get porn?

Sure if you don't monitor your child's internet activities. Fact is it's EASIER today to know if your kid is looking at porn than it was when I was a kid. Only time I got busted was when my porn collection got so huge it was difficult to hide. So I'm talking MONTHS. I can go in my kids computer right now and tell you every site he's been on in the last 24 hours.

You don't need age verification to buy a PPV porn movie and most parents don't have parental locks on their cable boxes. The movies they show on Cinemax at night may not be "porn" to us but to the Jesus freaks they most certainly would be. And not exactly what you'd want a 12 year old watching. What "age verification" is there to stop a 12 year old from watching "Skinemax" as they call it? NONE.

look who's keeping the patriot act and possibly taking it to the next step. :thumbsup

Actually many people actually quit because smoking is too expensive or they cut back a lot. Both of those means those people will have LESS healthcare costs down the road. Of course since it's WE the taxpayer that would eventually pay those healthcare cost of smoking related illnesses I'm for anything that reduces that costs. It pisses me off when the smokers talk about their "rights", but then expect me to pay for their lung cancer treatment or heart bypass or oxygen tank when their "right" causes them health problems. Why shouldn't those smokers pay for their own healthcare costs?

I'm sure you know more about processing than me so I'll take your word for it.:thumbsup

i never claimed to know more than anyone. i'm just doing some research. my findings will be made public soon and you can issue retorts then.

stay tuned!

I'll await this breaking news with bated breath. :winkwink:

not so much breaking as people need to be brought up to speed on whats happening. since you seem so blahsay i can only imagine where you stand on it. it only takes a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone. visa doesn't need porn, porn needs visa.

where I stand?
I stand in the know.
odd, when I look around I don't see you there.

I hide in the shadows. Lot less egos here.
Since you know so much, do you want to enlighten us now as to why this doesn't matter?

no I do not.

pearls, swine, and all that :winkwink:

I'm more worried about taxes collected on behalf of states as "sales" tax. Like New York state already forces some online affiliate programs. The result? The programs ban affiliates from New York. When that hits adult, then people will be sure to bitch and have a for damn sure good reason. 8 other states have bills along these lines right now.

So... how are they going to regulate 14 year old intelligence and hormons? :error

Amen brother! You are 100% spot-on!

Abso-fucking-lutely! Well said!

Why do they ban affiliates from New York? Surely a New Jersey affiliate or any number of other non-New York affiliates can still sell into New York?

I usually avoid all remotely political conversations on industry boards, but can someone explain to me how the taxpayers are covering the costs of smoking? Big businesses, which buy overpriced insurance for all their employees, may have some costs if they want to insure poor risks, but they are already getting a tax break for paying in insurance, rather than money, anyway. We could close that loophole any time and get healthcare to rightprice in this country via the market, plus doctors would save money and be able to lower prices for not having to maintain staff to dunn deadbeat insurance companies.

The only reason the taxpayers have to worry about covering those costs is that insurance companies use your premiums to make investments and hope you don't need a payout too soon. A large percentage of America's billionaires made their dough by getting initial real $$$$ to play with from owning an insurance company. Which I would be fine with, except that, when they lose, instead of accepting that is how the market works, the AIG types cry to the government for a handout.

Yes, there are a small number of people on SSI or MediCal and similar programs getting free healthcare. Many of those sorts of programs require at least a pledge not to do drugs and drink and I'd be fine with it if they added cigs. I believe in freedom, but, if you take money from someone, then I think you become subject to what they want you to do with it.

Well, the state convinced a judge that an affiliate in the state was the same as having an actual store in the state. A "physical presence". Therefore, should not be exempt from collecting sales taxes on sales, like any other store. Thats why if you buy something on Amazon and have it delivered to a NY address, you have to pay tax. Overstock.com already bans affiliates from NY.

It's not hard to imagine that carrying over to any kind of sale, especially in NY where some services are already taxed.

An international mandatory .xxx would have much better effect. Simply shut down all domains who do not comply and are not "authorized" (like pirate sites).

Most porn today, which kids are exposed to, are naturally those sites who do not charge for the porn, like infringing sites. Doing this, will also have an effect on the numbers of and amount of content on legal sites, because the industry would not have to "compete" with massive dumps.

Well the bottom line is no matter where you stand on the free porn issue is that if we as a community can't come up with something to protect minors from viewing hardcore porn then the Governments will. Do you honestly believe that showing full length very graphic porn vids where anybody any age can get them would last forever?

I sure hope not. It is not good for anyone, on any level.

After having read the bill I can confidently say it will likely not pass and if it does pass it will be shot down by the courts before it goes into effect.

In the quick read I made this bill doesn?t appear to apply to free porn at all. In order for it to apply to your situation you have to be selling the subscription yourself or be some type of payment processor. If you?re an affiliate or a Tube site that doesn?t directly sell the membership the law would not apply. So the pay site tour itself would not be allowed to show trailers or pictures but the affiliate could show anything they wanted and the tube site could show the entire movie. It would actually strengthen the affiliate model IMO. I suppose it would impact tube sites that are selling premium memberships as they would have to eliminate those if they wanted to keep giving free porn away.

The bill is a lot different than the old COPA bill in that it requires you the site owner to come up with a foolproof way to conduct age verification. The system you devise must be able to pass an independent audit (that you pay for) and upon passing the audit you would receive a certificate which you could show to your payment processers to prove that you?re in compliance.

Mainstream outlets like cable is getting more and more hardcore. You can also get PPV hardcore porn on cable with the click of a button. (just a remote not a mouse). Sure its more prevelant online than off. But the point I was making is that what happens in the YOUR HOUSE, in many cases can not be prevent by ME. It is up to you. It is up to you to make sure your child is not watching porn on TV or the computer. When your child goes into MY physical store then the burden is on me to not sell to them. Big difference, you can't compare what happens in the home vs what happens outside of the house.

Hell you wont even need to live here or be a US citizen. Just have a lay over at an airport in the US as you are traveling from one country to another and you could be arrested. This would be no different than gambling laws.

now cmon, there you go making sense again! :1orglaugh

Most smokers don't die before 65. When one turns 65 in the US they get medicare. Medicare is paid for by the taxpayers. When you work 1.45% of your paycheck goes to give medicare to some old person. Your employer also pays an equal amount. Up until now the amount of money that comes in from medicare taxes has been enough to pay for all the costs. Not anymore. Costs are going up. Part of the reason is because people that have smoked and now need expensive treatments. Well benefits aren't going to get cut because that's political suicide, so the only solution is to increase the medicare taxes that come out of the paychecks of those that work.

Also although insurance companies charge higher premiums to smokers that doesn't compensate for all the extra expense smoking has. So the rest of the cost is paid for by the non-smokers.

Once again I don't see the logic of smoking being a "right" yet I, a non-smoker, am required to pay for a smoker's smoking related medical bills.

Look at it this way if you pay $1 per pack in "sin tax" and you smoke 2 packs a day over 40 years that $29k in taxes you paid. Getting treatment for lung cancer or heart surgery is going to cost A LOT more than that. A smoker is still getting off light. And everyone else is footing the bill.

Anyways this is getting off-topic.

And then pass laws requiring ISP to either block .XXX or force them to charge extra for it. How many people are going to call up their ISP and order the "porn access" even if it was free let alone cost extra? And I can guarantee you the ISPs would love the extra income they could get by selling access to porn sites for say $5 a month or more. Then of course when the surfer has paid his $5-$10 a month for "porn access" he's going to be a bit perplexed when some site asks him to buy a membership because in his mind he already paid for porn.

:error

You have a great grasp of our legal system. :2 cents:

Gosh, do you think they will give me a refund on the money I spent on law school?

Don't mind baddog, it's the Alzheimer's. He's like in his 70's you know.

Probably. How can a court strike down a law if it isn't enacted, someone arrested and convicted by a lower court?

Countries are already blocking porn sites, and the domain extension is irrelevant.
I am not talking about the extension, but some of the ideas. Domains can remain, but the operators should be "authorized" some way and comply with some common rules. If mandatory, worldwide, then you get rid of most of the non-commercial sites exposed to children.

The same way they did with COPPA somebody that doesn?t like the new law once it is passed goes to Federal Court and seeks an injunction from it being enforced (ideally before it goes into effect) until the constitutionality of it can be determined.

I will concede if there is an injunction it could.

If you want the long winded version of the argument it would be that there are less restrictive and equally or more effective means for the government to achieve the same goal of blocking kids from online porn. You would cite existing case law (like where the librarians lost the filters case) as the Supreme Court found that filters were an effective way to keep kids from seeing porn and you would also revisit the COPPA cases and point out how this new law is as restrictive and more restrictive in some ways as COPPA which the court found to be too restrictive. Also the lumping of porn in with the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco is highly suspect as you have no constitutional right to disseminate those materials, but you do have a right to disseminate protected speech.