|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That said, I think there are a lot of people in this industry that have something of value to impart. It really has little to do with their job titles or descriptions, or even their industry history, but rather their intelligence, and grasp of the broad view of the current state of the industry. |
Quote:
The flip side of the same coin also holds true. Many with impressive titles and lengthy industry history impart very little of value, even though they have plenty to say. |
Good thread.
If anyone has posted the whole video - please post a link :) Hey Colin - long time no see.... |
I'm still a little surprised that nobody asked about the "WHY?" to .xxx
Possibly because .xxx had already been accepted, and it became now more important to talk about how it would or could affect those who use it, or decide not to use it. Originally, all we ever heard about was how .xxx was going to keep adult-oriented material away from the eyes of minors, and prevent CP, etc... Barely a word of this was mentioned throughout this entire seminar. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Jay asked about the whole "protection of children" thing, and it more or less was pushed aside when CP started to get mentioned. |
Quote:
Here is the conundrum, for .xxx to be effective in "protecting" kids from porn then porn would have to be removed from all other tld's (.com,.net etc). If not, then there is the same amount of porn out there and the same amount of kids being exposed to it on the .com's so then .xxx does nothing to protect them. The whole "protect" kids theory (which is what he was pushing as justification for .xxx) can only be accomplished by placing all porn on .xxx ONLY. Which I think is what Lawley's agenda really is. Obviously he wont say that now and might never admit to it, but he has every incentive in the world for porn to be mandated to .xxx. It would make him hundreds of millions of dollars more if it was mandated vs just another tld that some people were blackmailed into buying. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It was probably lost in the shuffle because no such benefits were divulged in the answers, plus Greg Dumas jumped in before Vaughn could really address the question and tried to spar. Anyhow, you'll see it when the video is posted. I tried. |
Thanks for posting the closing statements Chris.
|
Yeah I asked the question about child protection and it was glossed over. Greg Dumas chose not to chime in about it. I wanted to know if .xxx was pushing the protecting children from accessing adult sites angle. Then someone brought up CP... which has absolutely nothing to do with whether a minor is able to access adult sites or not.
|
Quote:
sex.com + sex.xxx = two domains exposing kids to porn And so on. Why this simple fact hasn't been drilled into them into their eyes bled, is beyond me. |
Quote:
This is the biggest scam our industry has ever seen and surprisingly no industry attorneys were able to stop it. I have to wonder just how hard they tried, as this thing is full of pitfalls and does nothing to protect children. IMHO, they are boiling frogs. This is just the beginning of something big. "Step One" was a huge success. |
Quote:
"? All registrants of .XXX must agree to third-party automated monitoring of their sites for compliance of IFFOR policies ? AND you will have to purchase your domain name before you even know what those policies are. ? Aliases (.XXX and .com going to the same site) require that related .coms adhere to IFFOR policies. " Sounds lame. :2 cents: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But yeah i agree, it will produce more than what is there now. <- that is the argument of the religious, anti porn people, that its going to make 2x more adult content on the net. I beleive the govt is against it mainly because they don't want to legitimize it. Bottom line is, no one fucking wants it except ICM.... but yet it was approved. $$$$$$$$$ talks. |
Quote:
I'd also like to thank Mojo for yanking back Ronnie's chain and getting him out of this thread so he can leave it to the grown ups to discuss business. |
So if a webmaster's niches are not approved [I'm thinking cambria list?] or are considered too high risk by ICM/IFFOR's lawyers and they have bound their .com to a new matching .xxx they could be out of luck.
Surprise, you're fucked.. . |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh, and the 5 "from the industry" on the board... they have to apply for the position (I wonder who will get those spots?) like they're applying for a job, and ICM picks them. So don't think we all get to vote on who gets in there. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Where do you apply? I'll through my hat in that ring just to keep some God damned common sense in the mix. :upsidedow |
Quote:
http://www.mikemercury.net/mmp1.JPG |
Quote:
"Thank you for your interest in serving on the IFFOR council. Unfortunately... " [you can figure out the rest at this point] |
Quote:
|
Of the 5 that are to represent the industry, one is supposed to be from a trade association, and one is supposed to be a child protection advocate. We were also informed that these are not paid positions. These people will be chosen by ICM - as an industry, we don't get a vote.
|
|
Quote:
There are still a few of us around that have a good memory of how some indignant players got kicked out of clubs and hotels for not knowing how to dress and behave properly. Or remember Hooper grabbing up some "porn pussy" because she had to be a slut and whore right? She was tallent at a show! Or Pimpdogg jerking his dick on cam for gay guys to make money. Or others that took polaroids and pedaled their wives nekkid ass and later appalled by such displays of debauchery because they were serious bidness men! Or even the guys that "hot chatted" up members in chat in those lucrative Yahoo Groups to get them to renew just another month to a site that they had bought all the content for and never even met the girl. Sounds kinda gay to me... not that theres anything wrong with that. As much as many try and rewrite history by grandstanding on GFY there are still those of us that know the truth. You are in for much entertainment if your just now discovering all of this... |
Quote:
|
Old school. We did it for the lulz.
|
Quote:
;-) |
:winkwink:but mom, it's not a .xxx site, it's a .com I didn't know there was going to be porn on it
|
Quote:
Mom calls congressman "Mr. Dickhead politician, why do you allow there to be porn on .com sites. Little Johnny just went to a .com website and saw girls getting gang banged. Why isn't all porn moved over to .xxx so I can block it and protect my kids from it!!!" "Ma'am, I thought that is why they created .xxx to protect kids, I don't know why there is still porn on .com. I will talk to my fellow congressman and see what we can do about this. Will you vote for me again? " Couple years later, on GFY after a republican president is in office and there is republican control the house and senate... you see new posts: " Oh fuck, can you believe this new legislation they are trying to pass...." The few people left making money from porn reply: "adapt or die" "links pulled" (Lawley laughs his way all the way to the bank :mad: ) / the end |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
wow! the trolls all came out of the woodwork.
willy got a little liquid courage and made his typical insiteful posts and we even have fat gonzo troll thru, pretending to know how his betters started. tell us, troll, where did I get my name? I love these nobodies who pretend to have secret info. Should be interesting to see what it looked like from the outside. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's my take on the panel and the .xxx uproar. first, the panel got off on the wrong foot because of the first couple of audience questions. Those of us with a potential (or real) business interest are far more interested in the legal stuff (trademark, how they set rules, etc) and the business stuff (auctioning of names, etc). Instead, we sat thru a needless half hour about pricing (totally irrelevant as the market will drive the price), the protect children angle (equally irrelevant. who gives a fuck what their angle is. they worked it and won), and a couple other of irrelevant side bars. Wasn't Colin's fault since you can't control who raises their hand but a lot of us were rolling our eyes and hoping we'd hear from Vaughn and Greg. Bottom line in my opinion is that .xxx is way over hyped. You'll NEVER be forced by the US government into using it. It's very doubtful that you'll be forced by the EU either. If you have something of value, trademark it (you know, like real businesses do). The likely hood of google weighting .xxx higher than .com for adult terms is, imo, very unlikely. Thats an issue if it were to come about. Other than that, I see no real threat to .com holders. I personally won't be a buyer of .xxx simply because I don't want to be. I don't want to give up control of my warning page and don't want to be regulated by anything but the first amendment. I don't see a value in .xxx because of the higher costs in basic price and the likely auction price of premier domains. I also think you WILL see colleges and emerging markets (and others) blocking the domain. To me, from a business prospective, I'll pass. I just don't see why people in our industry are applauding guys running around with pitchforks and shouting about shit that doesn't matter. And as was said over and over amongst those of us with actual businesses, I (we) gotta hand it to these guys. They found a way to make money (potentially) and as a capitalist, how can I be against that? Of course I'd have just stayed in the back ground and snapped up my millions and not put myself out there to answer any question that came at them. I applaud them for that and also again, CCBill for being able to get them to speak. |
oh, the one REALLY interesting part was in identifying yourself as a pornographer and what you peddle as pornography especially as a US citizen via using .xxx domains. The two lawyers had different takes on it but I found THAT to be the most interesting topic.
|
Thanks for the insight, nice to see a well thought out opinion on this issue from someone who was there.
|
Quote:
We know the attorneys make out like bandits. But someone has to pay the bills. I once heard an attorney describe .XXX as "forced dues paying" to me. So option one is to roll the cost of lawsuits into .XXX domains themselves, and make the people who buy into .XXX pay the bill. There's justice in that really. But the problem is then the entity that most stands to benefit from .XXX is the one fighting mandates that would make them a ton of money? How would that make sense? The second option would be for the FSC to fight; once again then the people who support the FSC, the people opposed to .XXX happening in the first place, now have to pick up the bill. And then as attorney Jeffrey Douglas said at the panel... even if you are coming from the best position in the world and it seems impossible to lose, sometimes you lose anyway. Sadly there's nothing that can be done about any of this now, unless there's some means to sue ICANN and end .XXX -- or at least delay its implementation. But even then... more $$$$$. |
@ Connor: I only think that ICANN decisions like the creation of .xxx can only be appealed to ICANN directly. Technically they are an "international body (for lack of a better term)" governed by their own by-laws. |
Quote:
In terms of them being governed by their own bylaws... I don't think they pay too much attention to their own rules anymore, otherwise .XXX would not have been approved. There needs to be a community support requirement satisfied, and I don't see how they can possibly claim that it was in fact satisfied. At least not in any way that would fail to induce laughter. One nice thing about the lawsuit path would be discovery. Wouldn't it be fun to compel organizations to release all kinds of documents about who they're doing business with? :thumbsup:thumbsup And where their "support" comes from? :pimp:pimp |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Seems ICANN is incorporated in California |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123