ICANN voted today to open up the domain namespace to allow anyone to submit an application to create their own TLD.

For an application fee of around $50k-$100K, plus proof of technical ability to manage the DNS servers, companies can start carving up their domain real estate space on the internet.

This naturally allows .XXX to be closer to reality. I have said from the beginning, if there were no "sponsored community" aspect to the TLD, no need for an IFFOR, there would be fuss about .XXX It would be no different than .BIZ or .INFO more power to those that register those domains,

So I would expect .XXX or .SEX or .PORN to be popping up next year, once ICANN figures out the rules to do this.

ICM/IFFOR did have some merits in their ideas of .XXX about making some rules and guidelines for its use, but if someone is going to tell adult what to do, its better if it came from adult.

I believe that some trade organization could put in the application to run a .XXX or .PORN and become the registry. Through advertising, they could build up the idea that the TLD is the "official" websites for adult content.

The registry would make an incredible amount of money that could go directly towards fighting against bad laws.

This registry would be a for-profit organization that would be overseen by the non-profit.

With official sanctioning of the TLD, it would at least help to give some means of self (or imposed) regulations, but done so by keepers that have the adult industry's best interest at heart, rather than the focus on the wallet.

Personally, I hope to get my ventures going into high gear, so that I can sponsor the .KIDS TLD application and make that a white-label approach to truly protecting kids.

Web browsers and ISP can be setup such that only .KIDS domains would be seen. This is how you protect kids, not a black-list approach.

Fight the .GREED!

The subject of 2257 has been beaten around many times from how it doesn't really protect children, to the burdensomeness of compliance, etc, etc.

The fact is that 2257 is on the books as a law, but complying with 2257 just for that reason isn't enough for most webmasters. I would like to suggest two reasons why you should look at 2257 compliance from a different perspective.

The intent of 2257 is that if a child was found to be used in production, that distributors of that content would be able locate those images and videos and take them down. By being able to locate the bad content, you remove yourself from the cross hairs of possession and distribution of child porn.

The problem is that most websites don't track where their images came from. Their idea of 2257 compliance is creating a 2257.html page and either copying the content producer's address from some other website, or they did record which content producers they used.

This form of 2257 documentation does nothing to resolve the problem of locating and removing the bad content.

You would need to know where those images and videos were used on your website. This is what the "record keeping" part of the 2257 statue speaks towards.

There are many ways to keep track of digital content, from paper filing to databases. The simplest methods could include:

- embeding some kind of ID of the content producer in the filename or folder

- use an excel spreadsheet with the following fields:

filename
content producer
directory location

More advanced methods of inventory tracking is to use a CMS.

If you point at any image/video on your website and you can't identify which content producer that it came from, then you just failed one of the 2257 tests.

2257 became more convoluted when they tried to say all website operators should have the ID's and do all the cross referencing responsibilities that the primary producer is supposed to do. I won't be getting into those issues.

By keeping track of the porn inventory, you go along way in complying with the spirit of 2257.

In the event there is a child found and the news story breaks, every webmaster who licensed content from that content producer would need to be scrambling to remove those images and videos.

If those images and videos are still up, you are now in possession of child porn, and also a distributor of child porn.

Your surfers and members who think they are accessing legal content, are now in possession of child porn.

At that point, who knows what ramifications there might be from surfers and members suing paysites for endangering them with illegal content, let alone the federal prosecutions.

The other practical reason for going through the "record keeping" exercise is on the issue of copyright infringements.

There are content producers out there who are looking to find their images on websites, using spidering technology to let the computer do the sniffing.

One real possibility is a content producer thinks he has found your website to be a copyright infringer, where in reality you licensed the content, but didn't notify them of the website the content was on. Many content producers have it in their licensing agreement that you must identify what website the content is being used. Many will fail to update them.

When you get slapped with the copyright infringement charge, if you knew where the image in question came from you could then look it up in your records to show to the copyright infringement cop that you had licensed the images, but did not update their records for the website. At this point, its not copyright infringement, its more of a licensing issue that can easily be resolved by complying with the terms of the content license.

So many are just sticking their heads in the sand on 2257 because they disagree with the law. You can't do that as a business owner when there are civil and criminal ramifications to your (in)actions.

The bottom line is know where your images come from my doing some form of documentation that allows you to be able to take down known CP images as well as protect yourself from a false copyright infringement claim.

Fight the bookkeeping!

There has been much industry debate and upheaval over *tube sites. Most tube sites have stolen videos that have been uploaded under a "user submitted" model where the uploader is supposedly the owner of the content.

From scanning any *tube site, you can clearly tell that this is not always the case.

This blog post is not about the rantings of the various *tube sites and content theft, but more so an observation sparked by a comment made by Paul Markham in a GFY thread over him allowing a *tube site to use his content and promote his paysite.

Paul Markham is a content producter who provides content to a *tube site. The clips found on these *tube sites are sometimes as long as 20 minutes, rather than the 3-5 min that other webmasters would like to see instead.

He looks to receive traffic from the *tube site to his paysite as the upsell, where the website provides the free content to the surfers.

He commented that if the conversions aren't there, then he can just sell/license the content to the *tube sites since paysites aren't licensing content as much from content producers these days.

What struck me is that as a content producer, whose market has clearly shrunk because of the 'do it yourself' type pornographers, that *tube sites are a welcomed evolution.

If a content producer can't make enough money licensing their content, they could provide it for free to the *tube site, to seed it with good/legal content, and the *tube site makes their money off of the various upsells or banner advertising, that can then pay for the content.

Almost like a rev-share or purchasing on net terms business model, but one that could help "legitimize" tube sites.

There have been TGP sites, one sleazy one in particular, that pays/licenses to have their own content on the site, rather than using images/photos/thumbnails uploaded by submitters.

*tube sites that license content from content producers are following that similar model.

*tube sites are getting an incredible amount of traffic. While traffic can be seen as king, its really now a commodity. Its more important to have the content to give something for the traffic to look at.

*tube sites are proving that content is king.

My slogan with Lee Noga back in the early 2000 period was "Innovate, not renovate". *tube sites are the new innovations and evolutions of content delivery and surfer marketing. They are struggling/juggling to find the business models that will make them legal and profitable, no different than any other adult website.

As far as the copyright / theft issues goes... *tube sites are not excempt nor above the law. Copyright holders are placing their lawsuit crosshair sites on the *tube sites and they have every right to do so.

Fight the boobtube!

U2's front man Bono made news as the venture capital firm that he is a partner in, invested $325M for 25% stake in Palm Computers (article)

Some have looked at this news with amusement as why would Bono, known for his outspoken fight against hunger and oppression, is investing in a technology company.

My answer is that in third world countries, the mobile phone will be the internet device of choice. Laptops and computers are too big, and are not suitable for rougher environments.

Imagine a low-cost Treo phone that has internet access that will allow people in third world countries to be just as accessible to the outside world as us sitting here in the U.S.

Business can be conducted in third world countries with emails as well as being able to have correspondance, place/check orders etc.

His line of (Red) clothing that is produced in Africa is an example of how local businesses in Africa can create products for global consumption.

I think Bono is on to something if this is his plan for making the world smaller and better through technology.

Fight the Feed the World ringtone!

There has been a lot of talk about how DVDs will be completely dead in another year or so, replaced by digital video, etc.

While DVD sales are down in general, I think you need to look deeper to see if online sales are up and will make up the difference.

Judging by the gripes of affiliates and paysite owners, they are feeling a decline in sales just as much as the DVD side.

I see the issue that what will be down is the concept of the full-length DVD. The fast-forward button on the VCR, Tivo, YouTube, etc., has proven that consumers' attention span has shrunk.

What I see is the potential for DVD to make a "cum back" by releasing compilation DVDs.

Look at record albums on the BillBoard Top List; for a while it was compilation CDs. The current top 100 list at Billboard has 3 compilation CDs of the top 10.

Look at stores like iTunes that allow people to purchase a single track rather than the whole album.

DVDs are tangible items. You can replay the content over and over again.

With digital video, it's in a streaming or downloadable format.

With streaming video, you watch it one time and can't replay it. Downloadable content is good (as long as it is not locked up by DRM) and can have replay value, but it requires downloading large files and then ultimately burning them to DVD for storage and playback.

If the consumer wants a variety of video as clips rather than a full length feature porn movie.... give it to them. Release a DVD that has the content they want.

Some would argue that shooting gonzo clips will take away from "the art." It's porn; the art is in the quality of the climax.

As video companies move towards internet distribution, don't forget about DVDs. Offer members/consumers of the internet paysite the ability to purchase a DVD, but this time, don't charge $24.95/DVD.

It doesn't cost much to replicate DVDs on-demand. Create compilation versions that are clip based, and have the tangibleness to hold onto the DVD (as well as other things) in hand, rather than just as a bunch of digital files.

A lot of internet-based websites were releasing DVD's this last year and more of them won AVN awards.

How interesting it is to see DVD/video folks look towards the internet, while internet folks are looking towards DVD.

Fight the convergence crossroads!

It has long been suspected by domainers that when you do a lookup to see if a domain is registered (ie.whois lookup) at a registrar, that the registrar uses that information to either register the domain for themselves or sell that data to third-parties.

Imagine the situation that you are on Network Solutions website and you search for "ThisDomainSurelyDoesntExist.com" and find that it is available. You decide to purchase this domain from another registrar, and find that it is taken. You are confused, because you just looked up that domain and now it is taken. In this case, Network Solutions has registered the domain, taking advantage of the 5-day "domain tasting" grace period, where a domain can be registered and then returned back within 5 days.

Network Solutions is in the spotlight for doing "front running" which was suspected, but never before proved.

Some articles that go further in depth on this scandalous issue:

Domain Registrar Network Solutions Front Running On Whois Searches

Nominet Position Paper on Front Running

NSI Registers Every Domain Checked

Network Solutions Responds to Front Running Accusations

Reading the comments by the readers to the Network Solutions statement, you can get a feel that no one is buying their answer (or their high priced domains ;) )

Network Solutions is not alone in these gray-area practices, they just happen to have gotten caught.

Domainers are all watching to see what ICANN will do. The odds are on ICANN doing a hand slap and nothing more.

Fight the bit-slapping!

Update:
I went to do a lookup for: StealThisDomainFromMe.com at Network Solutions, and the domain was available to register with the result: Domain Status: Never Registered Before

Then i did a lookup at: domaintools and look what it says not more than 1 minute later:

ICANN Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Created: 2008-01-09
Expires: 2009-01-09


Checking on GoDaddy, i can't register this domain name because its "taken".

I was scanning through xbiz and found the article titled "PA Senator Proposes Study on Adult Biz Tax Plan" and a paragraph stuck out:

A Pa. state senator has proposed a study to look at levying a tax on adult products sold and adult entertainment businesses located in the state, saying that she wants to impose a tax to offset negative secondary effects caused by adult entertainment.

and this paragraph:

Orie said the study would investigate the possibility of taxing distributors and publishers of adult content, adult book and video stores, escort services and strip clubs, and argued that a tax would “remediate the harm they are doing in communities.”

How's this for a proposal: Revoke the tax-free status of churches that harbor pedofile church members, that know about such activity and refused to report it to the police.

The money collected from the taxing of the offending church could be used to "offset negative secondary effects" caused by church staff molesting children. The money could be given to organizations to support the child and family for the crimes committed.

Lawmakers who try to target the adult entertainment sector as a reason for the ills of society, should first target on the real monsters and the real crimes being committed that truely harm the community.

Fight the don't ask, don't tell!


ps. an update: a british news article about the church's contribution to pedofiles. Summary stats from the article:

$660m The amount paid out by the Los Angeles Roman Catholic archdiocese to 500 victims of sexual abuse

$2bn The amount estimated to have been paid out across the US

4,392 The number of priests alleged to have abused children in the US in the past 50 years

10,000 The number of Americans who say that they were abused

100 The number of allegations of abuse made in Ireland between1962 and 2002

21 The number of priests involved

6 of the 21 Irish priests involved died before any allegations were made against them

3,000 The number of allegations of abuse received by the Australian group Broke Rites by 2002

A follow up thought to the FTC/AFF story.

From the FTC website, they wrote:

The settlement bars the defendant from displaying sexually explicit ads to consumers unless the consumers are actively seeking out sexually explicit content or unless the consumers have consented to viewing sexually explicit content....

So if a web surfer visits an adult website that has the warning labels that it is an adult site, and they enter the website as an adult to view adult material.. how can there be obscenity charges anymore?

If the adult content was in the open (like you see on some paysites, TGP, MGP, etc)... that's one issue where people who stumble upon those images, but in circumstances when an adult choose to view content...

Maybe the adult lawyers can use this case to help in obscenity issues.

Fight the Click if over 18!

Posted on December 6th on FTC website as well as some media coverage here, AFF targeted by FTC.

Headline from FTC.gov home page: Adult-Oriented Online Social Networking Operation Settles FTC Charges; Unwitting Consumers Pelted With Sexually Graphic Pop-Ups An operation that foisted sexually explicit online pop-up ads on unwitting consumers has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the practice violated federal law.

It appears that the issue is the notorious zango popping up AFF pages when a surfer is browsing for non-adult related items.

They cite:

According to the FTC, AdultFriendFinder.com, which touts itself as “The World’s Largest Sex & Swingers Personal Community,” and its affiliates use pop-up ads to drive traffic to its Web sites. Some of the ads have included graphic depictions of sexual behavior, exposing consumers, including children, to sexually explicit images. Such ads were displayed to consumers who were searching online using terms such as “flowers,” “travel,” and “vacations.” In some cases, defendant’s sexually explicit ads were distributed using spyware and adware.

The agency alleged that the practice of displaying graphic pop-up ads without consumer consent was unfair, and violated the FTC Act.

The FTC settlement terms:
The settlement bars the defendant from displaying sexually explicit ads to consumers unless the consumers are actively seeking out sexually explicit content or unless the consumers have consented to viewing sexually explicit content. It requires the defendant to take steps to ensure that its affiliates comply with the restriction, and end its relationship with any affiliates who do not comply. It also requires the defendant to establish an Internet-based mechanism for consumers to submit complaints. Finally, the settlement contains bookkeeping and record- keeping requirements to allow the Commission to monitor compliance.

This will be interesting to see how this affects zango.. because a rogue affiliate can cause these AFF popups to come up, and AFF gets the slam from the FTC again.

AFF provides the content, its the affiliate that chooses to pop those ads, whether as a link from their own website, or using services like zango/gator/etc.

In a way, its unfair to slap AFF because they can't control what affiliates do with their affiliate links. AFF can't control an affiliate to not use zango, other than terminating the account once they find out about it.. and for that.. who's going to be doing that reporting?

The FTC would just see it as AFF ads are popping and blame them.

An interesting delimma.

I see the implications of this scrutiny to go one step further. Sites like AFF allow affiliates to embed profiles of members, where the images are pulled from AFF servers, that could be sexually explicit.

Banners that are sexually graphic could be targetted next by FTC when affiliates run these banners on pages that aren't adult related.

Will adult paysite/cash program be responsible for that as well?

Fight the microscope!

I am referring to monitors.. having two monitors (ie. head units) to do your internet work on.

I work on a laptop and I have a 19" widescreen hooked up to the laptop, so I can have some applications open on both monitors.

I can have a spreadsheet opened on the widescreen and a Word doc on the laptop monitor, documenting financial analysis, etc. Or I can have my icq chat windows on one, and doing my programming and web browser viewing on another.

Using Windows XP, its easy to have this dual monitor capability.

I found this snazzy new device from Matrox, that allows you to connect two external monitors together instead of my current limitation of one external monitor.

Check out the Matrox DualHead2Go device.

Simply plug the box into your laptop, and the two connections to two monitors and you've got some major screen real estate.

With a list price of $229, its an economical productivity enhancer when you can work with more viewing options.

Fight the double vision!