.XXX Domains
 

You can show your support for .XXX domains by filling out this form on

http://icmregistry.com/html/for_show_support.html :thumbsup

.xxx domains suck huge nads.

.com is king.

Are you stupid????? SHow support to killing your own business

why would you support something that would totally alienate and fuck this business?

Fuck off surfer :321GFY

Re-evolution = good for business

you am smart
you make $$$ with the internet!

from mikesouth.com
OK say it starts out voluntary, so we all line the pockets buying up the .xxx domains that we already own.

Next thing we know we have legislation telling us we have to use that domain.

Now we got states and localities telling ISPs that to do business in this state you must filter out all of those domains.

Now porn has been cyber zoned into a ghetto called .xxx

And who got the money? ICANN and the lawyers thats who. The lawyers get it because they get big bucks to fight the states who want to "zone out" the .xxx domain, The legal sharks like Piconelli know this and they are all for it because it will line their pockets, fuck whats good for the industry.

Course personally if that happens Im gonna sell access to proxy servers that can get the .xxx domains......

Now lets talk reality for just a second.....when your 16 year old kid wants porn do you think he gets it from mikesouth.com? Southernbukkake.com?

Fuck no he gets it from kazaa, morpheus, limewire, bearshare and countless others.

what he said

Utah Bill Sets Up Site Registry, Increases Penalties For Adult
By: Mark Kernes

SALT LAKE CITY - Supporters may have failed to secure official approval for a .xxx top-level domain, but the state of Utah is trying to create one of its own through site rating and registry.

The Utah House of Representatives on Tuesday heard a revised version of a bill titled "Amendments Related To Pornographic And Harmful Materials" introduced on the House floor.

The bill appropriates $250,000 of taxpayer funds and requires almost as much in private matching funds to create an official database. The database will be organized by URL of Websites containing "material harmful to minors," and which sites are "not properly rated" by the site's "content provider," who is defined as "a person that creates, collects, acquires, or organizes electronic data for electronic delivery to a consumer."

The provider is required to do the rating itself ? but woe to the provider who rates improperly (under rules to be devised and published by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection): That's a third degree felony. The bill also funds public service announcements to advertise the existence of the registry and to inform consumers how to use it.

Under the bill, ISPs are apparently required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the server level for any consumer who requests it, at no cost to the consumer: "76-10-1231. Data service providers ? Internet content harmful to minors.(1)(a) Upon request by a consumer, a service provider shall use filtering technology to prevent the transmission of material harmful to minors to the consumer at no additional cost to the consumer."

However, if the consumer wishes to block the sites on his/her own computer, ISPs are required to provide blocking technology to the consumer, again at no cost to the consumer, although if the ISP has less than 5,000 subscribers, it can charge consumers for blocking software ? but can't make a profit in doing so. Any ISP that fails to abide by the law is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and subject to a civil fine of up to $10,000 per day for each offense ? and the Division of Consumer Protection is required to check annually to make sure each ISP's blocking technology is effective.

As to material "harmful to minors," this bill also switches the entire onus onto the content provider to determine if a person wishing to view its material is a minor. Whereas the law used to say, "A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing that a person is a minor, or having failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining the proper age of a minor," it now reads, "A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing that a person is a minor, or having negligently or recklessly failed to determine the proper age of a minor," he distributes to a minor material harmful to the minor, or performs for or with a minor, any material harmful to the minor. Such distribution or performance used to have to be intentional; now, just doing it "negligently or recklessly" is enough to garner at least a $300 fine and two weeks in jail for the first offense. After that, each offense is a second degree felony, with a fine of at least $5000 and at least a year in prison "without suspension of sentence."

All this is in addition to language which is unchanged from current law, that makes it a crime to send, distribute, publish, exhibit, advertise or perform pornographic (not "obscene") material to anyone within the state, although this bill raises each offense from a Class A misdemeanor to a third degree felony with a mandatory jail term of not less than 30 days, and a fine of not less than $1,000.

By the way, it's also a third degree felony, with the same punishments, to require a bookstore or newsstand, for instance, to accept pornographic (not "obscene") material as a condition for supplying that store with non-pornographic books, magazines, newspapers, etc., or to deny or revoke a franchise (or threaten to do so) if the franchisee refuses to carry porn "or material reasonably believed by the purchaser or consignee to be pornographic" as part of its stock.

See, it doesn't have to be pornographic; you're guilty if someone just thinks it is!

Mikesouth.com:

Remember When AVN, Greg Piconnelli and others were whoring the idea of a .XXX domain with Jason Hendales, remember when they said that states COULDN'T Do EXACTLY what Utah is trying to do? I told you that this is exactly what would happen all .xxx would do is make it a LOT easier for them. Where are you now Picconelli? Why aren't you taking this on pro-bono? And people wonder why lawyers are more hated than any other profession....

Ok, whatever. delete this post gfy moderetors, im probably gonna get cussed at more.

http://www.uspto.gov

Word Mark XXX

excerpt:

Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, T-Shirts, long sleeve T-Shirts, baby tee's, baseball hats, sweatshirts, sweatpants, underwear, sweaters, skirts and pants

IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Computer and information services for web hosting; global computer network address management; hosting of digital content on the Internet; and Internet consulting
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78474835
Filing Date August 27, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Owner Xpays, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE Suite 101 4630 Geary Boulevard San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94118
Attorney of Record Brian R. Coleman
Prior Registrations 2687304;2757620
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

click here http://XPays.com

notice at the bottom

"XPAYS, ALWAYSPAYS, and XXX are registered trademarks of XPays Inc."

looool, not you again :1orglaugh

but hey, wtf why do you need it? don't tell me you gonna sue the owner of xxx.com to get his name too ? :eek7

think outside the box

yeah, i was thinking about the .xxx extension...

but do you think the fact that you own the trademark for "xxx" could prevent the .xxx extension being introduced by ICANN?

I have knowledge about domains in general but, not trademark stuff

word- it sucks that anything i say can and will be used against us in the future or i would drop the knowledge publicly here in a heartbeat.

intellectual property law is complex and disclosing enforcement strategies etc. on a public forum is just not doable.

if you or anyone has a specific question about their own ip protection or enforcement, we can try to advise you of our opinions but disclosing our own patent and trademark and copyright strategies is not doable. an exception would be the paris hilton and rick salomon sex video which i can say will result in being added to the ongoing lawsuits for an infringer. certain kinds of ip strategies are more discussable than others...