Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Celebrities Flock To Reserve .xxx Domains

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the always-leave-your-career-options-open dept.

The Internet 148

hypnosec writes "Celebrities have moved swiftly to block their names from the .xxx domain, which is meant for websites that offer pornographic content. Thousands of celebrities have contacted ICM Registry to put their names on the permanently reserved list so that no one will be able to start offering porn under their name. The domain registration company, ICM Registry, failed to give out the list of domain names it had blocked nor it is willing to tell how long the list is. On a lighter note, OsamaBinLaden.xxx has been also blocked and we assume the Al Qaeda would have demanded to reserve the domain."

cancel ×

148 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

protection racket (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226474)

protection racket

Re:protection racket (3, Informative)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226642)

I saw no cost to add to "reserve" list.

Re:protection racket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226778)

I found that odd too, with the current economic climate, I would have welcomed an auction where the celebrities would have to outbid the porn site owners.

Re:protection racket (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227418)

I saw no cost to add to "reserve" list.

I did.

There are no corporate trademarks on the reserved list. Companies that want to make sure their brands do not appear with a .xxx extension are expected to pay between $200 and $650 to to make sure they are removed from the pool of available names.

Streisand.xxx Effect (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226480)

This will lead to more and more .xx1, .xx2, .xx3 domain reservations.

Re:Streisand.xxx Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227414)

Streisand.xxx? She's almost 70, I suspect the time for that has now passed.

VinDiesel too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226482)

just wondering...

Re:VinDiesel too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226672)

just wondering...

He is the very best actor ever and his movies are totally unpredictable plot twists. He's even better at acting than Keanu Reeves.

people can be creative (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226484)

ParisHilton.xxx may be blocked, but what about Paris-Hilton.xxx, Paris_Hilton.xxx, ParisXHilton.xxx, xxxParisHilton.xxx and WeWillAlwaysHaveParis.xxx?

Re:people can be creative (3, Informative)

mtinsley (1283400) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226534)

You can't use underscores in domain names.

Re:people can be creative (0)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226646)

paris.hilton.xxx

Re:people can be creative (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226746)

that's called a subdomain dumbass...
i'm sure that hilton.xxx is long since reserved as well.

Re:people can be creative (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226996)

Presumably he realised that was a subdomain, so I'm not sure the "dumbass" is entirely appropriate...
Is "lton.xxx" reserved? e.g. parishi.lton.xxx
Or "ilton.xxx"? Or "ishilton.xxx"?

Hilton.xxx (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227540)

Hilton.xxx? A hotel chain might take exception to that.

Re:people can be creative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227658)

So what if your boss told you to put up an AD for .com?

Re:people can be creative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226546)

ParisSucksButParisDoesntSwallow.xxx

Re:people can be creative (3, Funny)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227356)

How about ParisSucksCo.xxx?

Re:people can be creative (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226574)

it's OK until she finds out and sues you for making money of her name

Re:people can be creative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226652)

There are a lot of people out there sharing the name Paris Hilton.

Re:people can be creative (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226720)

Is that even a thing? The tabloids make money off of celebrities all the time, and surely without their consent. What makes a website different?

Re:people can be creative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227388)

Putting someone's name in your content is legal. Naming your content after someone is questionable (and easy to sue over).

Re:people can be creative (4, Funny)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226744)

don't forget OneNightInParis.xxx

Re:people can be creative (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227030)

Should probably be modded informative, not funny. One Night In Paris [wikipedia.org] (possibly NSFW) is the name of the DVD.

This is stupid (4, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226506)

I don't just mean the reservations, but also the whole domain.

If I wanted to see porn of the Celebrity named Jane Doe, I wouldn't go

JaneDoePorn(com/xxx)
PornJaneDoe(com/xxx)
JaneDoePron(com/xxx)
JaneDoePics(com/xxx)

et cetera

I'd open Google and type in "Jane Doe Porn" and see which links look good.

If you're going to flood the xxx domain with useless garbage, then the whole concept of it is useless.

Re:This is stupid (4, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226524)

Without enforcement, which won't exist and nobody wants anyways, the whole concept is useless anyway.

There's no utility in this besides the cash grab.

Re:This is stupid (1)

rjch (544288) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226526)

I think the idea is to force all porn sites across to the .xxx domain eventually, which will make parental controls much easier to configure and enforce - hell, it could become a feature of your ISP that all .xxx domains are blocked by default, but can be enabled on request. (in the same way a few ISPs here in Australia block ports 25, 80, 135, 139 and 443 by default, but these port blocks can be removed simply by logging in to your account and disabling the port blocking)

Re:This is stupid (3, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226540)

I can't even begin to imagine the colossal nightmare of trying to figure what should and shouldn't be on the .xxx domain, and policing it. Such a rule probably won't ever happen, but if it does, it'll be either a damned mess, totally fail in its intended purpose, or both.

Oh but they can (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226740)

I work in the industry and have followed this. The evil in the .xxx domain is staggering.

First is the pure money grab, same as with .mobi and .travel and several others. Ever use them for legit sites? No? But lots of companies paid for their domain name nonetheless. Domain names are cheap? Not the .xxx ones. This ain't a service it is a commercial business and they want some real cash. Oh not enough to be a major worry to most companies but enough to add up.

Then there is the provision that the registar has that they reserve the right to scan your site. That doesn't happen with any other domain but it does for the .xxx domain. Harmless you say? Most porn sites are members only. Is the registar going to need a full access account for every site to scan it? They refuse to answer. Who is going to responsible for leaked access? They don't even acknowledge that question. How is an American company going to deal with laws in different countries, as in why would a Japanese site have to follow US rules or vice versa?

But the final evil is why lots of politicians are in favor of it.

What is Playboy magazine? A porn mag OR a magazine with some pictures of nudity? The difference is important. The US has no clear anti-porn laws, instead it has laws that prohibit obscene material. What is obscene? That is a very good question and so far the courts have been unable to answer it.

Porn is legal in the US as long as no court can define it as being obscene. In olden days this explains nudist magazines and movies. By shooting it as a documentary on nudist live a movie could be sold that was just a skin flick. It is educational!

This has never gone totally away in the US although a lot of porn IS produced as purely porn the laws are still there and plenty of politicians would be willing to enforce them.

But how can you proof something is porn? How do you proof playboy.com is just obscenity? Well, a bloody big clue would be playboy.xxx Godwin be damned but it is a yellow star. Why do you think the yellow star was used on jews but not say a black star on blacks in America? Because there was no need to, you can tell a black person just by looking a them and therefor there was no risk of a black person going into a whites only store. The only way to enfore "gein juden" was to force them to wear an identifier.

If you force all porn on the .xxx domain you have also forced to label themselves as porn. To those who wish to purge porn from the web, step 1.

Will this happen? Some believe so, the same kind of people that defended Larry Flint. Not because they liked Hustler so much but because of this "joke".

An Arminain grandfather lies on his deathbed and calls his sons to him to depart some final wisdom, "Remember my sons, always defend the jews."

Why the jews the oldest son asks.

"Because once they are gone, we will be next".

The web as it exist now is a mess, porn, business, copyright infringement, press all mixed up with no easy way to tell which is which. But it makes it very hard for a group to silence a part of it. See the US problems with trying to filter porn in public libraries. Oops, it may contain sex but it is also free speech. .xxx would have no such protection since by its label it is only obscenity and that doesn't fall under free speech.

.XXX is a multi-layered beast. At first glance it seems just like a money grab until you realize that there is political support for it for over a decade from a certain quarter and they are NOT in it for they money. They got other motives and once they become evident it will be too late.

Remember this, when it was asked during a conference that IF as the registar said market forces would decide if it was a success or not that ANOTHER option for the registar who invested a LOT of money in this MIGHT use their political mussle to buy ADDITIONAL laws to FORCE purchase of .xxx domains to save their business, the representative plain refused to answer.

Google will do wonders for some more insights.

Re:Oh but they can (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227028)

Clap. Clap. Nice soliloquy.

Re:Oh but they can (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227146)

Well you guys caused your problems,porn emails, faking web site names, Graphic sex acts not covered like magazines. You made the mess by being irresponsible. Playboy mags hustler,penthouse puritan mag all are covered with a brown wrapper in book stores/mag stands. Internet porn isn't covered or made difficult for children not to see even if they try with filters you guys try to beat the filters and thats irresponsible. Im no prude ive worked in an adult book store for a while so im all for porn. You dont have any right forcing people to view it

Re:Oh but they can (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227344)

Um... How are they forcing people to view it? Last time I knew I didn't just open up Firefox and ZOMG Pr0n EVERYWHERE!!!! Except for some malware that puts up porn popups along with screwing up your system, you don't randomly go on the internet and see porn. Porn spam e-mails is like every other spam e-mail, have a decent enough filter and it won't go through. Such things are like saying lets ban Viagra because it happens to be the subject of many a spam e-mail.

Re:Oh but they can (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227630)

Some porn sites are known for their rather over-determined advertising - I've seen things like search engine manipulation, forum-spamming, etc. These sites typically aren't operated from the US though, or associated with any large porn company. They are just small porn distributors (Half the time distributing pirate porn at that) desperate to do anything to get customers in a saturated market.

Re:Oh but they can (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227516)

How in the world did you find out about our evil scheme to hold children hostage and force them to look at pornography websites? The possibility that a child could accidentally look at pornography was also part of our plan. Their entire lives will be obliterated from looking at pornography!

Re:Oh but they can (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227890)

You DO force kids to view porn by using Innocent names.No censoring of the images to the open public, Whitehouse ring a bell????? Whats your explanation for porn spam? you guys try every trick in the book to bypass our filters so please don't be sarcastic and stupid. There are people who do not want there children to view pornography there are adults that don't want to view it and they also don't want to see it pop up when their kids are sitting with them. You the porn industry have brought all this upon yourselves so stop crying and do the responsible thing. And if you dont have a adult responce dont bother replying. And will it kill children to see porn,no but thats not YOUR right to deside its the parents. And with the XXX domain its just a tool for the parents,why dont you want parents to deside whats right for thir children?

Re:Oh but they can (2)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227724)

You do realize that the people stuffing your inbox with porn are not actually in charge of The Porn Industry, right? What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that [insert local minority here] deserves what they get because they steal things, bring down property values, etc.

Re:Oh but they can (1)

tommy8 (2434564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227390)

It is Armenian not Arminain and the Armenians were killed during World War I before the Jews.

Re:Oh but they can (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227676)

I agree with most of your reasons why this is A Bad Thing, but I believe you are mistaken about the legal issue of pornography vs. obscenity. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (even in recent years) that pornography is protected speech. As long as it isn't obscene pornography, it still enjoys First Amendment protection, and any laws against mere "pornography" that are still on the books are not enforceable. Although putting a .xxx TLD on something would certainly prove to any reasonable person that it was "pornographic", it would not prove to the courts that it was "obscene". For that, you'd be back to the same fuzzy definition of obscenity (the Miller Test) that you'd be dealing with if the site's TLD were .com; those last three letters are a non-issue in making that determination.

First they came.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227770)

First they came for the lolicon manga.... [jaqrabbit.com]

Re:This is stupid (2)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227096)

Its simple, Graphic depictions of sex acts thats pornography. Soft porn/erotica obscured or suggestive sex acts.Why do people make something that is so simple so hard?

Re:This is stupid (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227134)

What about:

- Artwork? Paintings? Photographs?
-- Would you count "The Birth of Venus" as pornography? She has got a bit showing.
- Nudism?
- Certain Prose?

Re:This is stupid (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227796)

If it has graphic depictions of the sex acts it belongs in the xxx domain. nudism isn't about sex acts nor do they show sex acts its nudity thats a million miles different then sex acts. Certain poses are meant to stimulate sexually,graphic poses of genitalia is Soft porn. Everything has its place and its common since and its very simple to figure out. Soft porn is 18 and above now for books and movies why should it be any different on the internet? It shouldn't

Re:This is stupid (0)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227456)

Its simple, Graphic depictions of sex acts thats pornography. Soft porn/erotica obscured or suggestive sex acts.Why do people make something that is so simple so hard?

I totally agree. Now we just need to define 'graphic', 'depictions', 'sex', and 'acts'.

Re:This is stupid (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227640)

http://www.google.com/search?q=leda&tbm=isch&biw=1680&bih=871 [google.com]

Porn. Lots of porn. Lots and lots of porn. Except... it hangs up openly in art galleries around the world. Drawn by some of the most respected names in classical art, including Leonardo. How can that be porn?

Re:This is stupid (1)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226550)

They block 80 and 443 by default?! Those are standard HTTP and HTTPS. How on earth can you log into any website to fix that?

Re:This is stupid (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226562)

Only for a server though right? Unless you're planning on hosting your own server you won't need those open.

Re:This is stupid (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226598)

Inbound, to protect averagely uninterested users from accidentally exposing their routers configuration interface to the world.

(25 to prevent access to open relays on customers' computers, 135 and 139 to prevent access to unprotected SMB shares)

Re:This is stupid (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227694)

Yup - same with BT here. The router blocks all incoming ports by default, but you can open them as needed - or simply set up a single machine in a DMZ and use that to handle all incoming requests, port forwarding etc. Quite a good way to do it really. The downside is that (by default) anyone with a BT account can log in to your router. It's "opt-in" meaning you have to opt-out of it...

Re:This is stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226594)

But that will not work unless we somehow can get global standard for what is porn.

Should the content be moved to .xxx if all cultures think it is porn, or is it enough with only one culture?

How about smaller groups or just personal preferences? With sites like this http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/ in the end you would have to move content containing people showing any skin what so ever or wearing clothes revealing any hints about body shape. You would also have to move content with animals, buildings, plants.

If your site contains anything there will probably be someone, somewhere, thinking it crosses the line to being porn.

Re:This is stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226692)

Animals, buildings and plants? What kind of fucked up porn are you watching?

Re:This is stupid (2)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227398)

Didn't you ever see "Debbie Does A Donkey Up Against A Ficus And Takes It In The Bungalow"?

Re:This is stupid (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226774)

I think the idea is to force all porn sites across to the .xxx domain eventually

Sounds like a stupid idea to me. For what purpose? How could they possibly force every single porn website in existence (even unidentified ones) to use the .xxx domain? That'd be quite hard to enforce. And who would want to enforce it?

I doubt this is their idea at all.

it could become a feature of your ISP that all .xxx domains are blocked by default

For what? People who could probably be considered overprotective parents? If they want to "protect" their children from something I deem as harmless, then I think they should be the ones doing the work.

Not only that, but this kind of blocking is ineffective if the user knows even a little bit about computers (and even if they don't, I'm sure they can follow simple instructions).

Re:This is stupid (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227668)

If it's blocked by default, then it'll probably stay blocked. Think of the problems of people trying to justify to their spouse while they need the porn unblocked, or of over-eighteens still living at home having to explain to their parents. If ISPs start blocking .xxx by default, it'll put .xxx sites at such huge commercial disadvantage they'll just have to go back to either .com or (if the US forces them to get off there) to one of the country-code TLDs.

Re:This is stupid (2)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226542)

Seconded. There was a time, perhaps around -94 or -95, when I would type in an url that described what I was looking for. Then webcrawler (the first decent searchengine) came along and made that whole "SLD having any relation to the content" thing useless.

Re:This is stupid (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227012)

If I wanted to see porn of the Celebrity named Jane Doe, I wouldn't go...

I know, right? I mean, Jane Doe is so hot. Her girl-on-girl and ATM are the best. Her brilliant schoolroom scene in the 2008, No Country for Old Milfs 2 is nothing short of a masterpiece.

She lost a lot of her cachet after Tiger Woods did her, however.

Re:This is stupid (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227300)

... and ATM are the best.

I love Automated Teller Machines.

Yes I know what it also stands for, but when I read that through the first time I was imagining a woman getting money from a bank and was wondering what is wrong with some people.

I still wonder now though.

Re:This is stupid (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227488)

Yes I know what [ATM] also stands for, but when I read that through the first time I was imagining a woman getting money from a bank and was wondering what is wrong with some people.

And then you found out what "ATM" porn actually was... and you *really* wondered what was wrong with some people. I hope....

Anyway, I'm sure there are women out there who certainly *would* get turned on if the amounts of money coming out of the ATM were enough. :-/

Re:This is stupid (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227082)

Domains matching your search criteria would probably rate highly though...

Re:This is stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227188)

I'd open Google and type in "Jane Doe Porn" and see which links look good.

I just did that..

.xxx domain rules? (1)

rjch (544288) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226508)

What rules are applied to this domain? If (for example) someone registers something like universal.xxx, would Universal Studios be able to challenge the validity of this domain in the same way as if someone registered universal_studios.com?

Re:.xxx domain rules? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226700)

Of course. Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy - UDRP.

Apparently... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226510)

cowboyneal.xxx is still up for grabs.

Most idiotic and futile task ever (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226520)

Misspellings, typographical differences (hyphens), and that is not even taking into account domain names can contain numbers.

You can't buy them all. But the owners of the .xxx registry are making a tidy sum off the gullibility of celebrities, so it's all good.

Re:Most idiotic and futile task ever (1)

petman (619526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226656)

From what I understand from TFA, the celebs don't have to pay to get on the list, so no one's making money out of this.

Re:Most idiotic and futile task ever (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227674)

Named celebrities don't, but companies do in order to protect their trademarks.

Oh, and since when did they have ownership of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226530)

... that name? I never knew names could be trademarked, or in any way be owned by people. (unless of course it is some stupid made-up name)

Oh well, not that I care, .xxx is just a mess now, it could have been grand, but no, they ruined it.

Re:Oh, and since when did they have ownership of.. (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226580)

They don't, which is why they're snapping up the domains before someone else can.

Otherwise they could just wait and then pull an Atari.

Congratulations ICANN (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226592)

Congratulations ICANN to all that extra cash. Defensive registrations is an untapped gold mine. I'd recommend adding one sex domain per year.

Re:Congratulations ICANN (4, Informative)

petman (619526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226650)

From what I understand from TFA, the celebrities don't have to pay to get on the list, so no one's making money out of this.

Re:Congratulations ICANN (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226734)

ICM says that it has reserved roughly 15,000 domains from registration, but this includes names that have been blocked on cultural grounds (the world's capital cities and half a dozen spellings of Mohammed, for example) and thousands of "premium" names that the company plans to auction later.

Re:Congratulations ICANN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227034)

and thousands of "premium" names that the company plans to auction later.

I wonder if goatse.xxx is on that list.

How can they? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226602)

...Al Qaeda would have demanded to reserve the domain

Like who in Al Qaeda? Anyone who reserves a domain like that will have some security force knuckle draggers kicking their doors down and guns shoved up their asses - unless, they're some country that wants that domain for propaganda purposes to discredit them.

Idea (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226604)

I wonder if I can register a .sucks TLD.

I'm sure businesses will clamour to register the companyName.sucks domain to prevent competitors messing it up.

Win.

Mentally normal, moral people don't think ab't sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226626)

This really shows how stupid celebrities really are. This practice of banning xxx names buy celebrities does NOTHING positive for their image, but it does make them look VERY stupid.

Let's face it, celebrities have sex, and they are more likely to have sex with a prostitute than normal people (except for evangelical Christians and priests). But maybe there is nothing wrong with sex. I could never figure out why some people in society get so sexually aroused by sex that they feel the need to ban it and prosecute people who have too much fun having it.

I wonder if Rob Malda reserved his name from the .xxx domain, so that nobody would associate a geek with sex. I wonder when we will start hearing about CmdrTaco-Sex.xxx. I wonder how long it will be before the (current) editors and employees of Slashdot will have their names sullied by a rogue .xxx domain. I wonder how long pudge will be free from dirty things like sex.

Re:Mentally normal, moral people don't think ab't (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226706)

I wonder when we will start hearing about CmdrTaco-Sex.xxx.

I'd pay good money to never see that.

Re:Mentally normal, moral people don't think ab't (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227442)

I wonder how long it will be before the (current) editors and employees of Slashdot will have their names sullied by a rogue .xxx domain.

You're assuming that such domains will actually "sully" people's names. If too many of these things appear, it will be the entire xxx domain whose reputation will suffer--to the benefit of all I might add.

This gave me a great idea (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226670)

I could register an .xxx domain on my name, create a website there for me which lots of raunchy stuff and me doing things, then start spearing ads of me in barely legal lingerie, raunchy poses and whatnot, and start spreading viral videos.

Not that anyone would want to pay to see me, no, but sooner or later someone would buy my domain and pay me huge sums of money NOT to have to see me like that ever again!

Re:This gave me a great idea (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226882)

No matter who you are or what you look like, you are someone's cup of tea. Internet porn has already proven this conclusively.

Re:This gave me a great idea (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227004)

No matter who you are or what you look like, you are someone's cup of tea. Internet porn has already proven this conclusively.

Well, tbh, that is a rather disturbing idea.

Re:This gave me a great idea (2)

ObitMan (550793) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227120)

So you are going to tease us all like this and not put out?

for shame.

Re:This gave me a great idea (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227304)

With a nickname like "gaygirlie"...

Re:This gave me a great idea (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227280)

I have to hope that rule 34 does not apply to us.

Re:This gave me a great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227662)

There is porn of it. No exceptions.

He DID IT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226680)

After years of serving the slashdot community CmdrTaco leaves to open up his new site CmdrTaco.xxx Maybe after 14 years he will finally get laid!

Celebrities Give in to .xxx Domain extortion (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226694)

There, fixed that headline for you.

Re:Celebrities Give in to .xxx Domain extortion (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226730)

Well, that's what I get for not RTFA first. Celebrities don't have to pay, at least for now. Companies, however, do

There are no corporate trademarks on the reserved list. Companies that want to make sure their brands do not appear with a .xxx extension are expected to pay between $200 and $650 to to make sure they are removed from the pool of available names

Most of the people I know who deal in domain names feel that the new ICANN TLD policy is primarily about domain name extortion, rather than actually providing a service, so pardon the cynicism.

Oh, f-L-O-cking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226708)

There was a smudge on the monitor, and I thought, "They sure are! Sometimes it seems a new celebrity video 'leaks' out about once a month!"

So... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226710)

Is it going to be "slashdot.xxx", or "xxx.slashdot.org" ?

I thought this was..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226760)

Slashdot, not Slashdumb. This is a good step forward in the porn war. The only people I see butt hurt over this are the same people that are trying to hide the fact that they are the ones watching porn (and bad porn I might add at that). If your scared say your scared!

Duplicate names never happen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226790)

I'm sure there will only ever be 1 person with any of the names on the list.

Take Casey Donovan, for example.

Goatse.xxx (1)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226830)

Quickly! Someone please block this before it is too late!

That's the point, isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37226852)

The only explanation for the creation of new tla's is it forces companies (and in this case individuals) to buy up all the new variations of their domain names to protect themselves. It doesn't actually create new domains for people to actually use. How many times out there is X.com a different company than X.org, or X.biz?

Re:That's the point, isn't it? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227756)

Originally the different names were supposed to be for different types of business. It didn't work out that way because trademarks are too valuable to not over-enforce.

No no, it's the other Osama bin Laden (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 2 years ago | (#37226920)

Might be like being German, and being called Adolf 60 years ago, but that doesn't mean that another Osama bin Laden didn't ask to have him name removed....

Bachmann? (2)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227154)

I see that michelebachmann.xxx is reserved, but marcusbachmann.xxx is still available,. . . Likewise, rickperry.xxx is reserved, but Stephen Colbert could still reserve rickparry.xxx in the name of ColbertSUPERPAC,. . . ;-)

How famous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227180)

How famous do I have to be? I plaster my name all over the internet, I'm pretty sure people know who I am. But I don't want my name associated with any of this smut stuff. I'm an utter Jerkass, but I'm a clean Jerkass.

Re:How famous? (2)

lorg (578246) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227798)

anonymouscoward.xxx, what exactlly will your page be sporting? blurred out faces? people doing it with masks on?

Why is this needed? (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227444)

Why is this needed? Celebrities have their name as a trademark. If someone registers a porn site to their trademarked name, they can make a small fortune by suing. This sounds like something that came out of a PR feed to create demand for .xxx domains.

Use it or lose it (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227634)

As I understand legal procedure, being proactive about enforcing your exclusive rights is considered better practice than sleeping on your rights just to get bigger damages [wikipedia.org] . This is true of trademarks even more than of copyrights and patents.

Re:Use it or lose it (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 2 years ago | (#37227654)

The issue you are talking about is enforcing one's rights by legal means. It does not mean one need to take preemptive action against would be imposters.

Extortion scheme. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37227774)

ICM Registry: "Just as planned."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>