Will censorship really be so bad? Really?

[Dodododa]

Let me play devil's advocate for a bit... It seems to me that the industry was at its strongest when sites had little stars over the naughty bits and the only tools the affiliates had were PG rated banners.

If ICANN starts blocking domains with unrestricted "obscene" material, will that really be so bad?

If the playing field is level, what's the harm in censoring your tours? Would that not drive demand through the roof (again)? The affiliates will find ways to adapt.

Please correct me if my logic is off.

[BlackCrayon]

adapt or die, lolz.

[Dirty Dane]

I will not give up my free speech for money.

[u-Bob]

a quote from another thread:

Originally Posted by SpongeBub

I've seen people on this forum signing on to things that boggle the mind in terms of censorship, all in the cause of trying to turn the clock back to 2001. Don't you see that whatever they do will eventually be used against you, the purveyors of smut. For the children, don't ya know.

[Dodododa]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

a quote from another thread:

Yes, the quote has a very relevant point. I wasn't going to make that point in my post since I was playing devil's advocate.

Overall I would have to say I'm against censorship. I do believe however that it would result in more profit for the members of this board. It's pretty unlikely that they would ban credit card secured members areas.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Dodododa

I do believe however that it would result in more profit for the members of this board.

I doubt it.

[Dodododa]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

I doubt it.

Could you elaborate?

I think there was a great deal of money in porn before the invention of TGP and tubes. With online shopping now at pretty much 100% penetration, imagine what it would be like now if free porn became difficult to find again.

[Maxi]

Originally Posted by Dodododa

Let me play devil's advocate for a bit... It seems to me that the industry was at its strongest when sites had little stars over the naughty bits and the only tools the affiliates had were PG rated banners.

If ICANN starts blocking domains with unrestricted "obscene" material, will that really be so bad?

Yeah except the industry aren't the only ones peddling porn anymore, if adult sites get censored this will let the file sharing sites completely take over the whole market.

Good luck enforcing something like rapidshare, or any other file host.. Will they all be forced on to .xxx as well? Don't think so. They just can't enforce it, whoever came up with this idea must be some 75 year old cunt still living in the 1930's and doesn't have a fucking clue about the way things work.

imagine what it would be like now if free porn became difficult to find again.

Free porn will never be difficult to find.

[GregE]

Originally Posted by Dodododa

Could you elaborate?

I can.

In your scenario, at best, tubes will simply charge a token fee (less than one dollar) for surfers to get through an AVS style gateway.

If everybody else has to do the same thing, the tubes will still have the same competitive advantage they have now.

Additionally, such an environment would do nothing to address the forums that post links to stolen content. In fact, it would make them more popular because they'd then become the only completely free game in town.

[TheDoc]

The biggest boom in porn is when free porn was introduced at epic levels. Porn is not recession proof. Competition creates more global traffic. Major illegal tubes bottle neck traffic that was once not bottle necked and shared with the masses. If you took away free porn, all global traffic would bottle neck into a few major sources and squeeze out 99.9% of us. We want it the other way around, more free porn, more affiliates, more sites, more global exposure... allowing us to reach into markets that we aren't tapping into right now.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

The biggest boom in porn is when free porn was introduced at epic levels. Porn is not recession proof. Competition creates more global traffic. Major illegal tubes bottle neck traffic that was once not bottle necked and shared with the masses. If you took away free porn, all global traffic would bottle neck into a few major sources and squeeze out 99.9% of us. We want it the other way around, more free porn, more affiliates, more sites, more global exposure... allowing us to reach into markets that we aren't tapping into right now.

I stopped taking you serious at

We want it the other way around, more free porn, more affiliates,

We need more customers. And giving away more free porn hasn't worked in the last 2 years. Unless you run a pirate Tube site.

Originally Posted by GregE

I can.

In your scenario, at best, tubes will simply charge a token fee (less than one dollar) for surfers to get through an AVS style gateway.

If everybody else has to do the same thing, the tubes will still have the same competitive advantage they have now.

Additionally, such an environment would do nothing to address the forums that post links to stolen content. In fact, it would make them more popular because they'd then become the only completely free game in town.

The way I understand it is it will apply to all sites, paid, free and forums.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Dodododa

Could you elaborate?

I think there was a great deal of money in porn before the invention of TGP and tubes. With online shopping now at pretty much 100% penetration, imagine what it would be like now if free porn became difficult to find again.

Who will control the means to censor sites? Who will set the standards? Who will determine what to censor and what not to censor?

The lack of creativity and ethics in this industry is totally unbelievable (not addressing you personal, you're just playing devils advocate). Going after people who are giving away or selling your product is one thing, censorship and telling people what they can do with their products is something totally different. If person A shoots 10000 cuckold scenes and decides to give them away for free, that's his choice (his content, his product, his property, his decision). If person B and C who sell content in the same niche as person A don't like what person A is doing, well that's their problem.

[spazlabz]

bad: as soon as one site censors its content 100 will jump in to take that traffic and offer everything on the their sites for free.... make them 'pay for pink' has been dead a long time

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Who will control the means to censor sites? Who will set the standards? Who will determine what to censor and what not to censor?

The lack of creativity and ethics in this industry is totally unbelievable (not addressing you personal, you're just playing devils advocate). Going after people who are giving away or selling your product is one thing, censorship and telling people what they can do with their products is something totally different. If person A shoots 10000 cuckold scenes and decides to give them away for free, that's his choice (his content, his product, his property, his decision). If person B and C who sell content in the same niche as person A don't like what person A is doing, well that's their problem.

Giving it away to people underage is illegal. Or can we give it away to anyone on the Internet but not on the high street?

[brassmonkey]

bad bad bad

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Giving it away to people underage is illegal. Or can we give it away to anyone on the Internet but not on the high street?

So now it's about protecting the children? I was under the impression they wanted censorship because making money using outdated methods isn't as profitable anymore as it was back in 2000 because of the huge amount of free porn out there.

Do you want censorship to protect children or to muscle out the competition?

If you want it to protect children, why stop there? I'm sure you'd want to protect them from violent videos as well, and racists jokes, and special cake recipes and I'm sure some religious people will even want to protect their children from information about the theory of evolution....

If you want censorship because it was easier to make money back in 2000, you should spend more time coming up with new ways to make money instead of calling for censorship.

Censorship as a way to make money = an unethical way to enforce a cartel that would be unsustainable in a free market.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I stopped taking you serious at



We need more customers. And giving away more free porn hasn't worked in the last 2 years. Unless you run a pirate Tube site.

Well... take me serious or not, let's just look at the facts. Our Industry started taking a a hit 2-3 years before Tubes come on the scene, before torrents, before the Recession hit hard. I wonder why...

Pirated tubes have created a bottle neck of traffic, which doesn't filter down to affiliates, thus doesn't filter to you. It has nothing to do with free porn taking sales, it has everything to do with you not being able to sell the people - period!

You would be extremely mistaken if you think pirate tube surfers don't buy porn. Website based piracy wrapped around porn has been making millionaires for 15 years. It isn't going to stop being profitable simply because we gave it a new name, tubes.

To the why.... From the dawn of 2257 our Industry has suffered extremely due to a massive drop in the number of Affiliates. Simply put, an active/pushing program today is LUCKY to get 5 average affiliate signups daily. 8ish years ago you could sneeze and get 15 affiliate signups a day, any pushing/promotions brought upwards of 25+ a day - Same ratios go for the amount of unique affiliates paid out each period. Even processors pay out less Affiliates now.

A single law put those numbers in the reverse. Then, free porn, piracy, the eco, world wide recessions, and even technology changes just make it tougher to compete for anyone that can't expand into various global markets/mediums either through affiliates or themselves.

If you target marketing on piracy - you'll make money. Just like you would if you did it through email, mass building sites, search engine focus, etc. But you can't do it all yourself, which is why you have Affiliates... thus the more you have, the more markets yo can reach, saturate, and so on - thus more sales you DO get.

Unless you're going to argue that having Affiliates doesn't produce sales... so having like 50k affiliates would mean you would still be doing the same amount of sales as you do now? It's pretty simple stuff really.

[Barry-xlovecam]

ICANN has no sovereign position to censor. In fact, I think ICANN does not wish to have any role in "ordaining any content."

ICANN's only function is to administrate the use and registration of TLDs.

Under what sovereign's law would *obscene* be assessed?

Under sharia law? A woman not in a burka under that law is *obscene*.

As far as child pornography is concerned ? if ICANN decides to cancel that domain's registration with some due process to the accused violator ? I would have no issue with this.
But, only on this narrow issue and not in general censorship.

[TheDoc]

Hey Paul.... Just for you, I setup a forwarding on your newsletters that I've cancelled from probably 50 times to [email protected], with header attachments showing I've asked to cancel and pointing out points that address failure to comply with can-spam laws while routing through U.S. ISP's.

Anything else you wish to say?

[ottopottomouse]

Once you allow a beginning to censorship it will snowball.

[DWB]

Personally, it may be what the business needs to clean it up. The down side is, where does it stop?

You can't open that box even though it may be the best thing to do.

[CaptainHowdy]

Censorship is always good...

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

So now it's about protecting the children? I was under the impression they wanted censorship because making money using outdated methods isn't as profitable anymore as it was back in 2000 because of the huge amount of free porn out there.

Do you want censorship to protect children or to muscle out the competition?

If you want it to protect children, why stop there? I'm sure you'd want to protect them from violent videos as well, and racists jokes, and special cake recipes and I'm sure some religious people will even want to protect their children from information about the theory of evolution....

If you want censorship because it was easier to make money back in 2000, you should spend more time coming up with new ways to make money instead of calling for censorship.

Censorship as a way to make money = an unethical way to enforce a cartel that would be unsustainable in a free market.

No the law about allowing children to view porn was me just using one example. So my stand is; Why should the Internet not be subject to a law that applies to non Internet businesses?

Not just the laws governing children being exposed to porn.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Well... take me serious or not, let's just look at the facts. Our Industry started taking a a hit 2-3 years before Tubes come on the scene, before torrents, before the Recession hit hard. I wonder why...

Pirated tubes have created a bottle neck of traffic, which doesn't filter down to affiliates, thus doesn't filter to you. It has nothing to do with free porn taking sales, it has everything to do with you not being able to sell the people - period!

You would be extremely mistaken if you think pirate tube surfers don't buy porn. Website based piracy wrapped around porn has been making millionaires for 15 years. It isn't going to stop being profitable simply because we gave it a new name, tubes.

To the why.... From the dawn of 2257 our Industry has suffered extremely due to a massive drop in the number of Affiliates. Simply put, an active/pushing program today is LUCKY to get 5 average affiliate signups daily. 8ish years ago you could sneeze and get 15 affiliate signups a day, any pushing/promotions brought upwards of 25+ a day - Same ratios go for the amount of unique affiliates paid out each period. Even processors pay out less Affiliates now.

A single law put those numbers in the reverse. Then, free porn, piracy, the eco, world wide recessions, and even technology changes just make it tougher to compete for anyone that can't expand into various global markets/mediums either through affiliates or themselves.

If you target marketing on piracy - you'll make money. Just like you would if you did it through email, mass building sites, search engine focus, etc. But you can't do it all yourself, which is why you have Affiliates... thus the more you have, the more markets yo can reach, saturate, and so on - thus more sales you DO get.

Unless you're going to argue that having Affiliates doesn't produce sales... so having like 50k affiliates would mean you would still be doing the same amount of sales as you do now? It's pretty simple stuff really.

So because customers couldn't find porn via affiliates they stopped watching it.

Thanks for the use of one law to harm my business. Seems you are in favor of using the law like me. As for asking 50 times, that's a straight lie or shows your inability to hit me up on ICQ. You showed your colors.

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Personally, it may be what the business needs to clean it up. The down side is, where does it stop?

You can't open that box even though it may be the best thing to do.

Without something being done to stem piracy this business is doomed. Even those today supporting their Tubes by advertising will suffer. They're teaching people not to buy porn on the Internet.

[Davy]

The US gov is going to add all the obscene sites to their new blacklist anyway.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So because customers couldn't find porn via affiliates they stopped watching it.

Thanks for the use of one law to harm my business. Seems you are in favor of using the law like me. As for asking 50 times, that's a straight lie or shows your inability to hit me up on ICQ. You showed your colors.

Have you ever seen a paysite with no affiliates do 1000+ signups a day? I think not....


The email redirect stays... Anyone that is douche enough to call someone an idiot in the rep system when they're having a conversions, deserves the rep that I give back.

Maybe next time you will think before acting like a kid in high school.

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Giving it away to people underage is illegal. Or can we give it away to anyone on the Internet but not on the high street?

It's not your responsibility past a good faith effort just like it's not the responsibility of porn ppv providers to come check your ID before you can watch. Parents shouldn't let their kids watch porn ppv or porn on the internet (if that's how they feel about it).

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Have you ever seen a paysite with no affiliates do 1000+ signups a day? I think not....


The email redirect stays... Anyone that is douche enough to call someone an idiot in the rep system when they're having a conversions, deserves the rep that I give back.

Maybe next time you will think before acting like a kid in high school.

Come on Doc, leaving you a private bad rep is not the same thing as trying to fuck someones business up. Call him an asshole and move on.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

Come on Doc, leaving you a private bad rep is not the same thing as trying to fuck someones business up. Call him an asshole and move on.

Yes, reputation... and having a conversion with a person, and calling them an idiot while knocking the rep - is bad business and has nothing to do with my actual reputation.

Thus... he gets a kick in the balls back. When he learns some business ethics, I might consider removing it.

[Freaky_Akula]

I'm against censorship.

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Yes, reputation... and having a conversion with a person, and calling them an idiot while knocking the rep - is bad business and has nothing to do with my actual reputation.

Thus... he gets a kick in the balls back. When he learns some business ethics, I might consider removing it.

If I leave you some green will you stop? GFY reputation also has nothing to do with your reputation in this business, nobody can see what he wrote.

Everyone is so touchy around here lately, we need to have a backyard BBQ and get back to talking business.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Have you ever seen a paysite with no affiliates do 1000+ signups a day? I think not....


The email redirect stays... Anyone that is douche enough to call someone an idiot in the rep system when they're having a conversions, deserves the rep that I give back.

Maybe next time you will think before acting like a kid in high school.

Maybe you should open up your ICQ before acting like a kid. Or an idiot.

As for the number of affiliates creating sales. Do you really think if half the affiliates disappear half the sales will?

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

It's not your responsibility past a good faith effort just like it's not the responsibility of porn ppv providers to come check your ID before you can watch. Parents shouldn't let their kids watch porn ppv or porn on the internet (if that's how they feel about it).

Tell a judge it's only a matter of good faith, if you allow underage people to walk into a shop and buy things they are not allowed to like porn, alcohol, cigarettes, guns and the list goes on.

Don't worry about the Thedoc negative repping me, he was just having a conversion.

Trying to harm someone's rep on GFY seems important to him.

Here's the message I sent him on ICQ.

Paul Markham ‎(10:37 AM):
If you give me your email address I can knock it off the list in seconds.
Paul Markham ‎(10:48 AM):
I checked the email address in your signature on GFY and it's not on our list.
Paul Markham ‎(10:50 AM):
Are you thedoccyebr ?
Paul Markham ‎(10:51 AM):
Because that's all I could find searching for Thedoc.

Seems he can't have a conversion on ICQ either.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Maybe you should open up your ICQ before acting like a kid. Or an idiot.

As for the number of affiliates creating sales. Do you really think if half the affiliates disappear half the sales will?

I'm not going to icq someone to get off a list.

Yes, of course... If you took away all the affiliates today, 99% of the adult traffic would dry up instantly. A paysite has no possible way to reach those global people, into 100's of micro niched markets, pages, locations, languages, etc. tons of places people aren't actually looking for porn, but found it - and came on over.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Don't worry about the Thedoc negative repping me, he was just having a conversion.

Trying to harm someone's rep on GFY seems important to him.

Here's the message I sent him on ICQ.

I can't rep you... I'm not a green nick. As for rep, I care 0% what my rep is - no actual rep was harmed.

However, I do give a shit when little stains fail to discuss/debate/argue a topic and resort to childish antics to display the frustrations they have. If this wasn't a business topic - we wouldn't have an issue. But because it is, I take it as a personal attack.... and well, piss off.

Maybe next time you won't act like a little bitch when someone shares an opinion on what they've discovered.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Seems he can't have a conversion on ICQ either.

Yes, many hours after the above post you messaged me, followed by me blocking your messages.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by Freaky_Akula

I'm against censorship.

Whatevs!

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I'm not going to icq someone to get off a list.

Then I guess not replying to my ICQ means you want to stay on the list. So you harmed my business just to flame me on GFY. Nice move. You earned my negative rep.

Yes, of course... If you took away all the affiliates today, 99% of the adult traffic would dry up instantly. A paysite has no possible way to reach those global people, into 100's of micro niched markets, pages, locations, languages, etc. tons of places people aren't actually looking for porn, but found it - and came on over.

About the most stupid statement ever. Affiliates don't create the need for men to view porn, they only direct those looking for it. Or are you suggesting that affiliates actually create porn buyers?

What ever did we do in the days before the Internet when men had to walk into a shop to buy it. Were affiliates outside the shop screaming come in?

However, I do give a shit when little stains fail to discuss/debate/argue a topic and resort to childish antics to display the frustrations they have. If this wasn't a business topic - we wouldn't have an issue. But because it is, I take it as a personal attack.... and well, piss off.

I am discussing it it but you have not answered my question. Should the Internet be exempt of laws that apply on the high street?

Yes, many hours after the above post you messaged me, followed by me blocking your messages.

Yes very grown up. Blocking my ICQ asking for your email address even after I searched for anything that might lead to you.

You say you emailed me 50 times, haven't seen one so far and your intentions are clear.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Then I guess not replying to my ICQ means you want to stay on the list. So you harmed my business just to flame me on GFY. Nice move. You earned my negative rep.

And you've earned the redirect... keep mouthing and I'll forward the emails you send to my wife and staff up to them as well.

Damn, my actions already harmed your business, and you could track it? Now that's sweet... on the reverse, my business is based on my knowledge so calling me an idiot could cause harm my business directly. I love stuff like this.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

About the most stupid statement ever. Affiliates don't create the need for men to view porn, they only direct those looking for it. Or are you suggesting that affiliates actually create porn buyers?

What ever did we do in the days before the Internet when men had to walk into a shop to buy it. Were affiliates outside the shop screaming come in?

Yes they do... if you have no porn on a mainstream network, those people don't leave that network to visit porn. Once porn hits that network, that leave in stoves. Not that some don't visit porn, just not moments before they found it.

Affiliates create the ability to put your brand/product in front of more peoples eyes. If you only rely on the adult bubble of traffic, your sales ability is limited to a shrinking bubble. The rest of the 'net is much larger, and affiliates gave us that reach.

Before the Internet, porn made less money. If you had a million more stores and people slinging it everyones faces, you would have had more buyers like what happened with the Internet.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I am discussing it it but you have not answered my question. Should the Internet be exempt of laws that apply on the high street?

My comment wasn't about this.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Yes very grown up. Blocking my ICQ asking for your email address even after I searched for anything that might lead to you.

You say you emailed me 50 times, haven't seen one so far and your intentions are clear.

The point of this wasn't to say people can/can't be removed from your lists.... the point is to basically say fuck you for being a douche bag. Maybe next time when someone is trying to give an opinion you won't be such a douche bag.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

I will not give up my free speech for money.

[u-Bob]

"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young
to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from
now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom
of the press away from the Internet?' "
-- Mike Godwin

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Hey Paul.... Just for you, I setup a forwarding on your newsletters that I've cancelled from probably 50 times to [email protected], with header attachments showing I've asked to cancel and pointing out points that address failure to comply with can-spam laws while routing through U.S. ISP's.

Anything else you wish to say?

pwned

I knew him arguing with you was more stupid that his usual posts.

[DamianJ]

Also, anyone that thinks ACTA is good, doesn't understand it at all. Or like Old Man Markham, hasn't actually READ what it is, just thinks it is meant to stop piracy so it must be good. However, it is meant to stop counterfeit goods really, the piracy is brought in at the back. And it's got some DELICIOUS details:

* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

Anyone who thinks that is A Good Idea is a fucking lunatic.

http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/sec...right-tre.html

[ottopottomouse]

Still don't get how Markham can live in a formerly Eastern Bloc country but appear to want increased censorship of anything.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Still don't get how Markham can live in a formerly Eastern Bloc country but appear to want increased censorship of anything.

Here's your answer:

[The Duck]

Any type of censorship in any situation is bad.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young
to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from
now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom
of the press away from the Internet?' "
-- Mike Godwin

creepy way of looking at it

[3xTom]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

No the law about allowing children to view porn was me just using one example. So my stand is; Why should the Internet not be subject to a law that applies to non Internet businesses?

Not just the laws governing children being exposed to porn.

Quoted for truth !!

[CYF]

fuck censorship

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

creepy way of looking at it

and it was written about 10 years ago :/

[Dodododa]

Oh no! Looks like I picked up some bad rep for starting this thread. I didn't mean any harm, honest!