Bit of confusion methinks. That paragraph is what people here saying that it shouldn't be regulated are referring to, not piracy/theft, which doesn't seem to be in their intended 'regulation' plan. They want to regulate content *they* deem as too extreme, they don't want to stamp out piracy/content theft.

Thing is, THIS generation/government might not want to ban porn, but what if the next one does, whether it's 5, 10, 15, or 20 years down the line? Regulating what people are choosing to see is different from getting rid of the scammers & thieves, and I don't see how allowing a gov't to choose what free-thinking individuals CHOOSE to see, because it doesn't fit in with their views, is going to help us as an industry fight the scammers/thieves.

So how would I like to see the Internet regulated more? Some of these would be hard to do and they would need fine tuning but this is what law making is about.

DMCA, it needs updating. The part that holds safe the hosting company from illegal content being uploaded is being abused. It's obvious that the people uploading some of the content to Tube sites do not own it, do not have the right to upload it and are breaking copyright laws. Content producers spend money to SELL their content, not for one person to buy and 10,000 to share.

2257. The idea that anyone can post porn content without effective proof the models agreed to it and are of legal age is wrong. You need to be able to prove you own content, or have the right to post it, the models agreed to it being published and are of legal age. Today the law requires you have a line of text at the bottom of your pages.

Spamming. The companies that are the problem are those sending out millions of emails a day. They can only do it because it costs little to send them. If it cost more they would not be profitable. Maybe the end of free unlimited emails is the solution. I have servers and a lot of hosting, for a small guy. That should give me the right to send out XYZ number of emails related to the size of my servers and hosting. My domestic home connection should also allow me to send out a set number. This would cost those sending out millions a day.

Domain Registration. If you run a commercial company taking money you domain registration should be 100% correct and open to authorities and people you authorize. I have seen domain registrations that are clearly fraudulent they. If you hide there's a good chance you have a reason for it. If you want to work from your back bedroom and don't want anyone to know fine. Just expect that the registration is accurate and open to the people who need to know. The idea that you can register a domain through an anonymous registry and take money on that domain is clearly wrong. You're running a business, be business like.

That one I expect to get the most flack. :winkwink:

Censorship. I see no reason other than on extreme violence, under age porn, and terrorist type activities that censorship should have a place on the Internet. However if a country has passed a law that a certain type of content is not available in a shop on their high street why should it be allowed on the Internet?

Under age access to porn. I'm not worried if a 16 year old sees a porn movie, I did and it clearly did not effect me. :1orglaugh

But a 6 year old should not be exposed to it. Not sure how that one would work but if they could solve it there would be a bonus for us. Maybe the easiest way is for Bill Gates to give Net Nanny away for free with every copy of Windows.

The problem of policing it across the world is not such a problem. Anyone clearly breaking the law on a repeat basis can have their site blocked by a country and yes they could eventually lose the domain. Who here would like to see Tube8 and Redtube lose their domain?

None of the above would mean the loss of porn on the Internet, in fact it could lead to more people making more money on the Adult Net.

Or we can keep going the way we are. :Oh crap

Awesome come back Markham.

Isn't that what people do at school?

Damian: "People that support censorship are retards"
Paulie: "You're a retard, more like, you retard"

For a man of your age I would have thought you'd have come up with something better than an 9 year old if you wanted to insult me.

Censorship is bad, Paulie. You and I disagree on many things, many technology things that you don't understand, but this time you really are astonishing me with your lack of thinking this through.

Just last week the UK demonstrated how there is a firewall here by censoring wikipedia. How long is it before they decide any 'young' girl content is now unsavoury and therefore illegal? Look at Australia and Germany recently for censorship...

For a man who makes a living shooting dry-cunted bored teenagers I wouldn't be championing censorship if I were you.

But come back and call me some names if it makes you feel better.

xxx

Of course you are wrong Paulie...

This is your problem, you don't really understand something fully before you form an opinion on it.

Australia
To be censored by the Australian Government is ?pornography and inappropriate material.?
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30...-the-internet/

And the EU:

The european parliament cast a staggering 460:0 vote against the blocking of adult, illegal and "harmful" content by isps.
http://www.euroispa.org/docs/childpr...2.pdf]EuroispA press release

Germany:

http://www.google.com/search?q=germa...20porn%20sites

And obviously the famous wikipedia case from last week in the UK, which has now thankfully been reversed.

So yes, Paulie, you are wrong. But, nothing new there.

Millions of people die in hospitals every year.

How can we stop it? The obvious solution is more regulation.

Murder rates are dangerously high in some places.

How can it be reduced? More regulation will certainly help.

When there is a problem, the solution is quite simple. You simply create new regulations.
Regulation always works because the regulators are just and benevolent ... unlike the common man who is quite devious.

Is you support internet regulation, then you are wise and morale. If you oppose internet regulation, then you are an anarchist. People who want to live without government (anarchists) are all criminals who believe theft and destruction are a way of life. Anyone who opposes government regulation is an anarchist ... which means evil, chaotic, robber, murderer, destroyer, rapist. There is nothing worse than an anarchist.

Wow.

So, if you think censorship is wrong you are a raping, murdering anarchist?

Awesome logic.

Is it time for your meds?

Oi, Paulie, did you forget about this thread?

xxx

If everyone thought like you we would be robots. Disgusting that nature fails man by so much today. You cannot fix the universe with "regulations" and it's far from easy or "simple".
It's human nature to rape murder and torment others just as well as it is to help love and nurture others, one side without the other makes life worthless, like the souls of the lifeless weak people who oppose anarchy. Nothing worse than them.

Correction.
For a man of your age I would have thought you'd be relaxing by the pool.


Working the internet in a cloud of nostalgic dreams must be hard work at best. I have the greatest respect for older people and some really do move and adapt with the times but sadly for most it?s just a frustrating fight against wishing it was all like the old days.

It's called making a hypothetical suggestion, you know, much the same way you are suggesting that politicians in the G8 would strive to help protect the businesses responsible for proliferating the Internet with pornography... where exactly did you get that information BTW?

I guess you feel that you're just a businessman like any other and should enjoy the same rights? Remember the tobacco industry? Governments decided that they didn't like that industry very much, taxes and regulations followed. Same thing has always been true for gambling.

I'm surprised that someone who's been around as long as you seem to think that porn is viewed as an acceptable or legitimate business in the eyes of any western society. In case you've missed it, this entire industry is generally viewed as the unfortunate side effect of having freedom of expression, something a society must endure but hardly embrace nor encourage. There are a lot more people in the world who just want to see you put in jail for making porn than there are people upset about your intellectual property rights being violated, and numbers is what politics is all about.

What the folks in this thread are saying when they say "no regulation" isn't that they enjoy getting their shit stolen, it's that they have enough hindsight to realize that the only reason we are currently here making any money from doing what we do, is the lack of regulation that allowed us to start selling porn on the Internet in the first place. :2 cents:

oh, and since you asked for information about a possible taxation of porn... and Berlusconi seems to be your new hero, take a look at this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/09/italy.film

But I'm sure he's just out to selflessly help you take down the evil tube sites this time around, so don't worry about anything, Paul! :winkwink:

internet should be censor-free zone

Thank you! Well said, I agree 100% :thumbsup

No, of course that would not be okay. But censoring and regulating the internet is not the solution. We have to look beyond the current security and prevention-tactics thinking and see if we can find new solutions that actually incorporates those who share our stuff. How, I dont know but I would rather deal with the status quo rather than having regulations put on the only true democratic scene we have today. It is vital to the planet right now.

If I have to deal with people stealing from me to allow for other people to express themselves in any way they want then fine, I will. There is soo much amazing information on the internet and I would hate to see it go away. Regulating the internet is like the old nazi book burnings.

If hospitals had less regulation would they save more lives?

If there was no law against murder would it be safer?

No is the answer to both and anyone who thinks regulation can solve everything is a fool. But look at the situation the world is in now. We are in a recession and facing a depression. There are many reasons, one of the main ones is the lack of regulations, the poor ones and the way they were enforced on banking and financial sectors. Do you think we would be better with no regulations at all?

Many are losing their jobs due to the lack of regulations on the Internet. Yet some here think we should have none at all. Do they want the little we have taken away completely or kept as is?

But reading what I posted I see some of you did not read it. So here it is again.

Are you saying that if a country passes a law stating Bestiality for instance is illegal in that country you want to be able to see or sell it there on the Internet? Other than that I said the Internet should not be censored.

Are you saying the present DMCA law is good enough? Some think it should be done away with completely. Yes that would be good wouldn't it and the result of no regulations.

So I should be able to put up any content I like with or without the models agreement, proof of age or proof of ownership?

Unlike most of you I have worked in other forms of porn production where laws do matter, I have also worked when censorship was a lot tighter than it was today. I worked and I made a good living. Some of you seem to think it would be the end of porn. You're 101% wrong. Laws and taxes apply to high street shops regarding what they do, can and can't sell. Has porn disappeared from the high street? Have people stopped buying luxury goods because of higher taxes?

No they have not and it shows how wrong you all are.

Damian go read what I said about censorship and think about it. I said nothing except for what an individual country says is legal. Do you think the laws of the UK don't apply to you because you work on the Internet?

Do you have any suggestions how we deal with them other than us selling our content to them? Why should they buy it if they can steal it without the regulations to enforce them to buy. Yes they steal anyway, which means we need better regulations not none at all.

Linking what I said to Nazi book burning is as wrong as thinking you can work with people who have no need of you. Read what I said about High Street shops, for Americans it could mean Main Street shops. :)

This might be interesting for some of you.

But you want no regulations, so 2257 should not apply and you should be able to post what you like. :1orglaugh

Tube Sites Likely Liable Under Revised 2257 Provisions, Attorney Says. So that applies to people stealing content as well.

Just seen your new store. Will be logging in and buying all the content to put on my stores and resell. I expect you to keep to your word and work with me on this one. :winkwink:

No just have a life outside this thread. LOL

I can see why you're against better domain registration. I checked the Who is on 3wayscash.com. Hidden for a reason?

No worries, I will also be logging in to your sites and downloading all the content to also put in the stores. I expect you to hold to your word that the Internet should be unregulated. Or do you think it should be?

Anyone else think the Internet should be free from regulation and want to prove it?

The above is my sarcastic humor and proving that people are not as free thinking as they say they are. They see no problem with stealing from others, like P2P, Tubes, etc and do not want regulations to slow it down, not stop it Damian, again slow it down. But do they support it when it comes to someone stealing from them?

I doubt it.

Note my thread further down below about sites purely to rip off credit cards but there's always chargeback!
Piracy well everyone is guilty of it in some form or another and a lot of material is simply not worth paying for whether it be films cds or whatever if only everything could be balanced between what is fair and what is not.

i would like to see Paul Markham banned from the net and his shitty content burnt. that is true regulation.

Everyone to their own someone ask me my opinion on regulation!

This is the result of 20 years of little to no regulation.

Look at the case of Crescent who were ripping off credit cards. If you have no regulation would that be legal or do the laws of the land take precedence? Or are some saying we should be selective about what laws we do keep and which ones we ignore?

The whole thing about "No Regulation or Censorship" confuses me. Are they saying we should be able to do as we please because it's the Internet. Or are they saying the laws of the land apply? Today we know they do, the problem is they were written before the Internet became what it is today. I think they should be adjusted to suit today's Internet.

Maybe Damian, kandah, Vixenator, Donfoolio, Ravensp and others should explain exactly what they mean by "No Regulation or Censorship". For instance if it's legal in a country for 15 year olds to have sex should it be legal to put up content of them having sex? I don't think so and want it both censored and regulated against. Do they think it should be allowed?

So DollarKing do you think the Internet should be regulated and censored or not?

As for content not being worth buying, that's something I have been saying for a long time. The problem is the thieves will steal good and great content. They use "not worth buying" as an excuse for theft.

bump bump

The internet is self-regulating. For the most part, you don't have to see crap if you don't want to. You don't have to see porn if you don't want to. Gmail's' SPAM filter is 99.9% effective. And Google almost always figures out exactly what you are searching for.

The government does not like porn. We have the biggest porn industry, but Brazil is a close second. Many US Attorneys put obscentity prosecutions at a higher priority than other more serious crimes. Infact, two US Attorneys were dismissed because they did not prosecute enough obscenity prosecutions. The US government cannot get rid of porn overnight, but they can gradually restrict what they consider acceptable until everybody is fully clothed. You saw what happened with Janet Jackson's nipple. And I know that it was daytime television, but everybody's seen a nipple. A man's nipple and a women's nipple look alike. You've seen your own nipples and they don't look much different from the one that was on television. But when some Christian's started to complain, the FTC had to fine them. And as somebody pointed out, many communities do not allow adult video stores.

Lets be clear about one thing. The people who will make regulations for the internet don't use the internet very much. They aren't going to be regulating their use. They'll be regulating OUR use.

I never said that we should be allowed to infringe on others' intellectual property rights. But deleting domain names for copyright infringement is unacceptable and will only result in abuse. Domain names should not be taken down without Court intervention, not with somebody writing a false complaint to a registrar and getting a site shut down 5 minutes later. The DMCA take-down process has already demonstrated that.

GFY already doesn't let me post stolen content. But there is nothing that STOPS me from posting stolen content. I can post stolen content right now if I wanted to. I can post links to stolen content. Under your system, that would be enough to get the GFY domain name taken away. Google is full of links to stolen content.

Copyright holders want to change the internet so that we can't post anything without their approval. Every single web page that is created or updated would not be live until subjected to review, and that is not an acceptable route.

DMCA - There is way more abuse on the part of copyright holders sending out false notices. The folks at removeyourcontent.com are idiots. They send out false notices every day, AND they make threats of litigation without authorization from their clients. BayTSP is no better, and in the Youtube vs Viacom case, a lot of the crap that they have been doing is now coming forward.

We also need to get rid of "contributory infringement". Only direct infringement should be prosecuted. Linking to infringing content is not infringement. You can link to a page and the content could change.

Ultimately, the courts have already decided that tube sites CANNOT determine whether or not an uploaded porn video is copyrighted. The DMCA already says that you are liable for copyright infringement if you know that the infringement is taking place. What more could you possibly want? Congress isn't going to make absolute liability regardless of knowledge. That would put an end to every single hosting company. A Service Provider cannot be expected to proactively monitor every single customer all the time and detect every single instance of copyright infringement.

SPAM - It's called a SPAM filter. Gmail's is 99.9% effective. I received 10,000 SPAM e-mails in the last month, and all but 4 ended up in the SPAM folder. There were no false positives.

The idea of charging you to send e-mail is many years old. Charging a penny per e-mail could work. A typical internet user wouldn't even pay a dollar per month. But spammers would be broke. Of course, I don't know how they would implement this system. The network that is sending the e-mail would pay the network that is accepting it. But many networks wouldn't agree to this protocol and therefore wouldn't be able to send e-mail to many other networks.

Domain Name Information - It is already mandatory to keep your registration accurate, and registars investigate inaccurate domain names. Do you know how many domain names exist? Some people own thousands of names. How would we confirm the accuracy of all of their whois data? DomainsByProxy, etc already give information to the authorities in response to a valid subpoena. Smart scammers will always get away using a proxy, pre-paid credit card, false information, offshore bank account, etc. Dumb scammers will get caught. It's easy for a scammer to set up mail forwarding or a PO Box under a fake ID, and get a pre-paid cell phone.

Making it more complicated will just piss off legitimate users and drive up the costs, especially for people who park domain names.

Censorship - It sucks because sometimes you just need to say fuck. The internet isn't a street. A country can say a certain product can't be sold in a store because people pass by that store and some of them will get offended. But the internet allows you to view content of your choice.

NetNanny does not work. Smart kids will find a way around it, and stupid kids will watch the porn at their friends house. And kids with stupid parents will have computers where the NetNanny isn't on.

Countries already block sites that they don't like. Getting them to block content that YOU don't like isn't going to happen.

Paul and others wanting new regulations are falling into the
same faulty thinking that they do time and time again though
it always comes back to bite them in the ass. Maybe they'll
just require 2257 info, Paul says. I'm on board in the hopes
they'll make contet theft illegal too, he says. I'll go along hoping
they'll regulate scams, another person says. THOSE LAWS
ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. NEW laws must therefore
make illegal something which is currently legal. No new laws
are needed in order to require 2257 - you actually want them
to enforce the existing law. Scams are illegal - you too want
more ENFORCEMENT, not more regulation.

We see this over and over. Some guy attacks some people with
a knife. More weapons laws, Paul and his many of his fellow
Brits cry. More and more laws until the British Olympic shooting
team isn't even allowed to practice in their own country, and
all the while with each new law violent crime increases dramatically
as law enforcement is told to chase down Olympic athletes rather
than criminals (who were criminals before all of Paul's new laws,
attacking people has always been illegal).

The more intensely hardcore stuff on the web is already illegal
under existing obscenity laws, Paul. New laws can only go after
new things, like say new expanded regulations against
"simulated child porn" to cover a woman pretending to be
a high school cheerleader:
http://www.paulmarkham.com/sets/009415/cat.jpg
If you want new laws banning new things, I'm sure a lot of PTA
moms would vote for a politician who banned this:
http://www.paulmarkham.com/sets/902410/cat.jpg
the church ladies would be all about banning this homosexuality,
this simulation of the 16 year granddaughters fornicating:
http://www.paulmarkham.com/sets/001415/cat.jpg

Yes, when you get on board with those who call for new
"regulations", these are the people who run around talking
about "fornication" and they'll be all too happy to ban this
incestuous obscenity like this:
http://bettercgi.com/tmp/incest.jpg

Would you like to reduce scams, ok, great, call for enforcement
of those laws. Copyright enforcement, fine, call for enforcment
of copyright regulations. Stop falling into the mental trap, though,
of thinking that new laws to ban new things are somehow the
solution to stop things which are already illegal under existing
regulations.

I wouldn't

Well said! :thumbsup

I agree the thinking that more regulation will save everything is counter productive. I don't know why people subscribe to that kind of thinking. The only word for it I can think of is "coward". Giving up more freedom for safety that in all reason should be secured by ones self is cowardice plain and simple.