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!

Porn-Industry Outsiders Fear 'Shakedown' In .XXX TLD

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the sure-would-be-a-shame-if-anything-was-t'-happen dept.

Businesses 245

The long-debated .XXX top-level domain opens this week; reader SonicSpike sends a snippet from the Washington Times about what may turn into a hornet's nest of anger at how the new domain is being used: "Some adult-entertainment companies are balking at the entire scheme, saying that ICM Registry LLC, which is overseeing .xxx registrations worldwide, does not have permission to sell the .xxx version of trademarked names and brands. In addition, the Florida-based company is raising eyebrows — and charges of 'shakedown' — by trying to get non-porn companies to pay to prevent their brands from being registered as .xxx sites. After all, what maker of baby food or children's movies, for example, would want to have sites such as gerber.xxx or disney.xxx floating around the Internet?"

cancel ×

245 comments

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

Welcome to capitalism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310724)

We hope you enjoy your stay.

Re:Welcome to capitalism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311398)

probably an excellent example of why that was posted that as AC.

fucking moderator system fails when you encounter just one overzealous moderator that doesn't have the mental capacity to understand a person's argument.

what a waste of air that guy is.

Re:Welcome to capitalism (5, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 3 years ago | (#37311530)

No, it's more like, "Welcome to Florida". The level of corruption in this state is unbelievable. Lawyers mismanaging senior citizen trust funds is rampant in Florida, and there's absolutely nothing that family members can do about it. Any time a lawyer gets a hold of a senior citizens' funds because that person is incapacitated, the lawyer immediately makes up all kinds of bogus legal fees and charges them to the person's account, draining their funds in a matter of months. It's impossible to file a Bar complaint, because that will cause the lawyers to sue the complainant, and the Bar tells that to anyone who calls them to file a complaint about an attorney.

This kind of corruption is nothing new in the USA, but it's raised to an absurd level in Florida. Apparently, a lot of people are so mad about it that they're going to stage an event where they fly planes with banners protesting the state of affairs over the county court houses all across the state, at the same time.

Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | about 3 years ago | (#37310744)

as 'disney.com' ? the porn that goes in there is totally different than the regular porn tho - they are fucking children's minds. still, its xxx in another sense.

Re:Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (0)

c9brown (1828396) | about 3 years ago | (#37310902)

Next time you make a bold claim you might try substantiating it with evidence or even just the specific bullet points that form your argument. Otherwise you sound like that dude who roams the streets yelling out 'THE GOVERNMENT!'.

Re:Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 3 years ago | (#37310946)

Disney does wield an enormous amount of power over our culture. Think about the millions of children who grow up watching Disney films, which represent a particular set of values and ideals that are being drilled into the heads of those children. Whether or not this is comparable for pornography is another issue entirely, but it is not as if there is nothing to the argument that Disney is indoctrinating children into a particular culture (nor is it a stretch to think that Disney is subtly using this power to its advantage).

Re:Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (2)

AndrewNeo (979708) | about 3 years ago | (#37310948)

Not to mention power over copyright.

Re:Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310994)

well there is an entire subculture of fetishists who have their women dress up in the elaborate type costumes that disney females wear.

Re:Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (1)

c9brown (1828396) | about 3 years ago | (#37311318)

I didn't say there could be nothing to this argument. I just said there was nothing in his specific claim because he provided no substantiation. Furthermore, the statement "Disney does wield an enormous amount of power over our culture" is very different from the statement "they are fucking children's minds". The point is that unless one delves into the details of what one is trying to convey, at least a little bit, then one isn't saying much at all, and no one else should listen. Especially when it comes to bold, sweeping claims.

Re:Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310970)

Think about all the animal-rights activists who think animals are conscious and feel emotions and pain like we do despite no scientific evidence for that (and quite a bit of evidence against that).
They're like that because Disney told them animals talk like people.

Re:Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | about 3 years ago | (#37311132)

I'm not an animal-rights activist, but to say that animals have no feelings and do not feel pain? There is quite a bit of scientific evidence for that, and little against it, at least when it comes to mammals. Whether they feel it the exactly the same as we do is irrelevant.

You need to brush up a bit.

Re:Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 3 years ago | (#37311346)

Hmmm... lessee...

Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at www.disney.xxx.

Apparently not... yet.

Re:Disney.xxx ? isnt there already such a site ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311512)

Google Disney and subliminal. Break out your old Disney VHS cassettes.

Hey, Gerber does not get to monopolize the name! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311048)

Gerber means "to vomit" in french. Since .xxx is not language specific and vomit has a small but very dedicated and well-paying porn following (really, it does), I have every right to register that name and use it to sell vomit-porn to the francophone market. As long as I am not using the name in a way that would lead to trademark confusion (which would be pretty hard to argue), Gerber should just butt out.

Re:Hey, Gerber does not get to monopolize the name (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311084)

hehehe you said butt

Re:Hey, Gerber does not get to monopolize the name (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 3 years ago | (#37311154)

the concept of 'vomit-porn' is not only new to me, but horizon-widening in every sense ...

Re:Hey, Gerber does not get to monopolize the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311208)

You must be new here. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hey, Gerber does not get to monopolize the name (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | about 3 years ago | (#37311242)

the concept of 'vomit-porn' is not only new to me, but horizon-widening in every sense ...

No, the horizon-widening porn is called scat. Don't google it!

Re:Hey, Gerber does not get to monopolize the name (3, Funny)

bmo (77928) | about 3 years ago | (#37311360)

Alt.sex.watersports never involved synchronized swimming, either.

--
BMO

Re:Hey, Gerber does not get to monopolize the name (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 3 years ago | (#37311196)

Hey now, the fluids that actress just vomited up look awfully like pureed baby food. And... is that... a 70yr old man in a diaper licking it up off the floor?

Re:Hey, Gerber does not get to monopolize the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311226)

Gerber means "to vomit" in french. Since .xxx is not language specific and vomit has a small but very dedicated and well-paying porn following (really, it does), I have every right to register that name and use it to sell vomit-porn to the francophone market. As long as I am not using the name in a way that would lead to trademark confusion (which would be pretty hard to argue), Gerber should just butt out.

Apparently you don't have kids because I for one can testify that baby food leads to a lot of vomit.

Gerber.xxx? (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37310752)

Does Gerber have any idea what big appetites adult-baby fetishists must have? Ka-ching!

Re:Gerber.xxx? (1, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 3 years ago | (#37310972)

Not nearly enough money there to offset the loss of business from social conservatives boycotting Gerber. Pornography is still frowned upon in America, and there are vast swaths of the country where the 1950s sentiments about pornography and family values are not a thing of the past. People still believe that pornography turns men into rapists and child molesters, and you can bet that Gerber does not want anyone to associate their corporate image with that sort of thing, even if there are a minority of people who have an adult-baby fetish.

Re:Gerber.xxx? (1)

Discopete (316823) | about 3 years ago | (#37311026)

Not nearly enough money there to offset the loss of business from social conservatives boycotting Gerber.

Which is why the lawsuit damage amount will be staggering. Same with disney.xxx. These companies can bring millions of dollars in legal muscle to bear when it comes to protecting their names and IP. Just the 'goodwill' & defamation of company character amounts will be huge.

In other news (3, Insightful)

Mensa Babe (675349) | about 3 years ago | (#37310998)

In other news, Verisign is trying to get non-stupid companies to pay to prevent their brands from being registered as company-is-stupid.com sites. After all, what serious book publisher or university, for example, would want to have sites such as amazon-is-stupid.com or mit-is-stupid.com floating around the Internet?

Re:In other news (2)

Ashriel (1457949) | about 3 years ago | (#37311540)

That's just terrible. The internet is supposed to be all about free expression, no? Allowing companies to pay to block those who would mock them flies right in the face of that idea. If said companies are so concerned, they should be buying up name-is-stupid domain names themselves (and whatever other variations they can come up with). If they miss a few, well, they should have been more imaginative.

Re:In other news (1)

NickFortune (613926) | about 3 years ago | (#37311544)

In other news, Verisign is trying to get non-stupid companies to pay to prevent their brands from being registered as company-is-stupid.com sites.

So, clearly, what we need here is a .stupid TLD. Then we can get all the stupid companies to take .stupid domain names, and the clever ones can stay as they are. That should work exactly as well as the .xxx TLD is going to work.

Of course it all falls apart if someone is clever enough to take the "is-stupid" suffix and register it under .xxx, or indeed .stupid. But then ... what are the chances of that happening?

No publicity is bad publicity (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | about 3 years ago | (#37310756)

After all, what maker of baby food or children's movies, for example, would want to have sites such as gerber.xxx or disney.xxx floating around the Internet?

They could spin it advantageously in the end...somehow.

Re:No publicity is bad publicity (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | about 3 years ago | (#37310786)

By making it a porn site themselves, ala PETA and reap the profits. After all it promotes ... baby nutrition.

Re:No publicity is bad publicity (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 3 years ago | (#37310856)

PETA was not well-looked-on by the courts. Imagine how this company will be considered.

Re:No publicity is bad publicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310888)

I don't think I want to see the contents of a peta.xxx site without bleach handy.

His is this any different from other TLDs? (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 3 years ago | (#37310760)

I don't see how this is any different than worryabout trademark registrations for .edu, .net, .org, or the country code TLDs.

If you really want to protect your trademark, you have to register an awful lot of TLDs just to cover one variation on a name.

Fortunately the convention seems to be that whoever registers for a .com, first implicily has the rights to that name in other .TLDs.

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37310792)

It isn't fundamentally different(which is, in large part, why those horrible 'arbitrary-string TLD' people must die); but I suspect that .xxx is slightly worse than some, in that(unlike .net) it is largely useless to 'mainstream' trademark holders except on defence, and (unlike .edu) there aren't substantial restrictions on who can register for .xxxes, and, (unlike weirdo country-code TLDs) .xxx is likely to be more recognizable than the obscure ones; but not useful for subsidiaries/marketing in the major-market ones. Just a pure shakedown.

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310976)

The problem is with idiots trying to regulate the internet. If they can just keep their greedy fingers to themselves everything would be fine.

Yes, they're doing it for the children. Their children. No, they aren't starving, but the trust funds are getting small-ish, I mean, just two cars, three apartments and a villa, just doesn't cut it nowadays.

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 3 years ago | (#37311386)

If it works, maybe they'll make a .goatse TLD to do another shakedown.

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 3 years ago | (#37310794)

It's similar in a way, and they already have been trying to push that (all the registrars nag, sometimes insistently, about registering variants). At first glance this raises the stakes by putting forth the possibility of someone not only squatting on a variant of your name, but an "unsavory" version of it. disney.info is squatting, but disney.xxx maybe would damage the brand. Like if there were a .felon domain name and someone registered your full name dot felon or something.

On the other hand, it's long been possible to convert a non-offensive domain name into an offensive domain-squat by just putting up unsavory content on the domain, like in the ol' whitehouse.gov/whitehouse.com thing.

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (2)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 3 years ago | (#37311168)

I dont know about .felon, but just imagine the fun of trying to sell .scam to a Nigerian prince or two! (and registering .scum domains for a few banks as well)

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (4, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 years ago | (#37311306)

Hold on a second. Just who is domain squatting whom in disney.xxx? I get that a corporation like Disney feels that wherever their name appears it somehow means that they own it, but to be fair, .xxx is intended to convey information to *us, the web surfing public* that we can and should expect pornographic material.

As such, if disney.xxx is reserved for Disney, *they* are the ones squatting on a potentially legitimate pornographic website. That's wrong, and shouldn't be encouraged. After all, xxx isn't intended for them in the first place, and they certainly have no intention of using the domain appropriately for the TLD's purpose.

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (4, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | about 3 years ago | (#37311428)

Easy answer. A domain squatter is someone who owns a domain and doesn't have nearly as much money as the person who wants it.

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 3 years ago | (#37311548)

Exactly. Remember mikerowesoft.com? The guy's name was Mike Rowe, and he had a software company. He had every right to that domain name and company name, but Microsoft forced him to give it up.

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#37310858)

Fortunately the convention seems to be that whoever registers for a .com, first implicily has the rights to that name in other

Also fortunately, very few people would actually care if gerber.xxx was a porn site. For a long time whitehouse.com was a porn site. Was good for a laugh, but it wasn't like people were outraged thinking that Bush or Clinton or whoever was in the office at the time was filming all those lesbo scenes. How many people are going to type in gerber.xxx, get porn or viruses, and stop buying baby food?

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 years ago | (#37311102)

its no different, just an extension of the same scam.

I still remember when the top level names actually meant something.. ( and i think was enforced, or at least it seemed to be back then )

Someone like Microsoft wouldn't be allowed to register a .org, or .net.. Now its a free for all, and forcing companies to take preemptive steps and forking out the cash. ( for a large company its not a lot of cash, but its still wrong.. and for a smaller company it can add up. )

The entire name system is a total disaster at this point.

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 3 years ago | (#37311258)

Just get the .com, .org, and .net, and ignore the rest. It's not like you'll get .edu, .mil, .gov or .arpa (the other 4 original TLDs), and the country-specific ones are worth less in terms of "where to go first" than having the canonical "Big Three."

Re:His is this any different from other TLDs? (2)

cfulmer (3166) | about 3 years ago | (#37311416)

If you really want to protect your trademark, you have to register an awful lot of TLDs just to cover one variation on a name.

That's really a silly approach to trying to protect your trademark -- even with the top-level domains currently out there, there are just too many variations. Why is disney.xxx a big deal when they haven't registered disneyxxx.com or disney-xxx.com?

If disney.xxx pops up, then Disney can file a UDRP complaint or a civil suit and get the domain taken down pretty quickly.

Fortunately the convention seems to be that whoever registers for a .com, first implicily has the rights to that name in other .TLDs.

That is certainly not true. Registering the .com does not give you rights to any others.

Its already agaisnt the law (2)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 3 years ago | (#37310798)

Its already against the law to make adult web sites with names to fool children. So making a Disney.xxx is already against the law. But since criminals break laws I'm sure someone will give it a try.As far as the other stuff well they have no one to blame but themselves. They were given the opportunity to self regulate and they failed very badly.

Re:Its already agaisnt the law (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310820)

against the law where ? there are 192 countries on this planet

Re:Its already agaisnt the law (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#37311244)

Why would Disney.xxx be against the law? No child is accidentally going to go to Disney.xxx when they think they're going to Disney.com. They're going to have a little link on their bookmark bar to Disney.com. They would have to actually try if they wanted to get to Disney.xxx. And further, there's no possibility that a porn site would ever get confused with Disney, the children's programming company. No confusion, no trademark infringement. About the only thing that might make it dubious is the "famous brand" bit in U.S. trademark law. However, even then, it could easily be a descriptive use of the mark (e.g. NudeDisneyStarlets.xxx), which is pretty close to airtight.

Besides, I think having a Disney.xxx would arguably be a good thing. Then there would be a single company that they could sue every time some Disney starlet goes bad and makes a sex tape, sends nude pictures of herself to her now-ex boyfriend, or flashes a tour bus while coked up and drunk instead of having that content spread across dozens of individual pornography sites....

Or not. Either way, I question that trademarks are as strong as you think they are.

This has already been discussed (2, Informative)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | about 3 years ago | (#37310810)

There is a clause that allows companies to register their own trademark domain for a steep discount if they don't intend to use it for adult content. A couple hundred bucks to a mega corp isn't a shakedown.

Re:This has already been discussed (5, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 3 years ago | (#37310840)

A couple hundred bucks so something bad does not happen to you (wink wink) is a shakedown, regardless of how much money the shakee has.

Re:This has already been discussed (5, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | about 3 years ago | (#37310898)

If a trademark owner has to pay again each year to prevent their registered trademark from being used in each TLD, that sounds like a "protection racket" to me. And when they keep adding new TLDs, the cost and effort keeps rising each year. I don't know what the solution is, but the current system definitely resembles "paying for protection".

Re:This has already been discussed (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 3 years ago | (#37311532)

There is no renewal. The $200 fee (if your application is approved) results in a permanent, irrevocable, blacklist of that name. Even YOU cannot use the .xxx name if you successfully get it blacklisted.

Re:This has already been discussed (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#37310996)

That would be a couple of hundred bucks with renewal (Either annual or three-year I imagine). Still nothing to a megacorp, yes. But to a small business or a startup, that can be significent.

Re:This has already been discussed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311506)

But to a small business, who cares. If you're a small business you can register JoesPlumbing.com and that's your domain name. If someone else wants to register JoesPlumbing.net, they should be allowed. That's supposedly the whole point of having new TLDs, because people complained we were running out of good ones in .com.

No one is likely to register JoesPlumbing.xxx, and none of Joe's customers are going to go there

Re:This has already been discussed (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 years ago | (#37311144)

Ok, ill give you that on the huge companies out there, but what about a mom and pop shop that barley makes a living selling their home made widgets? Why should they have to defend themselves, in effect?

$200 for .xxx $200 for .net, info, biz, bla bla bla.... ( and the time spent maintaining it all ) It does add up after a while.

Re:This has already been discussed (1)

Endovior (2450520) | about 3 years ago | (#37311422)

Ok, ill give you that on the huge companies out there, but what about a mom and pop shop that barley makes a living selling their home made widgets? Why should they have to defend themselves, in effect?

$200 for .xxx $200 for .net, info, biz, bla bla bla.... ( and the time spent maintaining it all ) It does add up after a while.

By the same token, nobody's going to make any money going after an obscure mom and pop like that... simply because they're obscure. Maybe some fraudster might be able to pull something like that, given sufficient SEO investment... but really, why bother?

Save the web (0)

holdme (2454486) | about 3 years ago | (#37310842)

There is too much centralized control over the Internet. This allows governments to stomp it out, destroy it, shut it down, prevent information from being disseminated. Wikileaks? Shut it down. Social media used to organize people? Shut it down. Porn? Well, it's a good pretense for shutting down even more Internet to ever more people. Darknet, private Internet separated from main pipes at first through security and eventually physically, that's what will have to be done. Even if old BBSs with dial up will have to be brought back on line, what are you going to do? What are you going to do when everything is shut down by the governments?

Re:Save the web (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | about 3 years ago | (#37310984)

I'm going to say "WHY DIDN'T YOU WARN ME HOLDME? WHY DID I READ YOUR CRAP AND THINK YOU WERE SOME SORT OF LOW LEVEL RETARD? WHY?"

But since it's not going to happen and it's all just some weird, dark, paranoid fantasy that lives only in your head, you're safe from having to deal with that.

Re:Save the web (1)

holdme (2454486) | about 3 years ago | (#37311066)

You think the web is safe from controls? You think nobody wans to shut down the message and the messengers? Just because there is some paranoia in the message, you think it's not a legitimate paranoia? Do you think the web is safe?

Re:Save the web (1)

Grygus (1143095) | about 3 years ago | (#37311552)

You think the web is safe from controls? You think nobody wans to shut down the message and the messengers? Just because there is some paranoia in the message, you think it's not a legitimate paranoia?

Do you think the web is safe?

Basically, yes. I think that by the time the government is able to shut down the internet against our will, that action will be the least of our worries.

Re:Save the web (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311068)

There is too much centralized control over DNS.

FTFY.

Don't like it? Start your own DNS root.

Re:Save the web (1)

holdme (2454486) | about 3 years ago | (#37311112)

OK, but can I have it with blackjack and hookers attached? Do you think anybody would use a service like that? I literally mean it, btw.

Never forget who OWNS the Washington Times. (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 3 years ago | (#37310852)

That paper is about as serious as the Daily News.

Submissions linking to it have no place here.

Re:Never forget who OWNS the Washington Times. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#37311058)

All publications should be submitted here. Regardless of who "owns" a paper or not. Leave it to the reader, and commenters on the forums to decide. Not your narrow view of what people should decide.

Re:Never forget who OWNS the Washington Times. (3, Informative)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 3 years ago | (#37311134)

I don't know when people started taking the stance that all opinions and all sources should be given equal time and weight, but it has led to a massively uninformed populace.

Re:Never forget who OWNS the Washington Times. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#37311216)

I don't know when people decided that refusing to run a story based on who owns a news paper was a good way to do things. You know they did that just before germany turned into nazi germany too. That turned out well.

Re:Never forget who OWNS the Washington Times. (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 3 years ago | (#37311340)

Nice to see Godwin is alive and well.

Re:Never forget who OWNS the Washington Times. (1)

Grygus (1143095) | about 3 years ago | (#37311562)

I don't know when people started taking the stance that all opinions and all sources should be given equal time and weight, but it has led to a massively uninformed populace.

It was probably some idiot who favored freedom of speech and was against censorship.

Saying that people should not listen to nonsense is one thing; you are saying that you should decide what people get to hear in the first place. That's not the same thing.

Re:Never forget who OWNS the Washington Times. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311390)

Even a psychopathic right-wing paranoid hate-mongering racist blind squirrel tells the right time twice a day. Or something like that.

Gerber? (1)

Bronster (13157) | about 3 years ago | (#37310860)

gerber are obviously just typosquatting gerbil.xxx, a domain which I expect to retail for plenty.

subject (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310868)

rsrrs pornisforloosers!

Worst of both worlds? (3, Insightful)

jensend (71114) | about 3 years ago | (#37310878)

I'd like to see a scheme like the .xxx tld work well- simplifying things for people who don't want to encounter internet smut without error-prone filter setups and without futile attempts to keep that kind of stuff off the web entirely. But it looks like this is being done in the worst way possible.

Exorbitant registration fees will make it so this will never serve its intended purpose- most smut will be hosted on normal tlds just to save on fees. And the claimed "shakedown" racket makes no sense. If there's going to be porn which (ab)uses your trademark, it's not like registering a domain will wipe it out or even make it significantly harder to find. The best route for normal businesses would be to just ignore everything under that tld. It's not like the old whitehouse.com problem- if somebody says "I went to gerber.xxx and was SHOCKED to see what was there! For shame!" there's the easy rejoinder "What exactly were you doing looking up gerber.xxx, and what did you expect to find on an .xxx domain? Why would you think that's affiliated with us at all?" But this greedy registry wants to wring extra dough out of people by playing on their trademark paranoias.

Re:Worst of both worlds? (5, Informative)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | about 3 years ago | (#37311128)

I'd like to see a scheme like the .xxx tld work well- simplifying things for people who don't want to encounter internet smut without error-prone filter setups and without futile attempts to keep that kind of stuff off the web entirely. But it looks like this is being done in the worst way possible.

The trouble is that it can't work that way. You can't exclude all smut to a single set of domains for a large number of reasons. For one thing, nobody really agrees on a definition. For another, any single domain may contain a wide variety of things: You can find a metric ton of non-smut on tumblr, but you can also find plenty of naked women there too. And you basically end up with two choices: Either you banish all of those websites in their entirety to .xxx and then all of their non-smut content ends up behind the filter (and you hit First Amendment problems in the US), or you let websites containing smut use non-.xxx domains, but then the filter doesn't actually block the smut because nobody uses exclusively .xxx when they can reach a larger audience by paying another $8/year to get the equivalent .com domain.

The problem is really with filtering in general, not with domains: You have a trade-off between false negatives and false positives. The only way to have a low number of false negatives is to have a high number of false positives and vice versa. And we decided a long time ago that it's better for government to accept the large number of false negatives and then let people choose for themselves what content they want to consume, than to have a government censorship board that decides what people can see and hear.

Re:Worst of both worlds? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | about 3 years ago | (#37311164)

...But this greedy registry wants to wring extra dough out of people by playing on their trademark paranoias.

But if I don't register my-trademark.xxx, then it could be claimed in court that I wasn't protecting my trademark, and thus it should be vacated...

:( You know, I started this post off as a joke, but unfortunately, I suspect that someone could actually succeed at this claim... FSM, we need better trademark laws... :(

Re:Worst of both worlds? (3, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | about 3 years ago | (#37311268)

You can protect the tradmark by sending them a C & D. No need to fall for this extortion scam.

Re:Worst of both worlds? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 3 years ago | (#37311516)

I don't want to encounter pictures of cats, i.e. girl porn. Segregating such quasi-bestiality and other perversions like facebook, blogs, etc. into an .xx domain would go much further into cleaning things up than trying to structure the internet around the mystification of human biology.

Streisand Effect (1)

retroworks (652802) | about 3 years ago | (#37310890)

I continue to wonder whether any greedy porn king would have the slightest interest in "gerber" or "disney". If they had found a market in that, we'd already have Gerber_XXX.com or XDisney (like Xhamster). The brew-ha-ha may actually create a "Streisand Effect" causing domain squatters to go register domains they otherwise would not have considered (something I tried labelling the "streisand.xxx effect").

"The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org]

Re:Streisand Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311110)

we'd already have Gerber_XXX.com

I'd just like to point out that underscores in domain names are illegal (even though I remember once having encountered DNS servers that served them and some clients that accepted them).

Re:Streisand Effect (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 3 years ago | (#37311418)

Which makes me also wonder... what's the big problem here? In the article, the only people complaining are the smut site operators because they don't like the idea of shelling out more of their "hard" - earned money on protecting their brands. As for other businesses, they really don't seem to have anything to worry about. If every Joe's Widgets Inc. had to worry about every TLD, they'd have to register over a hundred of them.

Most people use a search engine to find what they're looking for. When they DO know they URL, they use .com like everybody else. If that doesn't work, they try .org or .net. If none of the above work, the site may as well not even exist (with the exception of location-specific websites such as disney.ru or disney.nl for example).

. xxx is an opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310892)

Companies should be purchasing these and then exploiting them as a way to market toward 20-45 year old males looking for these URLs. There are tactful ways to take advantage even if you are Gerber.
– Ternus

You forgot slashdot.xxx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310904)

What's the #1 thing that all tech guys have in common? Facial hair. #2 would be pr0n.

$200/yr per domain - $99/yr when open season. (1)

musixman (1713146) | about 3 years ago | (#37310930)

Important to note, It's $200/yr right now to pre-register 1 domain name.. it's not like it's $8-$9. Even after pre-registration when it goes open to anyone to buy it's still $99/yr per domain. I just want to know how someone is GIVEN a business to manage like that. It's going to created record profits for almost no work at the expense of other legit adult and mainstream businesses. Sounds like someone got a kickback to allow this to me.

Re:$200/yr per domain - $99/yr when open season. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#37311050)

They got the business because they were the company that proposed it. He who writes the proposal, gets the contract. They also spent years in court fighting for approval - the whole affair got rather dirty. Long story short: ICANN rejected the proposal, but there was widespread suspicion that they were pressured by the US DOC (This being during the Dubya years). ICM appealed, and won the right to resubmit. They resubmitted, and that time it got through.

simple domain registration rules? (2)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 3 years ago | (#37310940)

ICANN should make a few simple rules (i.e. easy to understand and to code). Good examples could be

{domain}.com OR {domain}.xxx, but not both
{domain}.TLD (original list) OR {domain}.(arbitrary TLD), but not both.

These could be used to filter out online registrations. Obviously some sort of exceptions will crop up (playboy.com and playboy.xxx), which could be handled by certifying that the owner of the first registration is filing for the second. Registrars could charge extra for this manual red-tape exception.

Sexiest thing evar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37310958)

A grainy 8mm film of a Disney Snow White doing a strip tease. There used to be a copy on the web, but I'm not surprised that it disappeared. Maybe somebody could put up a rapidshare file??

The whole TLD industry is a scam anyway (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 3 years ago | (#37310962)

Fifteen years ago, .org, .net and .com made sense and by and large companies registered the domain that made sense for their business.

Then businesses decided that letting someone else own, say, cocacola.net didn't make a lot of sense from a branding point of view. (Which is entirely true; the domain system was devised with little thought given to commercial interests or how they'd likely play out).

Today, most businesses of any size can be counted on to register every TLD that is even remotely well-known - if only to ensure that a porn site in their name does not appear under that domain. Registrars encourage this by heavily advertising every TLD they can think of. So we now get a mad rush of registration every time this happens.

Re:The whole TLD industry is a scam anyway (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#37311054)

It can get messy sometimes when there are multible trademark holders. The WWF (wrestling) and the WWF (wildlife) ended up in court over the rights to wwf.com and .org. Then there are some popular business names - there must be thousands called 'phoenix' because I've got a taxi company and two takeaways in my local area using that one.

Re:The whole TLD industry is a scam anyway (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#37311082)

A quick google, and.... yes, there is indeed a porn actress going by the stage name Phoenix. Plus the furrys too, of course.

as a porn star (1)

holdme (2454486) | about 3 years ago | (#37311018)

as a porn star I must admit, I'd rather see all porn be confined to a specific tld, it makes sense, doesn't it? It would be then easy to filter the stuff out for whoever doesn't like it personally. However I don't understand how this can be enforced at all. What would you do with somebody who posts porn under any other domain name? Jail them? Fine them? Shut them down? I don't see the value of doing that to people, aren't there enough people in jail for non-violent drug related offenses as is, to have porn related offenses as well? (unless it's child porn, but that stuff is illegal as is.) -- By the way, what is this?

Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 31 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

31 minutes since my last comment? I hope I am not overwhelming the infrastructure here!

Re:as a porn star (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 years ago | (#37311158)

31 minutes since my last comment? I hope I am not overwhelming the infrastructure here!

The Slashdot administrators are just doing their part to cure those who suffer from Premature Edification.

Considering your career (1)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | about 3 years ago | (#37311206)

31 minutes since my last comment? I hope I am not overwhelming the infrastructure here!

How often do you use this line? :)

-Matt

Disney may want to use disney.xxx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37311052)

If they ever wanted to create American hentai films, that would be the logical place.

Wow, they did it! (1)

CherniyVolk (513591) | about 3 years ago | (#37311122)

I have a lot of "smut" like domains. I would say, I own about 50 non-variant domain names; non-variant bob.com and bobby.com count as one. Maybe a solid 35 of those are no doubt fine domains for a smut site. All for personal use, because I'm a geek and feel I ought to own my own domains, I do not make money from them or anything, I don't even check the mail going to many of them so even if someone wanted to buy one for millions I never saw the offer, nor do I want to see such an offer honestly. To me, if you sit on a domain just to sell it that's questionable... but to sit on a cool domain to connect to IRC with or have an interesting email address, to me that's not a bad thing.

Years ago, when this whole .xxx thing came out, I was actually thinking of making a few of my domains into full-blown sites. So, I purchased the .xxx variants of some of my 'smut' domains and sat on them for a while. This was at a time when Firefox and IE needed a special plugin to visit these strange TLDs remember? Anyways, after a while and being charged an arm and a leg for them... I let them expire. Why would porn companies use .xxx? I bet Playboy will continue to hold, update and consider as a corporate/business portal, playboy.com to be their primary domain; even if they do in fact put all "content" on a playboy.xxx domain. This would go for all "adult" related sites, including perhaps companies such as F Street, DejaVu and others. Will Victoria Secrets be forced onto a .xxx domain? I doubt it. One problem is the fact that "xxx" means something totally different than just "porn". "xxx" has the connotation of degrading things, less tasteful depictions of "porn". I'll agree, Playboy and Penthouse is "porn", but Hustler or some weird Japanese fecal fetish magazine is "xxx". It's always been this way, and I fail to foresee it ever changing any time soon.

They will ALL have the .com and the .xxx domains in the end. As for those who find .xxx easy to "filter"... you'll still have all the old filter lists all the same because Playboy.com will still be erotic enough, suggestive enough, obvious enough that it will still be "porn". Only the most extreme smut sites will brag and find it sufficient for only a .xxx domain name such as, analgangbangs.xxx or creampieslurrpies.xxx. Everyone else, they will still have the .com versions of their domains.

Case in point? Are they going to make it a requirement that any content depicting nakedness, by law, must be on a .xxx domain? What if I connect directly to IP address as using scp, ftp or what not? Will it have to reverse to a .xxx host name? This is ridiculous if you ask me... but I think most of all the TLDs are ridiculous. .com, .net, .org, .mil, .smil, .edu... whatever.

what is all the fuss about (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 3 years ago | (#37311142)

I wonder. Basis for this are the fact that neither I nor nobody I know know anybody who ever actually watched pr0n. Even the s-f magazines like playboy are not read by anybody ever since I stopped buying the stuff 15 years ago and even then I was wondering how could a magazine survive if only one person buys and this not even on regular basis??? If that is so then I wonder why is this so important to have or not .xxx domain???

Re:what is all the fuss about (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 3 years ago | (#37311212)

neither I nor nobody I know know anybody who ever actually watched pr0n.

Are you sure you actually know anybody?

Has anybody else noticed (1)

twoears (1514043) | about 3 years ago | (#37311320)

that the XXX URL suffix is typed with one hand?

Enforcement? (1)

Monoman (8745) | about 3 years ago | (#37311356)

They rarely enforce the intended uses of the existing TLDs. Did you really think .xxx would be any different?

Re:Enforcement? (1)

mbone (558574) | about 3 years ago | (#37311446)

They rarely enforce the intended uses of the existing TLDs.

I guess you haven't tried to get a .bank or .aero domain name.

Re:Enforcement? (2)

Monoman (8745) | about 3 years ago | (#37311454)

Keyword is rarely. Some TLDs are enforced. mil, edu, etc

No surprise (1)

mbone (558574) | about 3 years ago | (#37311440)

Anyone who is surprised by this has simply not been paying attention.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?