Tubes?! Major Law Proposed Today By Senators Today. - GoFuckYourself.com

davecummings · 11-15-2010, 10:18 PM

Should content providers and other Adult Industry folks root for (or against?) this proposed law that might alleviate piracy, but......

Helpful and serious comments, one way or the other?:

http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=44979

I wonder if all or some of this same group of senators (or other federal legislators) might later also propose a law to corral/ghetto-ize ALL adult sites into .xxx (if it gets approved), and subsequently propose/author a law to require that all American ISPs disconnect all .xxx from the Internet? Scary, huh?!

Seems to me like content providers, et. al., need to seriously consider stepping up to the plate to financially support and become full-fledged members of the Free Speech Coalition for the continuing and extremely important fights against matters like:

Piracy
.xxx
2257
CA/OSHA

Just sayin' and opinin'

KillerK · 11-15-2010, 10:20 PM

Please explain Dave why you support Xbiz & ASACP, but don't support .XXX

They both stand to make a shit-ton of cash when it finally passes.

dmhubby · 11-15-2010, 10:36 PM

That law proposal is shit and the Music and Movie people are behind it. The Justice Department is going to give to shits about some porn tube. Just my 2 cents.

davecummings · 11-15-2010, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerK

Please explain Dave why you support Xbiz & ASACP, but don't support .XXX

They both stand to make a shit-ton of cash when it finally passes.

Gosh, I merely posted an informative link from the Gene Ross site that might be a game-changer; I did not expect to be attacked, or whatever your comments were meant to do. Now, I can't say that I've seen any factual proof (yet, anyhow---maybe something will surface down-the-road?) of what you said above. Have you actual and positive proof right now of what you opined above about Xbiz, or ASACP?

I am against .xxx, and won't recite here why I don't like .xxx---after all the stuff these past years, you should already well know the issues around .xxx

Show me where I have actually/strongly/"whatever" supported the entities you cited.

Now, how can I NOT like/appreciate/support the work that ASACP presently does in the fight against cp? And, frankly, since Mike South (was it him, I can't recall for sure?) says that Mr Helmy has stated that he is not supporting .xxx, how can you expect me to not support the many good things that Mr Helmy and Xbiz has done for you, me, and the Adult Internet Industry?

I suggest that we discuss/comment about the above link, and not get side-tracked in demands for anyone to explain themselves. It's about the issues, not ..............

Gosh!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, lest the "tube" aspect of this tread and the ******** link be deflected away from the focus/intent of this GFY thread, may we now please get back to http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=44979 ?????

Nautilus · 11-15-2010, 11:15 PM

Sure they're not going to bother with porn tube sites, but is this passes it'll help us anyway, by reducing the overall amount of piracy and by making hosting and other service companies more cautious when it comes to clients like this.

It'll also hit cyberlocker sites that are used both for mainstream and adult piracy like rapidshare and clones - the less money they make, the better. If they start closing mainstream rapidshare blogs and forums that post links to stolen Hollywood movies, they'll sell less premium memberships, meaning they have to cut on their expenses, reducing the amount of servers and bandwidth available etc, meaning less of the pirated materials can be uploaded because the'll have to delete some in order to make room for new uploads. Also if the pie is shrinking, probably we'll see only 20 rapidshare clones left instead of the current 200. And the ones who're left probably will be more reasonable and start to block infringing files like rapidshare does, instead of just making new link available for the uploader to replace the removed one like most of them currently do.

So I see this as a good thing overall.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 11-15-2010, 11:31 PM

Thanks for posting this info Dave.

While I have much respect for the EFF, I feel at times they go overboard, and in effect, actually advocate on behalf of content/copyright thieves.

Their e-Ivory Tower perspective, and lack of skin in the game, clouds their better judgement at times.

ADG

KillerK · 11-15-2010, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

Gosh, I merely posted an informative link from the Gene Ross site that might be a game-changer; I did not expect to be attacked, or whatever your comments were meant to do. Now, I can't say that I've seen any factual proof (yet, anyhow---maybe something will surface down-the-road?) of what you said above. Have you actual and positive proof right now of what you opined above about Xbiz, or ASACP?

I am against .xxx, and won't recite here why I don't like .xxx---after all the stuff these past years, you should already well know the issues around .xxx

Show me where I have actually/strongly/"whatever" supported the entities you cited.

Now, how can I NOT like/appreciate/support the work that ASACP presently does in the fight against cp? And, frankly, since Mike South (was it him, I can't recall for sure?) says that Mr Helmy has stated that he is not supporting .xxx, how can you expect me to not support the many good things that Mr Helmy and Xbiz has done for you, me, and the Adult Internet Industry?

I suggest that we discuss/comment about the above link, and not get side-tracked in demands for anyone to explain themselves. It's about the issues, not ..............

Gosh!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, lest the "tube" aspect of this tread and the ******** link be deflected away from the focus/intent of this GFY thread, may we now please get back to http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=44979 ?????

open your eyes old man,

https://gfy.com/7471744-post34.html

Maybe you missed shit, but I'm sure you were around back then.

Tickler · 11-15-2010, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Sure they're not going to bother with porn tube sites, but is this passes it'll help us anyway, by reducing the overall amount of piracy and by making hosting and other service companies more cautious when it comes to clients like this.

Well, a law is a law is a law.

They may not want to "bother with porn tube sites", but if they don't it opens the doors to negative discrimination.

So if somebody puts Avatar up on one of the sites, can they argue why come after me, but not the ones putting up porn movies?

Odin · 11-15-2010, 11:58 PM

The minute something like this is signed, the Government from that time will only ever expand its claws into the internet. That can only be a bad thing for anyone doing Porn. Do you think the Patriot Act will ever go away? Once freedom is taken it rarely is given back.

davecummings · 11-16-2010, 12:07 AM

For Connor Young---is this link still presently applicable, or has Joan/Mr Helmy/Xbiz published something whereby it's no longer necessarily (since ICM no longer has been specifically citing ASACP to get a portion of each registration?) up to date?

Dave
"old man"

Barry-xlovecam · 11-16-2010, 12:19 AM

Quote:

N THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 20, 2010

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

When the Majority and Minority Leaders names both appear on legislation the likelihood of the bill being released from committee is very good.

The bill calls for "in rem" actions against domain names, rather than persons, calling for forfeiture. "in rem" is a legal action against property and not a person.

So, if the registrar is US based ...

Quote:

`(c) In Rem Action-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may commence an in rem action against any domain name used by an Internet site in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar or domain name registry is located, or, if pursuant to subsection (d)(2), in the District of Columbia, if--

`(A) the domain name is dedicated to infringing activities; and

`(B) the Attorney General simultaneously--

`(i) sends a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this subsection to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar, if available; and

`(ii) publishes notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.

In other words, if the information at the registrar is incorrect you will not be notified of the legal action "in rem." And without personal service, the action will continue against your "property" ? the domain name. If on US soil, perhaps the in rem action would be against the physical server(s) also.

I made a copy in PDF of the bill's text from thomas.gov

This bill would attempt to impose some extraterritorial regulation by the taking of action in rem. Like trial "in absentia" sort of as a layman's explanation.

As to the likelihood of a case of porn infringement being pursued ...

Quote:

SEC. 3. REQUIRED ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

The Attorney General shall--

(1) publish procedures to receive information from the public about Internet sites that are dedicated to infringing activities, as that term is defined under section 2324 of title 18, United States Code;

(2) provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about what information such rights holders should provide the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation pursuant to such section 2324;

(3) provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about how to supplement an ongoing investigation initiated pursuant to such section 2324;

(4) establish standards for prioritization of actions brought under such section 2324; and

(5) provide appropriate resources and procedures for case management and development to affect timely disposition of actions brought under such section 2324.

How high infringement in the porn industry would be subject in the AG's prioritization standards is at question. However, considering that one of the bill's sponsors is the Minority Leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orin Hatch R. (UT), who also is a proponent of anti-porn legislation, including being the author of the §2257A statue enacted as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act signed into law by US President GW Bush on July 27, 2006.

So, in an ongoing attempt to repress the dissemination of "pornographic adult material" which is legal and allowed speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution ? I would expect there to be a major drive by the Religious-Right, the *Fundies* as we call them, to use this law, if enacted, as a tool to "stamp out the spread of porn corrupting our youth on the Internet."

Odin · 11-16-2010, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

When the Majority and Minority Leaders names both appear on legislation the likelihood of the bill being released from committee is very good.

The bill calls for "in rem" actions against domain names, rather than persons, calling for forfeiture. "in rem" is a legal action against property and not a person.

So, if the registrar is US based ...

In other words, if the information at the registrar is incorrect you will not be notified of the legal action "in rem." And without personal service, the action will continue against your "property" ? the domain name. If on US soil, perhaps the in rem action would be against the physical server(s) also.

I made a copy in PDF of the bill's text from thomas.gov

This bill would attempt to impose some extraterritorial regulation by the taking of action in rem. Like trial "in absentia" sort of as a layman's explanation.

As to the likelihood of a case of porn infringement being pursued ...

How high infringement in the porn industry would be subject in the AG's prioritization standards is at question. However, considering that one of the bill's sponsors is the Minority Leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orin Hatch R. (UT), who also is a proponent of anti-porn legislation, including being the author of the §2257A statue enacted as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act signed into law by US President GW Bush on July 27, 2006.

So, in an ongoing attempt to repress the dissemination of "pornographic adult material" which is legal and allowed speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution ? I would expect there to be a major drive by the Religious-Right, the *Fundies* as we call them, to use this law, if enacted, as a tool to "stamp out the spread of porn corrupting our youth on the Internet."

But the question is, whether the US is exerting control over the TLD system of .com . net .org, etc. Is it only if the domain is at a "US registrar" or are they saying, as they have in the past, that any .com , .net , .org , etc is technically under US control through ICANN and the root servers regardless of the registrar location, the registrant country or what country it is hosted in?

Barry-xlovecam · 11-16-2010, 12:30 AM

I am simply saying that if the domain taken "in rem" is with a US registrar ? that domain's lease (commonly called ownership) will be revoked by court order. Any server of that domain on US territory would be shut down also.

davecummings · 11-16-2010, 12:31 AM

I just now emailed Connor asking him to respond to posting #10; it seems like there was some subsequent denunciation by ASACP (or X-biz?) to their initial support letter, but I'm and "old man" so I can't recall it for sure. Connor will know, though.

Even so, KillerK, notwithstanding postings # 2 and # 7 of this thread, Connor's 2005 posting doesn't mean that I personally have supported ASACP for anything other than their past and present efforts to curb cp, and I certainly did NOT support that letter that Connor cited.

But, you're 100% correct about one thing, namely that I am an "old man", something that even you might be lucky enough to be called some day:-).

And, now, back to substance, PLEASE!!!

billywatson · 11-16-2010, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerK

open your eyes old man,

https://gfy.com/7471744-post34.html

Maybe you missed shit, but I'm sure you were around back then.

What a dick.

Learn some respect, fucktard.

Paul Markham · 11-16-2010, 04:22 AM

Should the Internet be immune to the law?

If so why not laws on CP?

The wild west days are coming to an end. Adapt or die.

Va2k · 11-16-2010, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billywatson

What a dick.

Learn some respect, fucktard.

Odin · 11-16-2010, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Should the Internet be immune to the law?

If so why not laws on CP?

The wild west days are coming to an end. Adapt or die.

There is a difference between laws and bypassing due process altogether.

Paul Markham · 11-16-2010, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odin

There is a difference between laws and bypassing due process altogether.

Well if it becomes law it won't bypass the law or due process.

Quote:

It also protects against abuse by allowing only the Justice Department to initiate an action, and by giving a federal court the final say about whether a particular site should be shut down.

It will be interesting to see how it effects sites like Youtube.

As I said the days of the Wild West are coming to an end. Adapt or die.

Odin · 11-16-2010, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

As I said the days of the Wild West are coming to an end. Adapt or die.

Just like you adapted to the age of the tubes? So you are suggesting tube owners should come here and whine like bitches?

StinkyPink · 11-16-2010, 06:04 AM

Today? Just checking.

Kiopa_Matt · 11-16-2010, 06:17 AM

Wow, this is like the mafia at its finest. Bow to our commands & desires, or we'll shut you down.

Scary...

Redrob · 11-16-2010, 06:36 AM

Like a two edged sword, legislation can help or harm, depending on how it is used (or not used).

Personally, I'd like to see piracy shut down. But, I'm not sure this is the best way. More information will be needed concerning enforcement policies.

Phoenix · 11-16-2010, 06:38 AM

has anyone digested this in full yet?

Can we get a breakdown from Quentin from topbucks please

Kiopa_Matt · 11-16-2010, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Like a two edged sword, legislation can help or harm, depending on how it is used (or not used).

Personally, I'd like to see piracy shut down. But, I'm not sure this is the best way. More information will be needed concerning enforcement policies.

This DEFINITELY isn't the way to go about it, and how it's currently coming it, seems like this law was written by corporations. If they're going to do this right, there should be a procedure in place, and more of a dispute resolution type of thing.

With how its currently worded, sounds as though some government official can just get a brown paper bag, then turn around and shut a site down. No defense or appeal process available. It'll turn into whoever has the most money, wins.

seeandsee · 11-16-2010, 06:44 AM

I can't say what tubes should look next yr, but some experts let's hear what are good directions

pornlaw · 11-16-2010, 06:54 AM

This will never be applied to adult tube sites. Somewhere there are politicians, DOJ attorneys and FBI agents all huddled together singing Kumbaya thanking God that piracy did what they couldnt do - effectively - kill the industry.

V_RocKs · 11-16-2010, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

Gosh, I merely posted an informative link from the Gene Ross site that might be a game-changer; I did not expect to be attacked, or whatever your comments were meant to do. Now, I can't say that I've seen any factual proof (yet, anyhow---maybe something will surface down-the-road?) of what you said above. Have you actual and positive proof right now of what you opined above about Xbiz, or ASACP?

I am against .xxx, and won't recite here why I don't like .xxx---after all the stuff these past years, you should already well know the issues around .xxx

Show me where I have actually/strongly/"whatever" supported the entities you cited.

Now, how can I NOT like/appreciate/support the work that ASACP presently does in the fight against cp? And, frankly, since Mike South (was it him, I can't recall for sure?) says that Mr Helmy has stated that he is not supporting .xxx, how can you expect me to not support the many good things that Mr Helmy and Xbiz has done for you, me, and the Adult Internet Industry?

I suggest that we discuss/comment about the above link, and not get side-tracked in demands for anyone to explain themselves. It's about the issues, not ..............

Gosh!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, lest the "tube" aspect of this tread and the ******** link be deflected away from the focus/intent of this GFY thread, may we now please get back to http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=44979 ?????

You think he attacked you?

minicivan · 11-16-2010, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

You think he attacked you?

Why are you attacking Dave?

pornguy · 11-16-2010, 07:46 AM

The biggest problem I have with these people passing laws that effect us is what they sneak through on page 1256 of a 3k page doc. And the fact that few if any of them know much about the online industry in general.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-16-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

This will never be applied to adult tube sites. Somewhere there are politicians, DOJ attorneys and FBI agents all huddled together singing Kumbaya thanking God that piracy did what they couldnt do - effectively - kill the industry.

Or, "My enemy's enemy is my friend."

This may very well be the outcome with any enacted statute being applied toward movies, music, etc. .

However, the successful use of the in rem process in this manner, with it's extraterritorial aspects with regard to the international presence of the Internet, sets a disturbing precedent.

Alluding to the industry's concerns of the .xxx matter, this in rem precedent might give any US statute teeth on extraterritorial persons, making them, by their property, subject to any future law requiring the operators in the adult industry use the sTLD of .xxx ? there is reasonable cause for some paranoia in this in rem precedent.

fatfoo · 11-16-2010, 08:00 AM

"The "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” (COICA) would give the government power to censor web sites that provide illegal access to intellectual properties such as movies, music, software, and that unlawfully sell pharmaceuticals and counterfeit goods."

This is interesting. Sure, it all sounds reasonable...

u-Bob · 11-16-2010, 08:11 AM

It's more than naive to think that this law would do anything to help us and improve ratios.

Once the system is in place, there's no way of knowing who will be targeted next....

Remember how people said that if a .xxx would ever be made mandatory in the US, it could never affect the rest of the world?

Klen · 11-16-2010, 08:26 AM

Yes this might not be good against tube sites,but it could shutdown rapidshare and torrent sites which also have big piece in piracy market.

Agent 488 · 11-16-2010, 08:30 AM

i think it is imperative that we take away rights, freedoms, due process and privacy to bring back the ratios of 1999.

BlackCrayon · 11-16-2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The wild west days are coming to an end. Adapt or die.

people have been saying this for over a decade. yet, it just gets worse.

chronig · 11-16-2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

i think it is imperative that we take away rights, freedoms, due process and privacy to bring back the ratios of 1999.

BlackCrayon · 11-16-2010, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

i think it is imperative that we take away rights, freedoms, due process and privacy to bring back the ratios of 1999.

copying/distributing/downloading copyrighted material was never legal so I'm not sure what freedoms you are talking about..

LAJ · 11-16-2010, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

This will never be applied to adult tube sites. Somewhere there are politicians, DOJ attorneys and FBI agents all huddled together singing Kumbaya thanking God that piracy did what they couldnt do - effectively - kill the industry.

The industry isn't killed... profits have dried up for many people sure... but there is more porn and specifically more free porn than ever. All the zealots against the industry I doubt give a fuck whether we make money or not... they'd prefer the porn to be gone and that'll never happen.

naughty1 · 11-16-2010, 08:57 AM

So I guess if thislaw passes we could SAY BYE BYE TO youtube right ? how many infringing videos are on there ??????

davecummings · 11-16-2010, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

has anyone digested this in full yet?

Can we get a breakdown from Quentin from topbucks please

Quentin is indeed a sharp and respected poster. Like you, I hope he sees this thread and posts his opinion about the proposed new law.

Rochard · 11-16-2010, 09:38 AM

Frankly, I have concerns about our government getting involved in anything related to the Internet.

I think it was a few years back when Congress had a hearing about porn; I forget if it was 2257 or software to block porn from public libraries. The commission was the Congressional Science and Technology Panel, which was made up of Congressmen. The leader of the group was a guy from Alaska. Here is a group of some of the most important people in our government, making laws about the Internet, and the leader of the Congressional Science and Technology Panel called it the "email thingy".

I mean, seriously? How the fuck can you be on that panel and not know exactly what the fuck email is?

u-Bob · 11-16-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

copying/distributing/downloading copyrighted material was never legal so I'm not sure what freedoms you are talking about..

and you really think that's what this law is about?

davecummings · 11-16-2010, 10:50 AM

Like the above opinions, I'd welcome comments from Fight the Patent, Connor, Quentin, Robbie, and lots of other astute posters.

Shotoku · 11-16-2010, 11:15 AM

No good can come from a law like that.

Quentin · 11-16-2010, 11:27 AM

My take on this proposed law is that both its potential efficacy and its legal/constitutional validity hinge on its most minute details, including some details that won't exist until and unless it is passed. A significant post-passage step involves the DOJ fleshing out a set of corresponding regulations (see Section 3, "Required Actions by the Attorney General"), and just as is the case with 2257, the corresponding regulations are often as significant as the language of the statute itself, if not more significant.

Having said that, even in its current, unfinished form, I'm more than a bit uncomfortable with this bill and the enforcement regime it envisions.

Most of my concern stems from my belief that the DOJ is fundamentally ill-equipped and insufficiently staffed to serve as a sort of "super moderator" of online materials, services and technologies.

While I think the intent behind the bill (which I take to be providing a framework for quickly shutting down sites that exist solely as a means of illegally distributing copyrighted materials) is laudable enough, I'm not at all keen on empowering the DOJ with making the decisions that this bill would empower it to make.

I like the fact that the bill provides for judicial review of the domain suspension and locking process, but I also think that judges often aren't too savvy about how the web works, themselves. As such, judges reviewing these cases will be very likely to rely on the DOJ's presentation of the facts in determining whether any given site should be subject to closure/blocking under the statute.

What I would like to see done to aid rights-holders and impede online piracy is something significantly less sweeping and broad than this bill. IMO, what we need is a revision to the DMCA that shifts some of the infringement location/enforcement burden away from rights-holders and on to the third parties that run the sites and services where the copyright infringement in question takes place.

I have some specific ideas about how this shifting of burden can be accomplished without a new measure like COICA being enacted -- ideas that I will be submitting later this week to an "Internet Policy Task Force" set up by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Once I've finished and submitted those comments, I'll post them here on GFY, as well.

Paul Markham · 11-16-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

This will never be applied to adult tube sites. Somewhere there are politicians, DOJ attorneys and FBI agents all huddled together singing Kumbaya thanking God that piracy did what they couldnt do - effectively - kill the industry.

Tubes have made more people watch porn than ever before. More children than ever before. Porn has never ever been so widely spread.

Just a lot less money in it and that won't kill Tubes, it will make them stronger as there will be fewer paid porn.

If you think the supply of new material will slow down and choke porn you have no idea how much porn there is in the world ready to go onto Tube sites.

davecummings · 11-16-2010, 12:01 PM

Thanks for posting your opinions, Quentin!

Connor · 11-16-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

For Connor Young---is this link still presently applicable, or has Joan/Mr Helmy/Xbiz published something whereby it's no longer necessarily (since ICM no longer has been specifically citing ASACP to get a portion of each registration?) up to date?

Dave
"old man"

I guess the response I'd make here is... it has always been my policy to judge people and organizations based on their actions, and not their words. It's one matter to say that you are for or against something, but what are you DOING in support of your stated position?

At the time of that post, ICM Registry was looking for an industry organization to show support for .XXX... I would assume this was because they wanted to show ICANN that the industry actually wanted to have this new TLD. They tried to get the support of the FSC, but after a very public and contentious debate, the FSC declined to support .XXX for what I think are all the right reasons. So, at the time there was another organization that was trying to form, and I was a part of it. Our organization was asked if WE wanted to support .XXX, but we also declined... again, I think for all the right reasons.

Sometime after we declined, ASACP wrote a letter to ICANN where they said they "applaud" ICM and its efforts. I'm guessing they were approached for .XXX support like the other organizations were, but that's a guess -- even if a very plausible guess. Keep in mind, this was sent at a time when ICANN was trying to decide if it should allow .XXX, and no doubt was trying to gauge if there was industry support. So if you're ICANN, and you get a letter from an industry owned organization saying how they applaud the group trying to create a .XXX domain name, etc., wouldn't you assume that's a letter of support? I sure would. So I wasn't happy to see ASACP's letter, and you saw my response to Joan.

Joan has said that ASACP was "neutral" and that it didn't intend the letter to be one of support. Let's just say I'm skeptical of the intent. Again, it goes back to, IMHO, whether you look at actions or words.

As for Alec, I asked him about .XXX around and about the time of that post... in Phoenix. He pointed out to me that he had not publicly said he supported or opposed .XXX at that time. I felt that was like a politician ducking the question, and I didn't understand why there wasn't simple direct opposition or support. Some of you may feel differently.

Now, years have passed since then. So the question is... has anything changed?

If there has been any strong opposition of .XXX coming from the Xbiz and/or ASACP camps, I haven't seen it. Maybe it happened and I missed it... I admit, I've been pretty busy with business operations over the past few years and could very well have missed some statements or actions, but I haven't seen it.

Personally, I think it would be absurd to support .XXX, but we're all entitled to our opinions. I felt strongly enough about this issue that I worked with the FSC back when .XXX was originally defeated to make that happen. I worked with their attorneys, I debated Lawley at Internext, and I wrote a number of editorials calling for opposition.

Because I felt (and still feel) that .XXX is a threat to the industry in a number of ways, and provides no significant benefits to counterbalance the threats and problems it creates, I would have LIKED to see strong, definite opposition of .XXX from all the industry leaders. When you have a possible threat to the industry, I don't think it's the role of an industry leader to be "neutral" or "on the fence" ... but to be an advocate for the industry against outside forces seeking to harm it. So naturally, I would have liked to see a strong and vocal opposition of .XXX from certain parties, but to date I haven't seen that.

We all have to make up our own minds... look at the actions of companies and individuals and decide these things for ourselves, I think.

DamianJ · 11-16-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Should the Internet be immune to the law?

Which country owns the internet?

Why, as a pornographer, do you think censorship is A Good Idea?

11-15-2010, 10:36 PM	#3
dmhubby Owner BlowBangGirls.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Arizona Posts: 185	That law proposal is shit and the Music and Movie people are behind it. The Justice Department is going to give to shits about some porn tube. Just my 2 cents. __________________ Rob Add Me On Twitter! BlowBang Girls Bathroom Creepers Our Network Our Cash Program

11-15-2010, 11:15 PM	#5
Nautilus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,631	Sure they're not going to bother with porn tube sites, but is this passes it'll help us anyway, by reducing the overall amount of piracy and by making hosting and other service companies more cautious when it comes to clients like this. It'll also hit cyberlocker sites that are used both for mainstream and adult piracy like rapidshare and clones - the less money they make, the better. If they start closing mainstream rapidshare blogs and forums that post links to stolen Hollywood movies, they'll sell less premium memberships, meaning they have to cut on their expenses, reducing the amount of servers and bandwidth available etc, meaning less of the pirated materials can be uploaded because the'll have to delete some in order to make room for new uploads. Also if the pie is shrinking, probably we'll see only 20 rapidshare clones left instead of the current 200. And the ones who're left probably will be more reasonable and start to block infringing files like rapidshare does, instead of just making new link available for the uploader to replace the removed one like most of them currently do. So I see this as a good thing overall. __________________ . . FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote \| 100K+ FHGs \| Check recently added galleries New sites \| Pantyhose \| Nylon \| Shemale \| Strapon \| Lesbian \| Mature/MILF \| Anal \| Old&Young \| Gay \| Feet Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog\| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2) Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password. ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

11-15-2010, 11:31 PM	#6
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	Thanks for posting this info Dave. While I have much respect for the EFF, I feel at times they go overboard, and in effect, actually advocate on behalf of content/copyright thieves. Their e-Ivory Tower perspective, and lack of skin in the game, clouds their better judgement at times. ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

11-15-2010, 11:58 PM	#9
Odin Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: au Posts: 2,545	The minute something like this is signed, the Government from that time will only ever expand its claws into the internet. That can only be a bad thing for anyone doing Porn. Do you think the Patriot Act will ever go away? Once freedom is taken it rarely is given back. __________________ ICQ: 637//961--015

11-16-2010, 12:31 AM	#14
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	I just now emailed Connor asking him to respond to posting #10; it seems like there was some subsequent denunciation by ASACP (or X-biz?) to their initial support letter, but I'm and "old man" so I can't recall it for sure. Connor will know, though. Even so, KillerK, notwithstanding postings # 2 and # 7 of this thread, Connor's 2005 posting doesn't mean that I personally have supported ASACP for anything other than their past and present efforts to curb cp, and I certainly did NOT support that letter that Connor cited. But, you're 100% correct about one thing, namely that I am an "old man", something that even you might be lucky enough to be called some day:-). And, now, back to substance, PLEASE!!! __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

11-15-2010, 10:18 PM	#1
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Tubes?! Major Law Proposed Today By Senators Today. Should content providers and other Adult Industry folks root for (or against?) this proposed law that might alleviate piracy, but...... Helpful and serious comments, one way or the other?: http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=44979 I wonder if all or some of this same group of senators (or other federal legislators) might later also propose a law to corral/ghetto-ize ALL adult sites into .xxx (if it gets approved), and subsequently propose/author a law to require that all American ISPs disconnect all .xxx from the Internet? Scary, huh?! Seems to me like content providers, et. al., need to seriously consider stepping up to the plate to financially support and become full-fledged members of the Free Speech Coalition for the continuing and extremely important fights against matters like: Piracy .xxx 2257 CA/OSHA Just sayin' and opinin' __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

11-15-2010, 10:20 PM	#2
KillerK Confirmed User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,406	Please explain Dave why you support Xbiz & ASACP, but don't support .XXX They both stand to make a shit-ton of cash when it finally passes.

11-16-2010, 12:07 AM	#10
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	For Connor Young---is this link still presently applicable, or has Joan/Mr Helmy/Xbiz published something whereby it's no longer necessarily (since ICM no longer has been specifically citing ASACP to get a portion of each registration?) up to date? Dave "old man" __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

11-16-2010, 12:30 AM	#13
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	I am simply saying that if the domain taken "in rem" is with a US registrar ? that domain's lease (commonly called ownership) will be revoked by court order. Any server of that domain on US territory would be shut down also.

11-16-2010, 04:22 AM	#16
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Should the Internet be immune to the law? If so why not laws on CP? The wild west days are coming to an end. Adapt or die. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

11-16-2010, 06:04 AM	#21
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	Today? Just checking.

11-16-2010, 06:17 AM	#22
Kiopa_Matt Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,448	Wow, this is like the mafia at its finest. Bow to our commands & desires, or we'll shut you down. Scary... __________________ xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!

11-16-2010, 06:36 AM	#23
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,791	Like a two edged sword, legislation can help or harm, depending on how it is used (or not used). Personally, I'd like to see piracy shut down. But, I'm not sure this is the best way. More information will be needed concerning enforcement policies.

11-16-2010, 06:38 AM	#24
Phoenix BACON BACON BACON Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poems everybody, the laddie fancies himself a poet Posts: 35,462	has anyone digested this in full yet? Can we get a breakdown from Quentin from topbucks please __________________ Skype Phoenixskype1 Telegram PhoenixBrad https://quantads.io

11-16-2010, 06:44 AM	#26
seeandsee Check SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe (Skype: gojkoas) Posts: 50,945	I can't say what tubes should look next yr, but some experts let's hear what are good directions __________________ BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year Contact here

11-16-2010, 06:54 AM	#27
pornlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,877	This will never be applied to adult tube sites. Somewhere there are politicians, DOJ attorneys and FBI agents all huddled together singing Kumbaya thanking God that piracy did what they couldnt do - effectively - kill the industry. __________________ Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com

11-16-2010, 07:46 AM	#30
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	The biggest problem I have with these people passing laws that effect us is what they sneak through on page 1256 of a 3k page doc. And the fact that few if any of them know much about the online industry in general. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

11-16-2010, 08:00 AM	#32
fatfoo ICQ:649699063 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 27,763	"The "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” (COICA) would give the government power to censor web sites that provide illegal access to intellectual properties such as movies, music, software, and that unlawfully sell pharmaceuticals and counterfeit goods." This is interesting. Sure, it all sounds reasonable... __________________ Send me an email: [email protected]

11-16-2010, 08:11 AM	#33
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	It's more than naive to think that this law would do anything to help us and improve ratios. Once the system is in place, there's no way of knowing who will be targeted next.... Remember how people said that if a .xxx would ever be made mandatory in the US, it could never affect the rest of the world?

11-16-2010, 08:26 AM	#34
Klen Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Little Vienna Posts: 32,235	Yes this might not be good against tube sites,but it could shutdown rapidshare and torrent sites which also have big piece in piracy market.

11-16-2010, 08:30 AM	#35
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	i think it is imperative that we take away rights, freedoms, due process and privacy to bring back the ratios of 1999.

11-16-2010, 08:57 AM	#40
naughty1 Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 137	So I guess if thislaw passes we could SAY BYE BYE TO youtube right ? how many infringing videos are on there ??????

11-16-2010, 09:38 AM	#42
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,230	Frankly, I have concerns about our government getting involved in anything related to the Internet. I think it was a few years back when Congress had a hearing about porn; I forget if it was 2257 or software to block porn from public libraries. The commission was the Congressional Science and Technology Panel, which was made up of Congressmen. The leader of the group was a guy from Alaska. Here is a group of some of the most important people in our government, making laws about the Internet, and the leader of the Congressional Science and Technology Panel called it the "email thingy". I mean, seriously? How the fuck can you be on that panel and not know exactly what the fuck email is? __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

11-16-2010, 10:50 AM	#44
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Like the above opinions, I'd welcome comments from Fight the Patent, Connor, Quentin, Robbie, and lots of other astute posters. __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

11-16-2010, 11:15 AM	#45
Shotoku Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: antarctica Posts: 904	No good can come from a law like that. __________________ Buy Or Sell Clicked Traffic - The Easy Way To Start A Fake TGP Promo Code GOWEST will give you a $40 discount at Dreamhost.

11-16-2010, 11:27 AM	#46
Quentin Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,280	My take on this proposed law is that both its potential efficacy and its legal/constitutional validity hinge on its most minute details, including some details that won't exist until and unless it is passed. A significant post-passage step involves the DOJ fleshing out a set of corresponding regulations (see Section 3, "Required Actions by the Attorney General"), and just as is the case with 2257, the corresponding regulations are often as significant as the language of the statute itself, if not more significant. Having said that, even in its current, unfinished form, I'm more than a bit uncomfortable with this bill and the enforcement regime it envisions. Most of my concern stems from my belief that the DOJ is fundamentally ill-equipped and insufficiently staffed to serve as a sort of "super moderator" of online materials, services and technologies. While I think the intent behind the bill (which I take to be providing a framework for quickly shutting down sites that exist solely as a means of illegally distributing copyrighted materials) is laudable enough, I'm not at all keen on empowering the DOJ with making the decisions that this bill would empower it to make. I like the fact that the bill provides for judicial review of the domain suspension and locking process, but I also think that judges often aren't too savvy about how the web works, themselves. As such, judges reviewing these cases will be very likely to rely on the DOJ's presentation of the facts in determining whether any given site should be subject to closure/blocking under the statute. What I would like to see done to aid rights-holders and impede online piracy is something significantly less sweeping and broad than this bill. IMO, what we need is a revision to the DMCA that shifts some of the infringement location/enforcement burden away from rights-holders and on to the third parties that run the sites and services where the copyright infringement in question takes place. I have some specific ideas about how this shifting of burden can be accomplished without a new measure like COICA being enacted -- ideas that I will be submitting later this week to an "Internet Policy Task Force" set up by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Once I've finished and submitted those comments, I'll post them here on GFY, as well. __________________ Q. Boyer

11-16-2010, 12:01 PM	#48
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Thanks for posting your opinions, Quentin! __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]