×

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!

Two Porn Companies Take ICANN and .xxx Registrar To Court

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the acourtin'-we-will-go dept.

Businesses 272

SharkLaser writes "Two of the largest porn companies on the internet, Manwin and Digital Playground, yesterday sued both ICANN and ICM Registry, which runs the .xxx TLD, over extorting defensive registrations with ICANN's blessing. 'The complaint focuses on ICM's recently concluded "sunrise" period, during which porn companies, for about $200, could apply to own a .xxx address matching their trademark or .com domain.' Schools also felt the same way, and had to reserve domains under their name so that no porn content could be put up on them. The .xxx TLD has also previously been subject to criticism by both religious groups and adult industry, but for different reasons. Religious groups believe the .xxx TLD legitimizes pornography, while the adult industry believes it could lead to censorship."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

272 comments

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38104782)

It's on topic because I'm naked.

Good (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38104786)

Although the only real solution is to replace the TLD system altogether.

just another form of censorship (5, Interesting)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104792)

Maybe the next TLD will be .X13 and then .X18.. etc. The same thing that the MPAA does with film ratings.

Re:just another form of censorship (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105300)

I would ahve no problem if theior was an agancy that dictated those guidline and sites ahd to put them in a searchable area of the web page.

So you would have g/pg/pg13/nc17/ 18+/ No Rating

Seriously, Give me a tool to filter out unwanted site reliable.

Re:just another form of censorship (0, Offtopic)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105326)

I'm all for this. When I put "lindsay lohan boob" into google, I want to filter out all the G, PG, and PG13 results.

I'd still be ok with the results that say "what the hell do you want to see that for?"

Re:just another form of censorship (-1, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105718)

She's going to be in an upcoming issue of playboy (and upcoming torrent of images from said issue of playboy). This isn't some teasing cleavage either, it's the trifecta -- boobs, ass and vag.

Re:just another form of censorship (5, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105604)

Except, who creates standards of appropriateness for an international resource like the web? You can't without creating a nonsensical, administrative mess of censorship and general disagreement.

That's just another example of how .XXX was just a cash grab. Nobody can effectively categorize and police content on the web outside of a voluntary service, which will never be 100%. And so there's no way to say, "all porn must move to .XXX". If you can't move all porn to .xxx, then there's no real reason to have it.

It was just a way to make a crapload of money from people that don't even want the resource, just so that they can protect their existing services. That's shitty, and they only got away with it because the target was the porn industry.

Re:just another form of censorship (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105664)

>Seriously, Give me a tool to filter out unwanted site reliable.

Just being lazy and checking Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content-control_software [wikipedia.org]

Windows applications
Cyclope-Series (proprietary)
Green Dam Youth Escort (Mainland Chinese Government mandated software)
K9 Web Protection (proprietary, free for home use)
Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway (proprietary)
NetNanny (proprietary)
SurfWatch (proprietary)
SafeSquid (proprietary, free for up to 3 users)
Windows Live Family Safety (proprietary, free)
Secure Web SmartFilter EDU, formerly known as Bess
FB Limiter (free, paid upgrade available)
[edit]
Mac applications
K9 Web Protection (proprietary, free for home use)
SurfWatch (proprietary, free for home use)
[edit]
Hardware solutions
Lightspeed Systems (hosted or hardware, for mobile or desktop)
[edit]
Web browser
[edit]
Internet Explorer
Content Advisor (After IE 6)
[edit]
Other
CleanFeed (ISP based)
ClearOS (unix/linux and ISP based)
DansGuardian (unix/linux and ISP based)
DynDNS (DNS based, with a free plan)
Mobicip (cloud-based)
OnlineFamily.Norton (cloud-based)
OpenDNS (DNS/ISP based, free for Families and Non-commercial users)
SafeSquid (unix/linux and ISP based)
Scieno Sitter (system unknown: used exclusively by Church of Scientology members under an NDA)
SmartWeb (Parental Control for Apple iPhone and iPod Touch platforms)
Websense (system unknown: notable for use by China, Yemen, and US Governments)

More to .ru instead (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38104796)

After the great .cx purge all the great websites moved to .ru [goatse.ru]

Parent is Goatse (-1, Redundant)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104830)

Doesn't that get old after a while?

Re:Parent is Goatse (5, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104856)

Little-known fact: humanity achieved strong AI almost a decade ago. Unfortunately, we botched its sense of humour. All lazy trolls on the Internet are actually just one super-intelligent perl script.

Re:Parent is Goatse (5, Funny)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105188)

Makes sense. If I had a sense of humor, made via perl I'd inflict my misery on everyone too.

ICANN's Authority (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38104810)

The $200 fee is bullshit, and clearly unfair profiteering. My tax dollars went toward the development of the Internet. Who gave ICANN the authority to require another $200 from me to register a domain name?

Re:ICANN's Authority (0, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104840)

If it were free, people would just register every single name possible; charging a nominal fee (under $10/year) helps prevent that, as well as giving you a more legitimate claim to the name, since you actually paid money for it (unlike gratuitous contracts such as what you get with freemail and antisocial networking sites).

Re:ICANN's Authority (4, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104860)

But it's not under $10/year. It's $200, and companies have to register product names, typos etc too.

Re:ICANN's Authority (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104910)

I know that XXX domains are $200 a year - that wasn't the question I was replying to. The OP asked why there was any justification to charge ANY fee to register a domain name in ANY .TLD (since it used to be free, until Network Solutions got a monopoly and then started gouging at $100 per name, and finally it was opened up to competition and the price dropped to $50, then $35, then $25, then $20, then $12.50, and now under $10).

Religious groups (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104814)

Porn will exist on the internet whether you want it to or not. Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it.

Re:Religious groups (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104934)

Religious people watch just as much, if not more, porn than non-religious people.

They're just publicly obligated to speak out against it, along with all the other enjoyable things in life like smoking Marijuana and polyamory.

Re:Religious groups (5, Interesting)

Xanny (2500844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105028)

Porn will exist in general. 99.9% of humans past the age of 13 have sexual urges, and satisfying them through images and video causes no harm to anyone, it just makes them feel good. Its like drug prohibition. Porn doesn't hurt your neighbor in ANY WAY, but the fact it exists offends them, like they want to change the fundemental laws of the universe to make it so it can't exist. Since they don't have the education to even know how to do that, they just complain to government and the "moral" fabric of society takes over. That might sound judgmental, but having grown up in the last two decades, all I see is old people complaining about things that have no influence or effect on them and preventing everyone else from doing what they want to satisfy their own superiority complex. It gets old.

Re:Religious groups (5, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105084)

Porn doesn't hurt your neighbor in ANY WAY

Ohh, I dunno about that.

I videotaped myself whacking off in the backyard a couple of times and the neighbor got pretty pissed off. Something about how it "ruined" his view from the balcony or some other crap like that.

Other than that I agree with you. Bunch of Quakers out there.

Re:Religious groups (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105470)

It wasn't so much you in the backyard, as it was the dog so happily watching you! Just a little weird...

Re:Religious groups (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105508)

I have the weirdest boner right now.

Re:Religious groups (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105434)

Let me count how many generalizations there are in your statement with no backing.

1. 99.9% of humans past the age of 13 have sexual urges.
                        -While I am sure the percentage is high you have only skewed this to your own ends.

2. "causes no harm to anyone"
                      -Again for the most part you may be right, but again once you start dealing in absolutes you are wrong. Porn can and WILL cause damage to people around them if not only because those around that person will find it morally wrong and hence take action based on that. It could lead to loss of family relationships and in extreme cases employment. Whether or not it is "right" for that to happen is not the point....only that it can happen.

3. "Porn doesn't hurt your neighbor in ANY WAY"
                  - See number 2

4. "Its like drug prohibition"
                  - This is slightly different because there is no current law against Internet porn (except for very specific kinds)

5. "Since they don't have the education to even know how to do that..."
                    - Wow, you just tried to lump a very large group of people into a very specific label. Once again when you try and deal in absolutes you are always wrong (irony intended).

6. "All I see is old people complaining about things that have no influence or effect on them and preventing everyone else from doing what they want to satisfy their own superiority complex."
                - Once again you have just tried to lump a very large group of people and given them your perception of what motivates and drives them.

Your point may have merit, but you have not shown anything here to prove your point and have only shared your very biased opinion on how you THINK things are. Since you have not produced anything of value it is time to move to someone with a better argument.....NEXT!

Re:Religious groups (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105472)

>1. 99.9% of humans past the age of 13 have sexual urges.
  -While I am sure the percentage is high you have only skewed this to your own ends.

Without sexual urges the human race would have ceased to exist. Lack of sexual urge has been mostly bred out and is seen as "not normal" by most people skilled in the sciences of biology and psychology, usually attributed to hormone imbalance and depression. He has not skewed the data. You have ignored the data all around you.

--
BMO

Re:Religious groups (5, Interesting)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105200)

Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn

You would have for that to force all porn to use an .xxx domain, which is impossible, be it only because nobody's able to define porn precisely.

Basically this "black-list" approach is ridiculous, unenforceable and ineffective, and was simply devised from the start as a rip-off. To achieve the goal that you're proposing, the simple solution was to standardize a white-list approach, where sites that don't contain porn would advertise this fact using a HTTP header for instance. Then any site breaking the rule could be quickly and effectively reported and prosecuted.

Re:Religious groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105452)

Whoah! I wouldn't call a whitelist approach that leads to prosecution a simple solution, for the same reason you specified.

It is just as impossible to enforce, especially with user generated take-down-on-report sites like youtube.

Re:Religious groups (2, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105524)

You would have for that to force all porn to use an .xxx domain, which is impossible, be it only because nobody's able to define porn precisely.

Um, the government has *no* problem defining porn precisely enough to apply laws to it. Yes, the final decisions are made by courts, but don't delude yourself into thinking that they can't make a definition -- they can, and they have.

They certainly have little problem nailing people for child porn, for example. Or the occasional obscenity case.

Re:Religious groups (5, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105716)

They certainly have little problem nailing people for child porn, for example.

So little problem, in fact, that parents have been prosecuted for innocent pictures of their naked children.

Or to put it another way: it's not as simple as you think it is.

Re:Religious groups (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105554)

Things to add to the white list approach. It is not free, it is held by government and it is age graded very young (toddler), young (primary school) to teen (high school) to business adult (safe for work), to be more effective. You pay to get reviewed and placed on the list, you pay more to self grade and be audited randomly. Of course advertisements are strictly controlled to be on the approved white list, they must be 100% truthful, have no false associations and lack any peer pressure traits.

Once you have an approved white list you might as well go all the way in ensuring it meets all requirements. Not to forget IPv6 will pretty much make it a necessity, as blocking lists will start to take on huge numbers and become difficult to maintain apart from attack web sites.

For Fear Of Godwinning... (5, Interesting)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105212)

Porn will exist on the internet whether you want it to or not. Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it.

Jewish owned sites will exist on the internet whether you want them to or not. Using a .jew TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter Jewish sites if you don't want to see them.

Jewish owned businesses will exist in Germany whether you want them to or not. Using a Star of David badge makes it that much easier to identify and filter Jewish businesses if you don't want to use them.

Jewish people will exist in Germany whether you want them to or not. Using a Star of David badge makes it that much easier to identify and filter Jewish people if you don't want to associate with them.

That chain of thought started out as seeming pretty damn reasonable in an era when, not just Germany but the US, the UK, France, Russia, you name it, all regarded Jewish people, particularly Jewish businesses, with suspicion. Why shouldn't people have the right to choose where to do business and avoid those they find morally offensive? It's just a badge, right? How badly could it get misused?

In any environment, singling out a group you regard as morally inferior, forcing them to wear badges is generally a slippery slope.

Mix in the US government's current belief that it has the right to censor websites not just within the US but globally is their registrar is US based. Now what happens when a good [religion of your choice] president gets voted in and, pandering to his voter base, promised to disable .xxx. Now you've not only handed users the ability to easily filter their own content, you've handed politicians from a single nation the ability to globally switch off porn because they feel it's "bad."

How would America's gun lobby react if we ghettoized all gun related websites to .gun or .violence? How would our moral minority respond if we pushed all religious sites over to .religion? Of course, this being the US these days, .muslim would probably be plenty. How would the politicians supporting .xxx respond if all of their campaigning was forced to .politics and a flick of a browser switch could hide their campaigns from people? A lot more people are killed in the name of guns or of religion or of politics, a lot more lives ruined, than porn achieves. Yet the same people who support .xxx would freak over their interests being treated the same way.

Re:For Fear Of Godwinning... (2, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105240)

Slippery slope fallacy does not an argument make.

Re:For Fear Of Godwinning... (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105324)

Slippery slope fallacy does not an argument make.

The only 'slippery slope fallacy' is the laughable claim that once there's a power that the government can easily abuse... they won't abuse it.

Re:For Fear Of Godwinning... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105478)

Agreed. Sensitivity to porn and violence, especially to minors, seems like a pretty durable concern. It crosses countries, languages and cultures. There is also little social movement to change the social status of porn.

Therefore I would say that asking pornographic sites to self-identify, and saying that this is equivalent to the Nazis who forced the Jews to self-identify, is a bridge too far.

Ironically one of the supports for this argument is that there is absolutely no way for the porn to be 100% directed to the .xxx domain. Just as there is no way for commercial sites to be 100% directed to the .com g-TLD.

Re:For Fear Of Godwinning... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105784)

Slippery slope fallacy does not an argument make.

Talking like Yoda does not good grammar make.

Re:For Fear Of Godwinning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105262)

There's a difference between ethnic groups which people cannot choose and self-identified groups which people are free to join/leave. I'm not saying pornographers should be singled out, I'm just saying your comparison is tenuous at best.

Re:Religious groups (5, Interesting)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105258)

Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it.

RFC 3675 [ietf.org] disagrees with you.

Re:Religious groups (1, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105548)

Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it.

RFC 3675 [ietf.org] disagrees with you.

Of course, that RFC is just somebody's opinion on the matter. It's hardly the last word.

And really, the title is ".sex Considered Dangerous" -- not "A mandatory *.sex (or *.xxx) domain will not make it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it".

If all porn was forced to be on *.xxx domains by law and was not directly reachable via any other DNS tlds, then it certainly would make it that much easier to identify (though there's the risk of false positives) and filter porn if you didn't want to see it. This doesn't mean it's a good idea, but it *would* make this filtering easier.

(Of course, there's some big ifs in there too, I realize that.)

Re:Religious groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105404)

Users rarely understand the benefit of infrastructure improvements that make them uncomfortable.

As mom used to say, 'Hate me now, thank me later.'

why can everyone be happy. (1, Insightful)

fish_in_the_c (577259) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104824)

I mean .xxx does in some sense acknowledge that people market pron. ( is there any sane person who dosn't know that? )
It also should make it MUCH easier for people who want to avoid seeing pron to not be spammed by it.
Is it censorship to not look at things I don't want to and now allow them to be seen by people using equipment I have authority over?
( Assuming of coarse the equipment is not paid for by public funds who's business is it what I do and do not allow on my networks and equipment).

It seems to me .xxx meets a legitimate content labeling goal that can make everyone's life easier because we all understand what kind of 'information' should be labeled in that way and can act appropriately.

Re:why can everyone be happy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38104868)

The .xxx TLD is useless if you don't make money from domain registration.
It's not like the porn (defined how?) on the Internet is going to move en masse to .xxx to make it easy to find or filter.

Re:why can everyone be happy. (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105428)

But if playboy.com and playboy.xxx both exist, the filter can assume that playboy.com probably is porn.

Same with slashdot.xxx and slashdot.org.

Re:why can everyone be happy. (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104924)

I mean .xxx does in some sense acknowledge that people market pron.

When is the last time you paid attention to a TLD? When is the last time *anyone* paid attention to a TLD?

It also should make it MUCH easier for people who want to avoid seeing pron to not be spammed by it.

You are suggesting that all the porn providers would magically all move over to the .xxx domain by themselves, for your convenience. Gosh, you're naive and lazy.

And if you are being spammed by porn, I suggest you examine exactly which websites you are going to. I only get porn spam by visiting, you know, porn sites.

Is it censorship to not look at things I don't want to and now allow them to be seen by people using equipment I have authority over?

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Let me try to parse that....

Oh yeah, you can subscribe to one of the many filtering companies out there like Websense and Bluecoat. You can even set your DNS to use the filtering at OpenDNS, which is free (well, they take your demographics and such). There is no shortage of companies that will help you shield your eyes, should you want it. The fact that you are offended by stuff you see says 2 things about you: that you are thin skinned and lazy.

It seems to me .xxx meets a legitimate content labeling goal that can make everyone's life easier because we all understand what kind of 'information' should be labeled in that way and can act appropriately.

Go be a nanny somewhere else.

--
BMO

Re:why can everyone be happy. (3, Informative)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105344)

Let me guess, you are an american?

Those of us outside the US pay a lot more attention to TLD's than the US does. Because the difference between .com, and .ca or .uk can be substantial.

Lets say you're making a display, and you want to call yourself 'vivid' because well, you make displays that are vivid. (Or maybe you're HTC making a phone you want to brand that way, same deal) and someone else wants to equally correctly, but in a completely different context brand themselves 'vivid'.

Maybe you are Apple Records, and this pair of jackass hacker dudes want to be Apple computer, and someone else who wants to do porn was given the unfortunate name of Apple.

TLD's are great for context, and they're great for blocking stuff at work that you don't want employees involved with. Around here makes a lot of sense to block .gov, because well, it's the wrong .gov, but search engines still spit out forms and stuff, and that doesn't do us a lot of favours. It's easier to keep it away from your employees than let them be stupid and waste hours trying to sort out paperwork for the wrong government. (This is somewhat more problematic between various commonwealth governments, which for example share a lot of department names, they're all "Her Majesties Government" on official paper work and so on, it's not so much of an issue with the US because for example, no one else spells defence defense, but I've had issues with NAFTA stuff like that were someone wasn't smart enough to do paperwork for the correct country and we had to do it over). It also gives you more variants on useful words so that you don't have just one monopolizing brand on a name, even when none of Apple Records, Apple Corp, or Apple Inc (Apple Computer) actually sell Apples, nor are they related to any person who has been unfortunately named Apple. Which I guess is an argument for more TLD's that are context sensitive. .com and .org at one point were supposed to mean different things potentially.

Re:why can everyone be happy. (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105438)

.com and .org at one point were supposed to mean different things potentially.

You just nailed why TLDs no longer matter. It doesn't matter any more what you or I thought TLDs are supposed to mean. They mean nothing now. They are placeholders. You are lucky if a country code TLD actually matches where the website actually originates from or is targeted to.

Which is why you should pay attention more to what it says on the front page than it says in the TLD.

someone wasn't smart enough to do paperwork for the correct country and we had to do it over

So the "Her Majesty's Government of Australia" on the top of the page did not differentiate from "Her Majesty's Government of Northern Ireland?" I don't know about you, but I find governments to be pretty possessive about their names and make sure they're plastered all over every web page, print publication, video, film, etc.

>gov meaning explicitly US government is bad.

I agree, and it's an argument why TLDs should be done away with. We should have country codes at most.

--
BMO

Re:why can everyone be happy. (-1, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105530)

Lets say you're making a display, and you want to call yourself 'vivid' because well, you make displays that are vivid. (Or maybe you're HTC making a phone you want to brand that way, same deal) and someone else wants to equally correctly, but in a completely different context brand themselves 'vivid'.

Heh, dude. Vivid entertainment [vivid.com] [NSFW] is one of the top porn producers in the United States. Either I've been subtly and cleverly trolled, or you are psychic.

Re:why can everyone be happy. (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105648)

Let me guess, you are an american?

Those of us outside the US pay a lot more attention to TLD's than the US does. Because the difference between .com, and .ca or .uk can be substantial.

Well, yes. But we only differentiate between "my ccTLD" and "every other TLD". No non-techie cares about the difference between .com, .info and .mil; they will assume that domains start with "www." and end with ".de" (me being in Germany).

If you're a private person there's only one TLD relevant to you, your local ccTLD. If you're a company then there are more relevant ccTLDs, mainly to avoid malicious websites posing as yours - but that amounts to the local ccTLD (e.g. .de), the regional ccTLD (e.g. .eu), .com, .net and .biz (which already was a horrible idea).

In the end foobar.xxx will be distinct from foobar.com only in having a Levenshtein distance of three - the company behind it will probably be the same simply because they want to avoid posers. .xxx is the new .biz.

Re:why can everyone be happy. (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105366)

When is the last time you paid attention to a TLD? When is the last time *anyone* paid attention to a TLD?

When you set your Google search preferences you will want to search in languages you understand.

Re:why can everyone be happy. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105490)

When you set your Google search preferences you will want to search in languages you understand.

That has absolutely nothing to do with TLDs.

--
BMO

Re:why can everyone be happy. (5, Insightful)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105042)

Who defines what is porn? Two persons on opposite sides of the planet will have very different opinions on that. That's why there's fear of censorship. It opens the way for a law to have everything deemed pornographic to be moved under the .xxx TLD, which means that the website might as well not exist from the point of view of many networks.

Re:why can everyone be happy. (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105248)

Who defines what is porn?

This.

We have Hasidic Jews in NYC that are upset at bicyclists going through their neighborhood on a Saturday wearing shorts and teeshirts. Especially if they are women.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/hipsters-hasidic-jews-fig_n_384579.html [huffingtonpost.com]

And that's just the US. I just read a story about how women in Saudi Arabia, that if they have "sexy eyes" while otherwise clothed head-to-toe must also cover up their eyes, or face the beatings by the Religious Police.

http://jezebel.com/5860660/helpful-saudi-arabian-committee-suggests-women-cover-their-sexy-eyes [jezebel.com]

People don't tell control freaks and prudes to fuck-off nearly as much as they need to.

--
BMO

Re:why can everyone be happy. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105276)

it where porn begins that's hard to define. I can show things that everyone would consider porn.

However, just make it part of the equal that the person buying the sight intends to us it as porn. That way the purchases will be using their definition.

Re:why can everyone be happy. (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105568)

it where porn begins that's hard to define. I can show things that everyone would consider porn.

However, just make it part of the equal that the person buying the sight intends to us it as porn. That way the purchases will be using their definition.

Just because there's a vague blur between "porn" and "not porn", that doesn't mean the government can't make a definition. It can, and it has.

People do get arrested, tried and convicted for child porn, for example. Yes, the "child" part is fairly cut and dried, but the porn part requires judgement calls, and police, prosecutors, judges and juries seem to be able to make those judgement calls as needed. Yes, there is a gray area, and that's not idea, but don't pretend that people can't or won't make these decisions -- because they can and will.

snafu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38104836)

Religious groups believe the .xxx TLD legitimizes pornography, while the adult industry believes it could lead to censorship.

Sooo... religious groups don't want a powerful tool they could use to hurt the porn industry and the porn industry is afraid the religious lobby might clamp down on them with a potentially powerful censorship tool the religious lobby doesn't want...

Re:snafu (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104882)

The leaders of the religious groups don't want xxx domains because then it will be too easy for their followers to find out they're hypocritical pervs.

The real issue is why ANYONE who doesn't want a xxx domain would pay $200 a year to "reserve" it - THAT looks worse - having a xxx legitimately tied to your school in the WHOIS - than having some ex-alumni registering it to post their frat party pics.

It IS extortion (4, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104846)

Domain names cost like $7. Why do they have to pay $200 for one in another TLD just because it has the same base name? Disband ICANN and ICM and sell of their assets.
Domains used to be free. Whose brother-in-law in congress gave these a-holes authority to charge money for a free service?

Re:It IS extortion (1)

Lose (1901896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104926)

I'm not saying $200 isn't excessive, it still might be cheaper than someone purchasing domains utilizing your brand name before you can, and then having them charge you even more to get ownership of the domain.

If someone knows you're a big-name porn company flush with cash, they will probably weasel every penny they can out of you should they obtain ownership of a domain before you.

Re:It IS extortion (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105008)

The cost depends upon what services are being provided. In this case I'm guessing that it's primarily profiteering. I could imagine services that would make it worth $200 a year, such as verification that the sites are legal in whatever jurisdiction.

Re:It IS extortion (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105038)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#History [wikipedia.org]

Domains really couldn't truly be free forever. When the first troll arrived on the internet, dispute resolution became necessary, and that meant more employees and costs, going well beyond what a few volunteers could do with their spare time.

Re:It IS extortion (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105270)

Yeah, when 12 people wanted them and it was run by a voluneterr, domani names where free.

NO we have to pay for the service.
and 200 dollars isn't extortion. N fact, I wish all domains cost 200 dollars, with the exception of some sory of domain for personal use only. No corporation, not business.
That should be free.

"sunrise fees were excessive" (4, Insightful)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104864)

$200 is definitely a high price when you try to register all typos, abreviations and variants of your mark, but a good price to deter squatters and bulk buyer speculators.

Re:"sunrise fees were excessive" (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104982)

but a good price to deter squatters and bulk buyer speculators.

Who says you have to buy a damn thing?

domain kiting, v., the act of registering a domain, deleting it before the 5 days grace period is up, and reregistering it. Wash, rinse, repeat.

200 bux is extortion.

--
BMO

Re:"sunrise fees were excessive" (1)

d4fseeker (1896770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105440)

That will only work with certain well-known TLD's. However some extensions like .de are so ridiculously low-cost (1.92$/year plus 1$ Setup, excl. tax) that most speculators make enough money off the mass.

Re:"sunrise fees were excessive" (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105516)

Free is infinitely less expensive than $2/year. We're talking about squatters here, who "buy" domains in the thousands without spending a penny every 4.9 days.

Domain kiting is like domain tasting, but ICANN and the other TLDs have appended a 20 cent fee to each domain taste so the "domain taste millions of names" has shrunken to a trickle.

--
BMO

Re:"sunrise fees were excessive" (4, Funny)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105142)

...but a good price to deter squatters and bulk buyer speculators

I vote that we move all ecommerce and technical sites to .xxx since they do seem to have better quality control.

It seems... (2)

binaryhat (2494814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104928)

that the whole .xxx issue is causing more problems than solutions. If porn gets its own TLD then why don't gun companies have their own TLD extension? Because violence is okay and porn is dirty? Double standard...

Re:It seems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38104966)

It won't matter eventually since the whole damned TLD system is going custom if I remember correct.
I think there was some retardedly huge fee to create your own TLD officially without going through the traditional mess associated with it.
Not sure what is happening, or happened, to it.

That is the next step (5, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105782)

Has EVERYONE forgotten about .mobi and .travel? There ARE already industry specific TLD's and they failed dismally. In fact, I am in the industry and when I asked at fairly high level people why .xxx was expected to go any better then .travel and .mobi it was awfully silent.

INCLUDING about the claim "well if nobody wants it the price will just drop" with the question "But you invested a fortune in lobbying so you will then just give up instead of using your bought politicians to mandate porn sites to buy an XXX domain".

Baby steps. First you register the jews, then you make them identifiable, well you know the rest. Godwin? Yes absolutely, it is not about the eradiction of undesirables BUT the .xxx domain has some very odd supporters. Lots of politicians that would dearly love to see porn gone (and freedom of expression) supported the .xxx domain. Why? I think a phase 2 might happen maybe not by design but by the business behind it who spend a fortune getting this wanting to make sure it succeeds. Again with Godwin but do you think the census takers at IBM who recorded the faith of people in Germany knew the final solution?

Anyway, ICANN has long been thinking about launching endless TLD's. Think .gun or .apple is bad? How about .paris and .washington? Each town, their own TLD, every business their own TLD.

.xxx is an experiment. Not so much about whether their is a market but how a market can be forcible created.

A lot of people think they can get .xxx to work for them, it is sold to some porn companies as in that the .xxx domain will be more legit so they can get better deals with mainstream business for advertising... yes, they really are that stupid.

Playboy had no problem getting mainstream advertising but most porn sites are a squalid dirty mag that even the industry itself would be reluctant to advertise in.

But you can claim you read playboy.COM for the articles. Good luck doing that with playboy.xxx

For decades the industry has attempted to seem legit, that they are just a business, just like Playboy is. And now a lot of them think the best way to do that is cover their faces in the cum of the .xxx tld. Yeah, that will work. Why not wear a star and paint your face black (the only difference between Germany and the US is that you don't need to get blacks to wear anything to tell them apart. People can just tell it seems. Must be the big noses)

Google "X Art". Thank Me Later. (-1, Offtopic)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38104956)

Google "X Art". Thank Me Later.

Re:Google "X Art". Thank Me Later. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38104994)

Yeah... Can you say Barely Legal?
I'm more into mature stuff, so no thank you.

Re:Google "X Art". Thank Me Later. (-1, Offtopic)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105158)

Wow, a pay porn site. I would have never, ever ever found porn if you hadn't shown me the way! Oh thank you, Great Leader!

Re:Google "X Art". Thank Me Later. (-1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105218)

Wow, a pay porn site. I would have never, ever ever found porn if you hadn't shown me the way! Oh thank you, Great Leader!

Who said anything about paying?

It's Extortion (5, Insightful)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105062)

This is just a racket to force many companies to pay ICANN for protection.

Unlike the uselss .biz and .co TLDs that no one care about, .xxx can be used to be actively exploit and damage the names of respected businesses and organizations.

Legitimate porn companies will probably stay away from .xxx names because it is saying that we can't afford a real TLD. It will also open themselves up to be easily censored. There is nothing advantageous to it.

Re:It's Extortion (1)

frisket (149522) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105140)

Unlike the uselss .biz and .co TLDs that no one care about, .xxx can be used to be actively exploit and damage the names of respected businesses and organizations.

This entire argument is bogus. In what way does it damage their names or reps? You really think anyone of any significance would actually believe that sears.xxx or ibm.xxx means that Sears or IBM have just started up porno services?

Re:It's Extortion (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105288)

I was thinking the same thing. Then I remembered my neighbours. Most people are stupid. I mean really fucking stupid.

Re:It's Extortion (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105382)

Companies don't own a name. They own a name PLUS a TLD. If they had some magical right to all TLDs after they have registered one would make TLDs pretty useless. And would you care to elaborate exactly how a similarly named .xxx site is going to "damage the names" of businesses? I doubt that their potential customers will be searching for services on the .xxx domain.

Re:It's Extortion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105632)

hermancain.xxx

Re:It's Extortion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105758)

Ride the Cain Train

$200 is a lot (2)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105134)

$5 to cover the cost of the paperwork sounds better.

The "pre-emptive block" should in no way be a moneymaker for anyone.

ma=re (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105168)

is perhaps First orga8ization Love of two is Too many rules and

hmmm (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105242)

Porn is legitimate.

the point of .xxx is censorship. mainly censorship by whoever owns the system.

And any domain with your copyright in the name will be turned over to you through normal court process. Something I don't agree with, but there you are.

Re:hmmm (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105678)

The point of .xxx is to make money for registrars. Most people who seriously want censorship don't care about the .xxx domain because it's impossible to force all porn into one domain (US laws don't apply for .ru domains, for example).

Females (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105356)

Perhaps we'll be able to talk to females when Slashdot.xxx goes live!

Oh religious groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105388)

They seem to think that porn isn't already legitimate.

Re:Oh religious groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105456)

au contraire. Have you not heard of Christian Domestic Discipline?

Re:Oh religious groups (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38105556)

>CDD

I don't see how the Christ botherers are upset about Sharia Law. The Wahabbists and Dominionists want the same exact things.

I first discovered CDD from shortwave frequency preachers back in the mid 80s and it is frightening. You go to the front page of the CDD movement on the web and it seems... "okay not so bad" but then you listen to actual preachers and enthusiasts and it's like something out of the 14'th century.

--
BMO

Re:Oh religious groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105476)

They WHY are religious groups so numerous??? oh, because they replace porn with more unprotected sex... Not like you are going to convert enough people into what requires a life of delusional indoctrination.

Porn sites can be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105488)

commercial entities. Isn't that what .com was supposed to represent? I agree that .xxx is strictly for ease of censorship. If they are going down the path of identifying industries past .gov why not have mcdonalds.food burgerking.food etc.

I hope this example helps illustrate how companies like this are under the influence from individuals and organizations who aren't looking to help the online community.

I for one embrace my new random porn search (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38105630)

and look forward to the day i can type any randomword.xxx and see something NFSW quickly randomly and easily

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...