Gays are joining the march against .xxx!!

[dannyz-zbuckz]

Well, we might be showing up fashionably late to the game, but we do know how to bitch slap! In the past few days more gay sponsors have come out against .xxx, including zBUCKz, IntenseCash, BlakeMason, KJCash and I'm sure more will follow.

[SmutHammer]

you all amaze me, if you want to take a stand against something, go after piracy...

[2intense]

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

you all amaze me, if you want to take a stand against something, go after piracy...

Guess you didn't get the memo. The gay side is the only side suing the dog shit out of pirates.

Corbin Fisher is his name, and suing pirates is his game.

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

you all amaze me, if you want to take a stand against something, go after piracy...

The gay side has done a pretty good job at keeping the pirates at bay.

[Caligari]

Great going sponsors, fight the power

.

[dannyz-zbuckz]

Originally Posted by DWB

Guess you didn't get the memo. The gay side is the only side suing the dog shit out of pirates.

Corbin Fisher is his name, and suing pirates is his game.

Well unfortunately after buying gay.xxx for 500k, looks like they won't be joining us in the march against .xxx. Hard to believe as I thought they were supporters of the FSC.

[SmutHammer]

ok sorry, not my nitch so I had no idea they fought it so much, I still think you are better off spending your time going after piracy, if they try to force you to use .xxx that's the time to fight .xxx, then it violates your freedoms. right now your violating theirs.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

ok sorry, not my nitch so I had no idea they fought it so much, I still think you are better off spending your time going after piracy, if they try to force you to use .xxx that's the time to fight .xxx, then it violates your freedoms. right now your violating theirs.

your nitch?

[SmutHammer]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

your nitch?

niche* sorry... or is it because I called it a niche?

"not what I do" better?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

your nitch?

He meant Niche. Isn't there another subject you can comment on that you have zero clue about, instead of being a spelling nazi?

[nikki99]

gays rulez

[dannyz-zbuckz]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

ok sorry, not my nitch so I had no idea they fought it so much, I still think you are better off spending your time going after piracy, if they try to force you to use .xxx that's the time to fight .xxx, then it violates your freedoms. right now your violating theirs.

Hey I'm not violating anyone's freedoms, people can choose to work with who they want to. Many companies have chosen they don't want to work with .xxx domains in any capacity because they do not support what it stands for and what it could potentially mean for the adult industry. That's their choice and a very basic freedom we all have.

[dannyz-zbuckz]

Originally Posted by nikki99

gays rulez

Thanks, I love me some fag hags too

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

you all amaze me, if you want to take a stand against something, go after piracy...

So a company can only be against one thing at a time?

Why not be against .XXX and piracy? One is already harming businesses and the other is on a slippery slope and may end up hurting the industry.

The gay side of the industry has done a pretty good job fighting piracy, which is why it's still easy to get ratios better than 1:300 for membership sites on regular non-targeted traffic.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

ok sorry, not my nitch so I had no idea they fought it so much, I still think you are better off spending your time going after piracy, if they try to force you to use .xxx that's the time to fight .xxx, then it violates your freedoms. right now your violating theirs.

Sponsors that won't work with XXX sites isn't violating the freedoms of the owner of the XXX site.

Freedom has to do with people's rights, not business.

Every company has the choice to work with whomever they want. They can also choose to not work with whomever they want.

[SmutHammer]

I agree with having the right to work with you want, I was thinking the march was to try and get rid of .xxx

I'm not for or against .xxx, but it already past so I don't see the big issue.
I bought a .xxx for the reason of protecting my brand.

of corse you can be against more than one thing at once...

[Fletch XXX]

Money to be made sponsors will go tht route

[429mg]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

I agree with having the right to work with you want, I was thinking the march was to try and get rid of .xxx

If the entire gay side of the business sticks together and boycotts .xxx, then .xxx will be worthless. No need to get rid of them. It's just a matter of not giving them the chance to enter and succeed.

And yes, if any niche is succesful fighting piracy, it's the gay niche. Think Corbin Fisher, C1R, Titan Media, Blu Media, Flava Works, Dominic Ford for example.

[ArsewithClass]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

if they try to force you to use .xxx that's the time to fight .xxx, then it violates your freedoms. right now your violating theirs.

Originally Posted by dannyz-zbuckz

Hey I'm not violating anyone's freedoms, people can choose to work with who they want to. Many companies have chosen they don't want to work with .xxx domains in any capacity because they do not support what it stands for and what it could potentially mean for the adult industry. That's their choice and a very basic freedom we all have.

I do agree with Ed though.... Great that gay programs are fighting against .xxx

If it was left until the violation of freedom, with the gay rights, it would win the battle all over & destroy it all together, instead of marches & battles that leave .xxx in a pretty high right, at present. The parenting feature of .xxx for adult content gives a head start in courts across the land.

[dannyz-zbuckz]

I bought a .xxx for the reason of protecting my brand.

So how does it feel being forced to pay a $100.00 yearly fee just to protect your brand for something with no benefit or return?

Geez maybe I should come out with a new TLD called .gay, charge $500 a domain to all trademark and copyright holders of gay domains, and then tell them all they'd better register them all to 'protect their brands'...hey that's brilliant I can be the new billionaire just like Stuart Lawley!

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

if they try to force you to use .xxx that's the time to fight .xxx, then it violates your freedoms. right now your violating theirs.

The whole idea of property rights is that you can decide what you do with your property. You decide how to use it, if you want to sell it, who you are willing to sell it to, who you are not willing to sell it to...
Their boycott does not violate anyones rights.

[wehateporn]

[dannyz-zbuckz]

BTW I'll admit to buying one .xxx domain too, after already being blackmailed by a Cybersquatter who was claiming he was going to sell some of my other domains in .xxx to a company in South Korea. It's the one domain that if everything went to hell in a handbasket and we were all forced to move to .xxx, at least I could still make some income off of it for awhile until I got a new line of work. Being forced to pay $100 for that 'privilege' only makes me more angry.

[SmutHammer]

I don't have a problem with the price. if it's a site you put alot of work into then it's worth it. and it helps stop some people from just buying up anything they can think of. the .xxx comercials are telling everyone that .xxx is the only safe place to buy porn.... I'm sure alot of people believe them, and with all the advertising they do, there may be big profits in a .xxx site. I'm really considering develping one .xxx and see how the profits are, but my .com's are not going anywhere.

[MrCain]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

I don't have a problem with the price. if it's a site you put alot of work into then it's worth it.

If it's a site you put alot of work into then it will hurt even more when ICM Registry takes away your domain because your site violates a new IFFOR rule.