Supreme Court rules on COPA AGAIN this week

[Almighty Colin]

Adult Web sites that have largely enjoyed freedom from government interference could be in for a unpleasant surprise as early as Monday, when the U.S. Supreme Court is set to deliver a long-awaited ruling on pornography.

The court is expected to decide early next week whether the Child Online Protection Act violates Americans' right to free expression on the Internet. The 1998 law, which restricts sexually explicit material deemed "harmful to minors" that appears on commercial Web sites, includes civil fines and prison terms in its provisions. COPA has been on hold during the court proceedings.

"If it's upheld, there will be a shock wave," said Ann Beeson, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case before the high court. "We've been assuming on the Internet that there aren't laws like this."

Layne Winklebleck, an editor at the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult industry, says "everything depends on what the court says."

So far, the Supreme Court has gutted the Communications Decency Act and the Child Pornography Prevention Act, Congress' two previous attempts to extend criminal laws to Internet pornography.

The lack of government controls on Internet pornography has permitted the adult industry to blossom on the Web. A report from Reuters Business Insight in February 2003 calculated that sex-related business represented two-thirds of all online content revenue in 2001 and that it had ballooned to a $2.5 billion industry since then.

In an unusual set of legal proceedings, COPA has been bouncing around between the lower courts and the Supreme Court like a hyperactive ping-pong ball. A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down the law in February 1999, and the 3rd Circuit followed suit. But the Supreme Court said in May 2002 that it wanted more analysis from the appeals court, which looked at the law again and promptly said for the second time that it violated the First Amendment.

If COPA is upheld as constitutional, the effect on adult Web sites would vary, depending on the wording of the court's opinion. One possibility is that all commercial Web sites would be prohibited from putting up "teaser" images: COPA says Webmasters who employ measures such as credit card verification or require an "adult access code" can't be prosecuted, as these would typically keep out minors.

But the ACLU's Beeson warns that COPA's definition of "harmful to minors" sweeps so broadly that nonpornographic sites dealing with gay and lesbian topics or sexual education could be imperiled. The ACLU is representing OBGYN.net, Philadelphia Gay News, Artnet, PlanetOut, the Internet Content Coalition, and Salon.com. CNET Networks, publisher of News.com, is a member of the now-defunct Internet Content Coalition.

"If you're Salon magazine, what are you going to do?" Beeson said. "You're not going to risk very expensive fines or going to jail. You're going to change the nature of the site."

Winklebleck agreed. The "commercial adult entertainment industry already uses Visa and MasterCard and some form of means to determine that someone's of age...The worst effect would be on Web sites that are not commercial adult entertainment, but (rather) Web sites that deal with the gay and lesbian movement in San Francisco or (sex education) magazines."

[Winetalk.com]

If COPA is upheld as constitutional, the effect on adult Web sites would vary, depending on the wording of the court's opinion. One possibility is that all commercial Web sites would be prohibited from putting up "teaser" images: COPA says Webmasters who employ measures such as credit card verification or require an "adult access code" can't be prosecuted, as these would typically keep out minors.


if they do that -
I'll get back into business with all TGP's gone....

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Jun 26 2004, 07:58 AM
If COPA is upheld as constitutional, the effect on adult Web sites would vary, depending on the wording of the court's opinion. One possibility is that all commercial Web sites would be prohibited from putting up "teaser" images: COPA says Webmasters who employ measures such as credit card verification or require an "adult access code" can't be prosecuted, as these would typically keep out minors.


if they do that -
I'll get back into business with all TGP's gone....
It would certainly create many new opportunities but I'd prefer it not to happen.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Colin+Jun 26 2004, 08:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jun 26 2004, 08:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Serge_Oprano@Jun 26 2004, 07:58 AM
If COPA is upheld as constitutional, the effect on adult Web sites would vary, depending on the wording of the court's opinion. One possibility is that all commercial Web sites would be prohibited from putting up "teaser" images: COPA says Webmasters who employ measures such as credit card verification or require an "adult access code" can't be prosecuted, as these would typically keep out minors.


if they do that -
I'll get back into business with all TGP's gone....
It would certainly create many new opportunities but I'd prefer it not to happen. [/b][/quote]
Colin,
Prohibitions in the 20's created MEGA FORTUNES,
c'mon, YOU out of all people CAN think out of the box

[TheEnforcer]

Freedom over fortune any day of the week. There are a million and one different ways to make money but losing and/or restrictinf freedoms just does nothing more than encourage those idiots to take more of them away.

[Rolo]

That would be a shock and awe to the industry... We will be ready - bring it on :groucho:

Die Hard Hans Gruber quote:

"The circuits that cannot be cut, are cut automatically in response to a terrorist incident. You asked for miracles, Theo. I give you the F.B.I."

[JoesHO]

Anyone needs any offshore bulletproof hosting let me know.....

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Jun 26 2004, 08:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Jun 26 2004, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Colin@Jun 26 2004, 08:13 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Serge_Oprano@Jun 26 2004, 07:58 AM
If COPA is upheld as constitutional, the effect on adult Web sites would vary, depending on the wording of the court's opinion. One possibility is that all commercial Web sites would be prohibited from putting up "teaser" images: COPA says Webmasters who employ measures such as credit card verification or require an "adult access code" can't be prosecuted, as these would typically keep out minors.


if they do that -
I'll get back into business with all TGP's gone....
It would certainly create many new opportunities but I'd prefer it not to happen.
Colin,
Prohibitions in the 20's created MEGA FORTUNES,
c'mon, YOU out of all people CAN think out of the box [/b][/quote]
You replied to my post that "new opportunities" would be created. So good. We agree.

[Jim]

if they do that -
I'll get back into business with all TGP's gone....


Serge...i am going to beat you to it! :nyanya:

[Vick]

Go COPA!!!

WE NEED COPA!!!!

PROFITS = FREEDOM ergo INCREASED PROFITS = INCREASED FREEDOM!!!!!!!


GO Copa!!!!!

Go COPA

[Almighty Colin]

If COPA were passed, I think it would only be so long before legislators would start finding reasons that credit cards, debit cards, "adult access codes" and so on are not age verification enough. Besides, I would be quite concerned that the Supreme Court could reverse itself so easily on such an issue in so short a period of time.

[Vick]

In fact let me go on the record and be so bold as to say

Without COPA this industry will continue to die ......


.... and the speed of the death is quickening. At the current rate I don't expect a lot to last through the summer. You won't heard about them because not many are going to come out and say -" Hey goodbye - I can't continue to stay in the business with the current profit margins"


So in an oversimplification - if you're against COPA being upheld you're against the industry

- or at the very least against profits and a return the the heyday of the adult internet

[Nickatilynx]

Me ? I'm seeing $$$$$$ baby!!!!

"Want Porn? come to blahblahblah.ca"

"Want porn , access through.... "

"Hey guys , let me incorporate your shit offsahore for you...."


Only trouble is , I can't actually be assed to do it!

;-)))

[Vick]

Music to my ears Nick

Just need to learn the newest dance steps

1,2,3 cha, cha, cha

1,2,3 bank, bank, bank

[cj]

Interesting read ...

fingers crossed for next week!

If this were to happen, I'd have to pull a couple of sites down, change all tours & banners to not show pink bits, breasts etc ... and I don't even run tgp's.

So while I hope it happens overall, because something needs to stop the tgp problem, there are many cases where I would be concerned at it going overboard - like they said in the article, sex education becomes 'obscene' in the eyes of this law.

It means we'll have the same censorship problems online as we do in mainstream ... why should it be any different?

TE, you mentioned 'losing freedoms', but isn't it just bringing this medium into line with the others? Where in mainstream (TV, radio, magazines etc) are you allowed to do what we do online? Remember the 7 swear words rule? (shit fuck cunt cocksucker piss motherfucker and tits) You can't say these on tv and radio ... isn't that stepping on our freedom? You can't show a xxx porno on cable tv at 7pm ... why not? fuck it we should have freedom to do whatever we want and be trusted to use our judgement, right?

When you give everyone freedom, there are always going to be some (many at this board) who will do whatever they want whenever they want without thinking of the consequences. This is why we have laws ... because if we didn't, there would be no ability to take action to prevent these activities.

Why should we be able to publish tens of thousands of EXPLICIT porn pics & videos and not be responsible for keeping little eyes away?

In the end, there will be laws passed to bring the Internet into line with mainstream ... as with mainstream, if the 'sexually explicit content' is for educational or information purposes, the law can be more flexible. If you run a tgp with 100's of galleries ranging from pissing to teen to anal sex, you may as well start packing boxes, because you'll have to move out eventually.

:gbounce: I'm with Vick, go copa ;-)

[cj]

ps

As a precautionary step, I think everyone should signup to CelebrityBling and get ready to replace all xxx banners and sites with celebrity upskirt and nipple slip sites :okthumb:

[Hell Puppy]

I agree for the most part. COPA would basically re-shuffle the deck and create an enormous amount of opportunity.

The problem is that it would also create the world's largest game of "chicken".

Those who opt to respect COPA and go clean up their sites and tours and put anything showing nudity behind a members area would be at a huge competitive disadvantage to those who opt to thumb their nose at COPA. Unless there is widespread enforcement, you once again see pressure to do things you know are not best business cases just to protect your slice of the pie.

And then there's the whole international question. I see no way to enforce it on non-U.S. residents with non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. hosting. The competitive advantage of being international would have the Atlanta Cartel heading for some place in the pacific rim. We could all benefit from cheap young naked house keepers anyway....

[cj]

HP, what about if ISP's are forced to geo-direct traffic in the states? the technology exists to DO it ... unlikely I know, but anything could happen from here.

I think you are spot on about this being the biggest problem though ... there will be a stack of people who say 'fuck it come and get me'. All I can say is

WHERE'S THE POPCORN!!!!

But, all that has to happen is for 1 of the big guys to be made an example of ...

lets say they went after any of the following sponsors:

topbucks
silvercash
weg
maxcash

The last 2 will probably follow the rules immediately, the first 2 will push the limits as much as they can ... if either of these companies becomes a target, it will filter down to THOUSANDS of webmasters. Sponsors who provide hosted galleries will pull them all immediately, webmasters will lose free hosting, free content, banners etc ...

It will only take the fall of 1 big company to squash a whole bunch of little guys in the process ... of course there will always be an element who doesn't follow the rules, and surfers who will find them. But if COPA kills only 50% of the industry, it will be a massive improvement.

[Hell Puppy]

Most of the large sponsors are likely to comply. Yes, there will always be the usual suspects pushing or exceeding the limits to make a few dollars more. But I dont think that's where the real problem is.

I think the problem would be more from a traffic generation stand point. Lots of questions there.

Does someone like The Hun shut down or require age verification of some sort? Probably not, he's not in the U.S., COPA means nothing to him, why should he change a business model that's working for him? If others do, that's just more traffic for him.

If you're a sponsor, what's your liability for buying his traffic, or providing him with hosted galleries? Are you liable for galleries hosted on YOUR servers but linked to from his TGP?

Lots and lots of issues...

Ultimately it's unenforcable for same reason prohibition was....people want it, they're gonna find a way to get it, and the government spends tons of money and time chasing what is ultimately a victimless crime. But then the U.S. hasn't figured that out in regards to drugs yet, we just keep spending money on it and filling up our jails.

[cj]

hp, scary all those possible situations ... there's a lot more as well that are just as scary, and scarier ...

if they can't do this at the level they are aiming for, they will find a way eventually. if not themselves, with the help of AOL or microsoft (doesn't aol own porn companies now in a round about way?)

i'm not scared of censorship laws, they are mostly just common sense. but I am scared of how censorship laws let companies like AOL (time warner) have a monopoly.

AOL could solve a large part of the porn surfing problem just by blocking access for their customers. Don't look at porn (unless its AOL provided).

Think about the resources available to Time Warner, and the interests they have in mainstream 'entertainment'. They are just waiting until we all kill each other with infighting and they'll jump in and pick up all that tgp traffic as soon as the laws pass.

The adult industry has 1 major problem at the moment ... webmasters are lazy. They don't want to be creative, or use their brains, they want galleries premade for them, hosting provided, content provided and complain when the traffic doesn't buy anything. What a load of crap! How many industries give you that many tools to sell a product? The only example I can think of are franchises, where you pay money and get a 'kit' to work with. But you don't stand out the front of your store and GIVE your product away :rolleyes:

Whatever happens will be interesting to watch!!

[Almighty Colin]

Surrounded by opportunists. I'm happy to call all of you my friends. That is for sure.

[gonzo]

Originally posted by Colin@Jun 27 2004, 03:55 AM
Surrounded by opportunists. I'm happy to call all of you my friends. That is for sure.
I predict this topic is hotter than a whorehouse in TJ!

[cj]

gonzo, I think we have our topic for next week's show!!!

any lawyers out there want to come on the show and talk to us about COPA?

Anyone else have comments?

1-877-442-0067 Freecall, leave a message!

[gonzo]

Originally posted by cj@Jun 27 2004, 04:13 AM
gonzo, I think we have our topic for next week's show!!!

any lawyers out there want to come on the show and talk to us about COPA?

Anyone else have comments?

1-877-442-0067 Freecall, leave a message!
Colin?

[Feynman]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jun 26 2004, 05:32 PM
people want it, they're gonna find a way to get it, and the government spends tons of money and time chasing what is ultimately a victimless crime. But then the U.S. hasn't figured that out in regards to drugs yet, we just keep spending money on it and filling up our jails.
I beg to differ. They figured that out a long time ago.

1- it pleases a large part of the self-righteous electorate
2- it creates a huge risk premium, pure value-added without any improvement to the base product.

3- the 10,000$ cash deposit limit (without reporting) applies to most everybody WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES. The drug lords need to buy equipment to get into legit business. They then go to General Electric for their cooking range or General Motors for their delivery trucks or some armament companies with ties to the govt bigwigs (mmm... since when a skull and bones has a wig?) for their guns and bullet proof vests... They pay cash, and they pay TOP PRICE. Will the comptroller of the company refuse such a deal? Nope. For deals big enough, they use a maze of corporations, exploiting juridictional barriers. For a transaction big enough, the cost of the legal overhead becomes insignificant.

4- then, there is the money rain to finance prisons to catch 18 y.o. kids who sold pot... All supplier of prison equipment, security equipment, police equipment, legal papers, lawyers, wardens, custom agency, black helicopter manufacturers etc. Heck, even the military get it's cut of the pie !

All of these people vote. All these people make the govt look strong. All these people makes the populace fear the govt. And all these people live off from the proceedings of the seized monies(modest) plus through transaction of assets forfeiture (freebies to the friends), plus the hefty monies from the taxpayers financing them.

So, the drug industry is a dual-action money pump into the hands of the financial elite. 1- by recirculating the drug money into the economy via the large corporations and 2- by pumping ressourses out of the taxpayer's pockets.

Anyone wants to say that this is not a brilliant racket? Despicable but brilliant and efficient, nevertheless.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by gonzo+Jun 27 2004, 04:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gonzo @ Jun 27 2004, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-cj@Jun 27 2004, 04:13 AM
gonzo, I think we have our topic for next week's show!!!

any lawyers out there want to come on the show and talk to us about COPA?

Anyone else have comments?

1-877-442-0067 Freecall, leave a message!
Colin? [/b][/quote]
Hmmm, nothing really interesting to say about it myself.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jun 26 2004, 09:32 PM
I think the problem would be more from a traffic generation stand point. Lots of questions there.
The days of 1:150 from non-filtered traffic would return. :awinky:

[Biggy]

I took this from a GFY post on the issue, and I personally agree with this 100%

"I'm pretty sure it will be struck down. There are two major flaws in it. First it is so broadly written that sites like Amazon and breast cancer sites will be effected so it's too much of a blanket. Second it doesn't call out any real legitamate forme of online age verification.
Previous courts threw it out because they say a credit card isn't really age verification ( when I was in disney world a couple years ago I saw a 12 year old girl with a visa debit card ) and that forcing the use of a credit card as age verification is wrong and restricts access to adults. I can take my drivers license and some cashe and go buy porn in any porn shop in the country and I never have to have or use a credit card.

So I think this will be struck down because it is just too flawed. However, regardless of who wins the election ( and lets be real for a second Kerry is much better for us than Bush if only becaus Ashhat will not be in the picture) there will be a nother law like this one written and as soon as congress gets balls enough to list, in detail, what type of stuff should be restricted you can expect it to get voted in and very possibly be upheld in court.

Also, moving your server offshore will not protect you unless you move with it and plan on not coming back to the states. How many webmasters really will pack up all their stuff and move to a different country? I had read that only about 50% of the adults sites on the web are US owned. . . so only about half the free porn will go away. Sites like The Hun will get bigger and those who are little guys that do 3-6 signups a day will most likely disappear. Many affiliate programs may not disappear, but will take a huge hit."

For US webmasters who think free porn will disappear and everyone will benefit, you are very soarly mistaken. You're paysites will need to be changed completely, no one will be able to even look at your tour without proper age verification. You SE guys, you link to porn, congrats, you are in the same boat. This act only benefits one group of people - NON-US webmasters, so if you're in the US, and you are rooting for this to go through, you have no idea - sure money will be there to be made, but you will have to rebuild it from ground zero, and there will be 1000s of other people thinking just like you.

[Biggy]

Originally posted by Vick@Jun 26 2004, 09:19 AM
Music to my ears Nick

Just need to learn the newest dance steps

1,2,3 cha, cha, cha

1,2,3 bank, bank, bank
Vick,

are you in the US? If this gets approved, I hope you plan on relocating. otherwise, I'm curious to how you are are going to sell onyourknees.com and schoolgirlish.com without violating. You wouldn't be able to post any other obscene images on your tour, or use any obscene "text".. try describing your site without using the words "blowjob" "cum" maybe even "sex" and "teen"

or you can go route two..
that is set up an age verification page for EVERYONE who is sent to your tour. Credit cards USED to be the only viable way, so how many surfers out there do you think will want to surrender personal information like their name, age, address, and credit card info just to look at a tour?
Credit cards are no longer good, because Visa banned AVSes, remember?

our you can go route three..
learn dutch and move to amsterdam.

lets not forget free porn will still exist, especially in TGPs because id say at least half the biggest TGPs are run out of countries like amsterdam (thehun, worldsex), Canada (sleazy dream and a ton of others).

congratulations vick, if you live in the US (as your whois info says you do) you will either have to relocate to Amsterdam never to see the states again, or go out of business (as of now, i havent heard of a viable option for route two since CCs cannot be used).

Lets hope it does, as in your words

"1,2,3 cha, cha, cha
1,2,3 bank, bank, bank"

now if you live outside of the US, then you can make an argument ;-)
politicians dont care about tgps, paysites, they look at the porn industry as a WHOLE, and as a WHOLE, they would love to kill it. this bill wasnt designed for "TGPs", it designed to fuck all of us, that is, all of us who live under this gov't.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 27 2004, 02:29 PM
and there will be 1000s of other people thinking just like you.
Sure, however how many of them would be able to do it? :unsure:

[cj]

Biggy, is that first post actually yours or the entire thing copied from someone else?

[Biggy]

Originally posted by Rolo+Jun 27 2004, 03:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Jun 27 2004, 03:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggy@Jun 27 2004, 02:29 PM
and there will be 1000s of other people thinking just like you.
Sure, however how many of them would be able to do it? :unsure: [/b][/quote]
more than you think.

[Biggy]

Originally posted by cj@Jun 27 2004, 03:12 PM
Biggy, is that first post actually yours or the entire thing copied from someone else?
bottom paragraph is mine.

top was copied from someone else's post, however, i dont think i couldve said it better myself.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 27 2004, 03:12 PM
more than you think.
ok - I really have no idea - it was a genuine question...

The way I see it, then learning old dogs new tricks will take time, and they might die of old age in the process. Also, running a non US business is not cheap and there are more rules - ex. getting merchant accounts outside the US is not easy without insight and resources. I do not doubt that people will try and survive - its human nature, but just like in the "real" nature, when something major happens then:

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
intelligent, but the most responsive to change."

I wonder how many of people in the business are "most responsive to change"... 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100%?

[cj]

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 27 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 27 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-cj@Jun 27 2004, 03:12 PM
Biggy, is that first post actually yours or the entire thing copied from someone else?
bottom paragraph is mine.

top was copied from someone else's post, however, i dont think i couldve said it better myself. [/b][/quote]
"I'm pretty sure it will be struck down. There are two major flaws in it. First it is so broadly written that sites like Amazon and breast cancer sites will be effected so it's too much of a blanket.

Do you have any understanding of the censorship laws in the brick and mortar world? Are you aware that magazines are censored in exactly the same way that is being proposed by COPA's latest try? Complete with flaws & all ...

This has ALWAYS been a censorship argument .. well as long as I remember anyway. If you censor 'breast', you censor 'breast cancer'. If you censor 'sex' you censor 'sexually transmitted diseases'. There are always censorship cases in the media where companies are trying to fight this exact thing - the blanket censorship that also censors porn alongside education and information. A common one with womens magazines has been publishing pics of genitals with STD's ... you can't publish this in print because its "obscene", even though its educational. (and i'm sure there's not many people who would use a wart covered vagina photo as pornographic material ie, a turn on).

Whenever the subject of COPA comes up, we seem to get confused between what's fair and unfair, and what's reality. Of course its not fair if Amazon has books about sex censored ... but do you seriously think Amazon will be fighting the same fight as us in a court of law? Its unfair for Amazon to be censored for 'sex books', but that's hardly the same as the HARDCORE PORN sites we run.

"Um, Your Honor, we want to plead the same way as amazon for our site tornteenholes.com - its so unfair you censored a book about sex and a site about virgin sacrafice!!! We demand fair treatment!!"

Different argument ... different set of rules, despite the 'paperwork' being the same. You aren't amazon, so using them as an example of why this law won't pass is wishful thinking. Amazon can jump up and down and contact the press and rant and rave about this law and how unfair it is, they will get lots of publicity and support from the community ... & COPA probably won't try to close them down or impose rules on them ANYWAY even if *technically* their law says they will - there will be a public outcry all over again if they even tried. They make the laws broad so they can be interpreted for a specific situation.

You won't find anyone from silvercash or maxcash or weg or topbucks fighting for their rights in the media ... why? Because they know they would not get public support of any kind ... and deep down in all of us, even those who have pushed it way way down with millions of dollars, we know what we are doing is borderline - and in many cases, so far past borderline its rediculous we are now crying about 'how unfair' it is.

Where Purve is concerned, I wouldn't make any changes and I *would* take it to the media if I were to be told to make any changes ... same with celebrity ... but where my other *standard* porn sites are concerned, I've known it was only a matter of time anyway and I have NO valid argument as to why they should be allowed to stay where and how they are.

In summary for those who couldn't be bothered reading.

NONE OF US ARE AMAZON!

[cj]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 27 2004, 06:32 PM
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
intelligent, but the most responsive to change."
PEARL!

[Rolo]

Originally posted by cj@Jun 27 2004, 04:02 PM
PEARL!
btw. Charles Darwin´s words :)

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 27 2004, 07:32 PM
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change."
In nature, agree. In business, also agree. But with one addenum:

"It is not the best that survives, but the most responsive to change and/or the one with best marketing machine."

By product, compare BetaMax disc to VHS tape; compare DR Dos with MS Dos, et al (marketing).

By company, compare stoggy IBM in the 80s with Microsoft, compare Kreskees (KMart) and Woolworths (WoolCo) with WalMart, even Travelocity (1999) with PriceLine (2004), et al. (adaptivity and marketing).

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by cj+Jun 27 2004, 07:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cj @ Jun 27 2004, 07:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rolo@Jun 27 2004, 06:32 PM
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
intelligent, but the most responsive to change."
PEARL! [/b][/quote]


This is definately a pearl.

This is #1 rule of the digital/internet age.


I think if COPA is upheld, there could be a major shift in this industry, which would lead to many opportunities.

[Biggy]

Originally posted by cj+Jun 27 2004, 04:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cj @ Jun 27 2004, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 27 2004, 06:13 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-cj@Jun 27 2004, 03:12 PM
Biggy, is that first post actually yours or the entire thing copied from someone else?
bottom paragraph is mine.

top was copied from someone else's post, however, i dont think i couldve said it better myself.
"I'm pretty sure it will be struck down. There are two major flaws in it. First it is so broadly written that sites like Amazon and breast cancer sites will be effected so it's too much of a blanket.

Do you have any understanding of the censorship laws in the brick and mortar world? Are you aware that magazines are censored in exactly the same way that is being proposed by COPA's latest try? Complete with flaws & all ...

This has ALWAYS been a censorship argument .. well as long as I remember anyway. If you censor 'breast', you censor 'breast cancer'. If you censor 'sex' you censor 'sexually transmitted diseases'. There are always censorship cases in the media where companies are trying to fight this exact thing - the blanket censorship that also censors porn alongside education and information. A common one with womens magazines has been publishing pics of genitals with STD's ... you can't publish this in print because its "obscene", even though its educational. (and i'm sure there's not many people who would use a wart covered vagina photo as pornographic material ie, a turn on).

Whenever the subject of COPA comes up, we seem to get confused between what's fair and unfair, and what's reality. Of course its not fair if Amazon has books about sex censored ... but do you seriously think Amazon will be fighting the same fight as us in a court of law? Its unfair for Amazon to be censored for 'sex books', but that's hardly the same as the HARDCORE PORN sites we run.

"Um, Your Honor, we want to plead the same way as amazon for our site tornteenholes.com - its so unfair you censored a book about sex and a site about virgin sacrafice!!! We demand fair treatment!!"

Different argument ... different set of rules, despite the 'paperwork' being the same. You aren't amazon, so using them as an example of why this law won't pass is wishful thinking. Amazon can jump up and down and contact the press and rant and rave about this law and how unfair it is, they will get lots of publicity and support from the community ... & COPA probably won't try to close them down or impose rules on them ANYWAY even if *technically* their law says they will - there will be a public outcry all over again if they even tried. They make the laws broad so they can be interpreted for a specific situation.

You won't find anyone from silvercash or maxcash or weg or topbucks fighting for their rights in the media ... why? Because they know they would not get public support of any kind ... and deep down in all of us, even those who have pushed it way way down with millions of dollars, we know what we are doing is borderline - and in many cases, so far past borderline its rediculous we are now crying about 'how unfair' it is.

Where Purve is concerned, I wouldn't make any changes and I *would* take it to the media if I were to be told to make any changes ... same with celebrity ... but where my other *standard* porn sites are concerned, I've known it was only a matter of time anyway and I have NO valid argument as to why they should be allowed to stay where and how they are.

In summary for those who couldn't be bothered reading.

NONE OF US ARE AMAZON! [/b][/quote]
cj, you missed my point completely...

the point is... there are US webmasters here who are supporting this thinking they will make a lot more money and free porn will disappear. that is simply ignorant and foolish - THAT IS THE POINT I AM MAKING.

as for my opinion, this has been struck down before, the writing of the law is still very general, so i still feel it will be struck down, but does my opinion mean shit - no. In the past, the courts have taken to the fact that too much censorship is unconstitutional, hence why programs that block adult sites arent allowed in libraries, and the previous COPA rulings.. the fact is, although these laws may be designed with porn in mind and for porn, the effect of it is very very far. in the article itself. I'll say this loud and clear for you, my opinion doesn't mean shit, its just an opinion, what matters is how they vote this week..

but I'm seeing US webmasters want this thing go thru, they have no idea. hell, even oprano.com would be affected! is this website really appropriate for minors? How many of you are willing to put your CC info in or fax to management your driver's license to view this page? How would this affect oprano's traffic, and thus advertising prices... You see what im getting at.

[Hell Puppy]

CJ,

Actually in the U.S. the rules for brick and mortar are just as convoluted as those for the internet. Obscenity in brick and mortar has been a local issue, not a federal one. They leave it to the states and often even the local municipalities to decide what they'll tolerate. This is the so-called "community standards".

What is perfectly acceptable in L.A. and sold at every video store, might get you shut down in Alabama and the heart of the bible belt.

Although the laws have not changed, what is tolerated changes depending on who is in office locally. Both Atlanta and New York are excellent examples.

Back in the early 80's smut was not tolerated at all, there were prosecutors in office who were on a mission and they shut down every adult bookstore. You couldn't get anything stronger than penthouse and only "cable versions" of video. They even prosecuted Larry Flynt for distributing Hustler here....it was at his trial in Lawrenceville, GA (a suburb now) that he was shot and paralyzed.

It is only in the last 10 years or so that it hasn't become somewhat easy to go buy or rent a hardcore video in Atlanta.

NYC on the other hand has kinda gone the other way. 10 years ago you could buy pretty much anything you wanted around 42nd street. That was the first place I ever saw "Naughty Nuns & Nazis #45" out on the shelf in plain view. Then Mayor Rudy cleaned it up....all this happened local.

[cj]

Originally posted by Biggy@Jun 27 2004, 07:45 PM
cj, you missed my point completely...

the point is... there are US webmasters here who are supporting this thinking they will make a lot more money and free porn will disappear. that is simply ignorant and foolish - THAT IS THE POINT I AM MAKING.

as for my opinion, this has been struck down before, the writing of the law is still very general, so i still feel it will be struck down, but does my opinion mean shit - no. In the past, the courts have taken to the fact that too much censorship is unconstitutional, hence why programs that block adult sites arent allowed in libraries, and the previous COPA rulings.. the fact is, although these laws may be designed with porn in mind and for porn, the effect of it is very very far. in the article itself. I'll say this loud and clear for you, my opinion doesn't mean shit, its just an opinion, what matters is how they vote this week..

but I'm seeing US webmasters want this thing go thru, they have no idea. hell, even oprano.com would be affected! is this website really appropriate for minors? How many of you are willing to put your CC info in or fax to management your driver's license to view this page? How would this affect oprano's traffic, and thus advertising prices... You see what im getting at.
Biggy, obviously I did miss your point :P

I understand the point you are trying to make now ... you think everyone here will be fucked if COPA is passed and that we are falsely excited. I disagree.

Australia has had these similar laws in place for years ........... look around, there's no less aussie pornographers than there were before the laws were passed, more if anything. We are just, as a whole, used to the process being more difficult.

You use the example that oprano would be affected ...

I don't see how .... its easy to block the board so that only registered members can browse it. The members can be informed of the changes via email so they know where to login. New members by referral only. I think that's what we were trying to achieve all along before ... ya know.

What's the problem with this? I see it as an improvement ...

And as for our porn subscription sites, common sense goes a long way. Think about what is on your tour, & if that is acceptable on TV at 9pm ... if its not, why are you publishing it in a place children can find it anyway?

ps, I don't see anything BUT opinions posted here dude so please don't stop with this discussion. we are all guessing ...

[SykkBoy]

I found an interesting phenomenon recently...

I've been submitting to non-nude TGP's and my ratios are at 1999 levels, I'm 1:160 whereas I had gotten complacent with 1:500 on a good day and 1:1000 on a bad day.

I won't give away all of the places I submitted because I don't want the secret to get out, but amazing how much better conversions are on a gallery featuring teasing but no nudity....

[cj]

HP, I see where you are coming from but the example you used should answer most of your own points ...

Naughty Nuns & Nazis #45

As an industry we have become saturated with obscenity to the point that we can't tell where the line is anymore ... when this happens, the law usually cracks down hard for a while then softens.

Here's a simple question ...

Do you think its acceptable to put an advertisement on TV at any time of the day or night with no pre warning for Naughty Nuns & Nazi's with a pic of a nun pulling her cheeks apart & saying "Watch these Nazi's fuck these nuns up the ass and pop their christian cherries"?

If the answer is NO, then how can it be unreasonable to attempt to stop it online, whether the solution is a perfect one or not?

And if the answer is YES, good luck in court :biglaugh:

While no 2 people can agree on what the definition of obscene is, *MOST* video stores in the brick and mortar world don't stock material even half as offensive as what we provide online. And of those that do, how many cases do you see brought to trial? Or even cases where legal action is taken? I could count the ones I remember on 1 hand ...

[Hell Puppy]

Nuns and Nazis on TV? That depends on what channel they're watching. If it's on an adult channel, I have no problem with it. If it's on Nickelodeon, then that's a problem.

My entire philosophy dating back to the BBS days has been that I dont want anyone to accidently see a titty. I have warning pages on ALL of my sites, always have. I also put in meta tags to declare the pages as adult content so Netnanny, et al will deny access. To me it's due diligence.

The problem is when someone see's a titty when they're not expecting it. Look at the ruckus the Superbowl caused here in the U.S. when Janet Jackson flipped her fun bag out for everyone to see. That was a surprise and there were families viewing who had no interest in seeing her tah tahs.

I have no sympathy for the guys like wuzzisface with whitehouse.gov or spamming lists with grannies and 10 year olds in it with full page ads with double penetration showing.

Lack of simple common sense is what basically invites the government into your backyard.

[RawAlex]

Again, the US government and court system seems to think it has control of the internet - nothing could be further from the truth. They pass a spam law, and all the spammers move offshore and seemingly DOUBLE the amount of spam they are sending. COPA is no different, it will just drive things offshore.

I am not sure that a program being in the US would be forbidden from accepting Euro based TGP traffic. I don't see the implication. The paysite is paying for visitors, not for the gallery itself. They are not paying for advertising, they are paying commissions on sales.

I haven't read COPA in a long time, but I didn't see how this could work out properly. Again, US laws written in total ignorance of the world force that the internet has become.

As for filtering, I think you would see ISPs by the boatload complaining and launching lawsuits left and right to stop this type of thing. There is no way they could be capable of blocking "harmful to minors" material without seriously impeding the use of the net by adults. Further, as minors cannot enter into a service agreement for the internet, no ISP (except schools that provide internet access to minors) should be made subject to any attempt to block porn. Adults should be free to roam as they please. Choosing to go (electronically) into a dirty book store in Amsterdam shouldn't be any different in real life or on the net.

I think you will see this one shot down again, on the grounds of being way to over reaching, that it would restrict valid free speech. That 1st amendment thing covers a ton of ground.

I think this was all done to create a new Bush "protect children from the internet initiative" for the campaign trail, where he can say "I will work with the congress, the house, my people, and the best educated legal minds to find a way to stop our children from being blasted by obscene pornographic materials. The Supreme Court has ruled against all attempts so far, but we will succeed because the american people want this!"

Alex

[cj]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jun 27 2004, 10:43 PM
Nuns and Nazis on TV? That depends on what channel they're watching. If it's on an adult channel, I have no problem with it. If it's on Nickelodeon, then that's a problem.
Exactly!! ... there are channels on TV which separate content and rate it based on the target audience. We don't have that online.

Sites which redirect url's like whitehouse.com, or worse, misspells of children's brands to porn are the equivalent of putting a porno add on nickelodeon TV ... if it happened on TV, *someone* would be held responsible, even if it isn't within their control.

The problem is when someone see's a titty when they're not expecting it. Look at the ruckus the Superbowl caused here in the U.S. when Janet Jackson flipped her fun bag out for everyone to see. That was a surprise and there were families viewing who had no interest in seeing her tah tahs.

I was thinking of this example also ... while its just a tit, and the outcry was rediculous ... the whole point is choice. If that choice is taken away from parents, our argument of 'its the parents responsibility' is completely useless.

Alex, the same principal applies for this:

Adults should be free to roam as they please. Choosing to go (electronically) into a dirty book store in Amsterdam shouldn't be any different in real life or on the net.

What about if someone comes out of the adult bookstore, grabs you and drags you inside and shoves a copy of 'tight assed trannies' in your face? Should the store be allowed to do that?

Our arguments which revolve around "Parents should have the choice" are completely useless ... because many pornographers take away the parents choice just by where & how we publish our sites. We all got cocky, we all got used to no rules, now we are going to have to pay for it.

[RawAlex]

What about if someone comes out of the adult bookstore, grabs you and drags you inside and shoves a copy of 'tight assed trannies' in your face? Should the store be allowed to do that?

Our arguments which revolve around "Parents should have the choice" are completely useless ... because many pornographers take away the parents choice just by where & how we publish our sites. We all got cocky, we all got used to no rules, now we are going to have to pay for it.


cj, I don't disagree with you - but writing rules that effectively limit free speech to get rid of these issues is just not going to work out. There are any number of laws and current SC judgements that prevent porn from being distributed to minors. They don't enforce them. They just write more totally unenforcable laws and try to make it look like they did their jobs.

that being said, I hope the spyware law passes and is actually enforced. I would love to see the people using security holes to install this stuff arrested and given over to Bubba to be his bitch for a few years in the old butt banging federal prison.

Gonzo: want to give Kevin and his friends something else to work on? how about replacing the current stupid easily corrupted email system with something that is 100% traceable, and does not permit the volumes that spam required to make money? I have some ideas for them if they are interested.

Perhaps the US should pass a law to forbid the use of SMPT mail systems. That might help.

Alex

[gonzo]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 28 2004, 12:51 AM


Gonzo: want to give Kevin and his friends something else to work on? how about replacing the current stupid easily corrupted email system with something that is 100% traceable, and does not permit the volumes that spam required to make money? I have some ideas for them if they are interested.

Perhaps the US should pass a law to forbid the use of SMPT mail systems. That might help.

Alex
Well get right on that Alex.... right after you tell me where to send the wire instructions for the first payment of 10K.

Free Kevin Mitnick was a political statement not a marketing one!

[RawAlex]

Sorry Gonzo, I take all slogans to be marketing!

let me call AOl and earthlink and see if they have some extra coin lying around.

Alex

[Vick]

Oversimplification time (basically because I don't feel like explaining it and it's been covered well here)

My feeling is if you're against COPA you are also against obscene profits such as we experienced from 1997-2001

Take it off shore, can someone clue me where most major data centers are?

Can you look at Hustler in a local bookstore without a brown wrapper?

It's not a removal of free speech, it's protecting minors from access to adult materials AND MAKING MORE MONEY!!!!!

Where does it state in any US government docs that free speech protect the rights of minors to see PUSSY??????

Let them cop Dad's Playboy like generations before


Edit - for spelling

[Vick]

Originally posted by Biggy+Jun 27 2004, 05:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggy @ Jun 27 2004, 05:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Vick@Jun 26 2004, 09:19 AM
Music to my ears Nick

Just need to learn the newest dance steps

1,2,3 cha, cha, cha

1,2,3 bank, bank, bank
Vick,

are you in the US? If this gets approved, I hope you plan on relocating. otherwise, I'm curious to how you are are going to sell onyourknees.com and schoolgirlish.com without violating. You wouldn't be able to post any other obscene images on your tour, or use any obscene "text".. try describing your site without using the words "blowjob" "cum" maybe even "sex" and "teen"

[/b][/quote]
Hey Biggy - I have no plans or relocating and I have every plan to use this to my fullest advantage to increase profits, sorry if you can't see that.

Yes there are challenges that may never be overcome with enforcing this law but even no full nudity on tours would be excellent!!! You have to know marketing which many in this business have no clue about

Let's leave my business to me and you worry about your's

Sound good B)

[Hell Puppy]

If we're running with TV analogies...which doesn't exactly work....the V-Chip type solution isn't bad. Require sites to be self-rated via meta-tags if they're adult and put the control in the parents' hands which is where it belongs.