Vivid says no to porn

gonzo · 02-20-2008

Los Angeles, CA (CNS) - Although Vivid Entertainment makes pornographic films, they still have the children's interests first. This has been revealed by the head of the leading pornographic movie studio when he revealed he has called on Yahoo and Google to help them prevent kids from accessing their films.

Steven Hirsch, co-chairman and founder of the porn studio, spoke to the MBA candidates of the Yale School of Management about how his company takes steps to ensure a minor wouldn't be exposed to their works.
"None of the search engines and portals, but particularly Yahoo and Google, has taken any significant steps in this direction. Vivid will work with any company that is ready to make it much more difficult for children to be exposed, even inadvertently, to material intended only for adults."

"This is not about First Amendment rights, it is about protecting children."
Hirsch adds that he spends time to ascertain his actresses are willing. "I spend more time trying to talk a new girl out of becoming a porn star as I do discussing the deal points of her contract once she's convinced me that she really does want to go down that path."

TheEnforcer · 02-20-2008

Good to see a major player be proactive in this area. Free speech and keeping content out of the hands of minors is not incompatible.

pornlaw · 02-20-2008

Quote:

"I spend more time trying to talk a new girl out of becoming a porn star as I do discussing the deal points of her contract once she's convinced me that she really does want to go down that path."

Thats interesting. He tried talking one of my clients into a multi year contract that would have paid her a paltry $42,000 for 18 sex scenes (3 anal) with numerous personal appearances.

I dont buy his "for the children" approach. Free porn on the internet -- found through Google and Yahoo is killing DVD sales, Vivid's life and blood.

Filtering can be considered censorship. Something that does not sit well with those that protect free speech.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

gonzo · 02-20-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Thats interesting. He tried talking one of my clients into a multi year contract that would have paid her a paltry $42,000 for 18 sex scenes (3 anal) with numerous personal appearances.

I dont buy his "for the children" approach. Free porn on the internet -- found through Google and Yahoo is killing DVD sales, Vivid's life and blood.

Filtering can be considered censorship. Something that does not sit well with those that protect free speech.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

I agree 100% and I find this quote the most ironic of all.
"This is not about First Amendment rights, it is about protecting children."

Is Steve about to run for public office or something?

TheEnforcer · 02-20-2008

Filtering doesn't have to be a bad word as long as it can be controlled by the end user and not an automatic thing that gets used no matter what. I am VERY pro 1st amendment but there should also be common sense tools that help parents that doen't cut off sites at the knees but are actually effective. Any smart businessperson doesn't want minors on their site and should welcome a way for an effective way to help parents to do that.

Reality is that we have zero sympathy from the people who make the laws and a lot of the people that elect them. Some of that is the indutry's own fault. Dismissing things like filtering all together cause you assume it's gonna be draconian does the industry no favors.

TheEnforcer · 02-20-2008

BTW- filtering is NOT censorship if it's not soemthing that is forced upon all with the government being the only one that chooses what adults can read or see and TAKING AWAY their right to access or see it. As long as the END USER has the choice to implemet the filter or not, and the filter NOT being teh defualt setting is critical, that is not censorship as you DO have access to the material but you just CHOOSE not to access it.

02-20-2008	#1
gonzo Fat Fucking Nobody Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Atlanta,Ga. Posts: 17,795 Blog Entries: 11	Vivid says no to porn Los Angeles, CA (CNS) - Although Vivid Entertainment makes pornographic films, they still have the children's interests first. This has been revealed by the head of the leading pornographic movie studio when he revealed he has called on Yahoo and Google to help them prevent kids from accessing their films. Steven Hirsch, co-chairman and founder of the porn studio, spoke to the MBA candidates of the Yale School of Management about how his company takes steps to ensure a minor wouldn't be exposed to their works. "None of the search engines and portals, but particularly Yahoo and Google, has taken any significant steps in this direction. Vivid will work with any company that is ready to make it much more difficult for children to be exposed, even inadvertently, to material intended only for adults." "This is not about First Amendment rights, it is about protecting children." Hirsch adds that he spends time to ascertain his actresses are willing. "I spend more time trying to talk a new girl out of becoming a porn star as I do discussing the deal points of her contract once she's convinced me that she really does want to go down that path." __________________ We are putting the bastards of this world on notice; greed and corruption will always be met with "a voice made of ink and rage." "Never try and be like anyone else" - Hunter S. Thompson "The truth is the truth no matter how you try and package a lie" - Shellee Hale

02-20-2008	#2
TheEnforcer Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,781	Re: Vivid says no to porn Good to see a major player be proactive in this area. Free speech and keeping content out of the hands of minors is not incompatible.

02-20-2008	#5
TheEnforcer Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,781	Re: Vivid says no to porn Filtering doesn't have to be a bad word as long as it can be controlled by the end user and not an automatic thing that gets used no matter what. I am VERY pro 1st amendment but there should also be common sense tools that help parents that doen't cut off sites at the knees but are actually effective. Any smart businessperson doesn't want minors on their site and should welcome a way for an effective way to help parents to do that. Reality is that we have zero sympathy from the people who make the laws and a lot of the people that elect them. Some of that is the indutry's own fault. Dismissing things like filtering all together cause you assume it's gonna be draconian does the industry no favors.

02-20-2008	#6
TheEnforcer Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,781	Re: Vivid says no to porn BTW- filtering is NOT censorship if it's not soemthing that is forced upon all with the government being the only one that chooses what adults can read or see and TAKING AWAY their right to access or see it. As long as the END USER has the choice to implemet the filter or not, and the filter NOT being teh defualt setting is critical, that is not censorship as you DO have access to the material but you just CHOOSE not to access it.