Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Courts The Internet Your Rights Online

Two Porn Companies Take ICANN and .xxx Registrar To Court 272

Posted by timothy
from the acourtin'-we-will-go dept.
SharkLaser writes "Two of the largest porn companies on the internet, Manwin and Digital Playground, yesterday sued both ICANN and ICM Registry, which runs the .xxx TLD, over extorting defensive registrations with ICANN's blessing. 'The complaint focuses on ICM's recently concluded "sunrise" period, during which porn companies, for about $200, could apply to own a .xxx address matching their trademark or .com domain.' Schools also felt the same way, and had to reserve domains under their name so that no porn content could be put up on them. The .xxx TLD has also previously been subject to criticism by both religious groups and adult industry, but for different reasons. Religious groups believe the .xxx TLD legitimizes pornography, while the adult industry believes it could lead to censorship."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Two Porn Companies Take ICANN and .xxx Registrar To Court

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:00PM (#38104786)

    Although the only real solution is to replace the TLD system altogether.

    • by anorlunda (311253)

      Instead of domain names, we could just use search engines to locate any side. No domain names at all; just IP addresses. That would make Google and the other search engines happy, but a lot of others unhappy.

      Indeed, many people today are lazy. They just type a keyword or a partial company name in the address/search bar of their brower and let autocomplete resolve that to a hit. Hell, that's even easier than using locally stored bookmarks. I see that as evidence that the trend is to eventually obsolete

  • by Adult film producer (866485) <van@i2pmail.org> on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:00PM (#38104792)
    Maybe the next TLD will be .X13 and then .X18.. etc. The same thing that the MPAA does with film ratings.
    • I would ahve no problem if theior was an agancy that dictated those guidline and sites ahd to put them in a searchable area of the web page.

      So you would have g/pg/pg13/nc17/ 18+/ No Rating

      Seriously, Give me a tool to filter out unwanted site reliable.

      • by SomePgmr (2021234) on Friday November 18, 2011 @10:29PM (#38105604) Homepage
        Except, who creates standards of appropriateness for an international resource like the web? You can't without creating a nonsensical, administrative mess of censorship and general disagreement.

        That's just another example of how .XXX was just a cash grab. Nobody can effectively categorize and police content on the web outside of a voluntary service, which will never be 100%. And so there's no way to say, "all porn must move to .XXX". If you can't move all porn to .xxx, then there's no real reason to have it.

        It was just a way to make a crapload of money from people that don't even want the resource, just so that they can protect their existing services. That's shitty, and they only got away with it because the target was the porn industry.
        • by reiisi (1211052) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @05:06AM (#38107162) Homepage

          Making a 100% barrier is not the point.

          A certain amount of self-regulation will occur, and that will be better than the present.

          The companies and schools that get excited about their names being used in the .xxx domain, well, if they get excited about such things, let them pay for the blocking move.

          Internet users who see "washington.edu" and "washington-edu.xxx" in a browser that doesn't hide the TLD are going to be aware that the latter is not the former.

          The .xxx domain is not the best solution theoretically possible, but I don't have any real hope that all internet users will suddenly figure out how to keep their libidos in check.

      • by bmo (77928) on Friday November 18, 2011 @10:40PM (#38105664)

        >Seriously, Give me a tool to filter out unwanted site reliable.

        Just being lazy and checking Wikipedia:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content-control_software [wikipedia.org]

        Windows applications
        Cyclope-Series (proprietary)
        Green Dam Youth Escort (Mainland Chinese Government mandated software)
        K9 Web Protection (proprietary, free for home use)
        Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway (proprietary)
        NetNanny (proprietary)
        SurfWatch (proprietary)
        SafeSquid (proprietary, free for up to 3 users)
        Windows Live Family Safety (proprietary, free)
        Secure Web SmartFilter EDU, formerly known as Bess
        FB Limiter (free, paid upgrade available)
        [edit]
        Mac applications
        K9 Web Protection (proprietary, free for home use)
        SurfWatch (proprietary, free for home use)
        [edit]
        Hardware solutions
        Lightspeed Systems (hosted or hardware, for mobile or desktop)
        [edit]
        Web browser
        [edit]
        Internet Explorer
        Content Advisor (After IE 6)
        [edit]
        Other
        CleanFeed (ISP based)
        ClearOS (unix/linux and ISP based)
        DansGuardian (unix/linux and ISP based)
        DynDNS (DNS based, with a free plan)
        Mobicip (cloud-based)
        OnlineFamily.Norton (cloud-based)
        OpenDNS (DNS/ISP based, free for Families and Non-commercial users)
        SafeSquid (unix/linux and ISP based)
        Scieno Sitter (system unknown: used exclusively by Church of Scientology members under an NDA)
        SmartWeb (Parental Control for Apple iPhone and iPod Touch platforms)
        Websense (system unknown: notable for use by China, Yemen, and US Governments)

      • Youll note that g/pg/R etc are all industry ratings, NOT government ones-- and thats a REALLY REALLY good idea.

        Ill leave it to your imagination to come up with reasons why you dont want the government classifying and regulating speech.

        • by sirlark (1676276)

          Ill leave it to your imagination to come up with reasons why you dont want the government classifying and regulating speech.

          As opposed to leaving corporations classifying and regulating speech?

        • A problem though. All those industry ratings are rather limited in coverage. Look at films, for example. Over in the US, you get the MPAA ratings. Here in the UK, we get the BBFC ratings. Australia has it's own agency. I imagine this applies to most countries. Now try applying that to the internet, and you'd find there is too much cultural diversity. Things that go without notice in one country would be seen as incredibly offensive in others. The world still has places like Saudi Arabia - they would conside
  • ICANN's Authority (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:03PM (#38104810)

    The $200 fee is bullshit, and clearly unfair profiteering. My tax dollars went toward the development of the Internet. Who gave ICANN the authority to require another $200 from me to register a domain name?

    • "Who gave ICANN the authority to require another $200 from me to register a domain name?"

      That would be the US Department of Commerce, historically. ICANN has been spun off now, and officially is entirely independant of the US government. In practice it still holds considerable unofficial influence.
  • Religious groups (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@g m a il.com> on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:03PM (#38104814) Homepage Journal

    Porn will exist on the internet whether you want it to or not. Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it.

    • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:24PM (#38104934) Homepage Journal
      Religious people watch just as much, if not more, porn than non-religious people.

      They're just publicly obligated to speak out against it, along with all the other enjoyable things in life like smoking Marijuana and polyamory.
    • Re:Religious groups (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Xanny (2500844) on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:38PM (#38105028)
      Porn will exist in general. 99.9% of humans past the age of 13 have sexual urges, and satisfying them through images and video causes no harm to anyone, it just makes them feel good. Its like drug prohibition. Porn doesn't hurt your neighbor in ANY WAY, but the fact it exists offends them, like they want to change the fundemental laws of the universe to make it so it can't exist. Since they don't have the education to even know how to do that, they just complain to government and the "moral" fabric of society takes over. That might sound judgmental, but having grown up in the last two decades, all I see is old people complaining about things that have no influence or effect on them and preventing everyone else from doing what they want to satisfy their own superiority complex. It gets old.
      • by EdIII (1114411) on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:45PM (#38105084)

        Porn doesn't hurt your neighbor in ANY WAY

        Ohh, I dunno about that.

        I videotaped myself whacking off in the backyard a couple of times and the neighbor got pretty pissed off. Something about how it "ruined" his view from the balcony or some other crap like that.

        Other than that I agree with you. Bunch of Quakers out there.

      • Compare it with drugs?
        That's a load of crap.

        Doing most types of drugs has some type of adverse effect, that is the main reason they are banned.

        Some people like to pretend that there are adverse effects to watching porn, but there are no relevant studies on the subject.

        Hell, even marijuana and other non-potent drugs have several adverse effects (alcohol is noticeably much so, it's only legal since the alternative is smuggling).

        • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @04:15AM (#38107008)
          Alcohol is legal because it's been established too long to ban. Like tobacco.

          I debate with anti-porn crusaders a lot, and their standard approach is to convince themselves that pornography is some super-addictive drug-like poison that'll destroy a person's life with ease. If they can't find any actual mechanism of damage, they make one up. They'll even claim it is spiritually damaging, which has the nice advantage of being impossible to disprove. Take, for example, this quote from pressure group the Family Research Council:

          "Pornography is a major threat to marriages, the family, and the society at large. It is not a private choice without public consequence. Pornography alters both sexual attitudes and behavior, undermining marriage, which in turn, undermines the stability of the entire community.

          It goes on to list all manner of studies which prove pornography causes all manner of health problems, but I'm not even going to bother checking into the studies myself because I know the FRC has a long history of using worthless junk studies churned out by political pressure groups and distorting the findings even of legitimate studies. But that doesn't matter. It's the confirmation bias in action. If you tell an anti-porn crusader that 'scientific studies' show that, as the FRC puts it, 'Pornography viewing and sexual offense are inextricably linked' then they'll believe the claim without actually wanting to look at the studies.
    • Re:Religious groups (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DrBoumBoum (926687) on Friday November 18, 2011 @09:05PM (#38105200) Journal

      Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn

      You would have for that to force all porn to use an .xxx domain, which is impossible, be it only because nobody's able to define porn precisely.

      Basically this "black-list" approach is ridiculous, unenforceable and ineffective, and was simply devised from the start as a rip-off. To achieve the goal that you're proposing, the simple solution was to standardize a white-list approach, where sites that don't contain porn would advertise this fact using a HTTP header for instance. Then any site breaking the rule could be quickly and effectively reported and prosecuted.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dougmc (70836)

        You would have for that to force all porn to use an .xxx domain, which is impossible, be it only because nobody's able to define porn precisely.

        Um, the government has *no* problem defining porn precisely enough to apply laws to it. Yes, the final decisions are made by courts, but don't delude yourself into thinking that they can't make a definition -- they can, and they have.

        They certainly have little problem nailing people for child porn, for example. Or the occasional obscenity case.

        • by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Friday November 18, 2011 @10:51PM (#38105716) Homepage

          They certainly have little problem nailing people for child porn, for example.

          So little problem, in fact, that parents have been prosecuted for innocent pictures of their naked children.

          Or to put it another way: it's not as simple as you think it is.

          • by dougmc (70836)

            They certainly have little problem nailing people for child porn, for example.

            So little problem, in fact, that parents have been prosecuted for innocent pictures of their naked children.

            Or to put it another way: it's not as simple as you think it is.

            I didn't say there was a clear line -- the line is quite fuzzy.

            But there's definitely a line. It's exact location is determined in courtrooms, and this location can vary from case to case, but the line is certainly there.

            As for people being prosecuted, I'm aware of a few cases such as this one [go.com] -- but even this one was thrown out before going to trial. (Though being forced to register as sex offenders before being convicted? That sounds like a violation of one's rights to due process.)

            But again -- my poin

            • by DrBoumBoum (926687) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @07:37AM (#38107674) Journal

              Simple, complicated, whatever -- the lines have been drawn.

              Really it's not a line, it's a large grey band, and it's moving all the time. What was considered unacceptable in the 60's is now totally boring. But anyway, my point was not that the government will not be able to draw an arbitrary line and prosecute people according to the mood of the day. They can and they will, as you've stated, and very happily at that; they will never balk at using and showing their power. My point is simply that it will be useless in keeping porn off the non-xxx domains.

        • by mattsday (909414)

          Which government? The internet is a global entity. What constitutes porn in one country shouldn't suddenly apply universally.

          • by dougmc (70836)

            Which government? The internet is a global entity. What constitutes porn in one country shouldn't suddenly apply universally.

            I would imagine that the vast majority of governments have already set their own standards about what porn is and what it isn't, and more importantly what porn is legal (if any) and what isn't.

            These standards will obviously vary from country to country, but don't think that just because they may vary between countries or even within a single country or from case to case that they don't exist. They do.

            I never said that anything should apply universally, or that .xxx was a good idea or a bad idea, or that it

        • There is a place outside whatever country you reside in. That place usually has totally different laws and a different government. There are about 400 different governments out there. Each of those has their own views on what is or isn't porn and if they should actually do something with that knowledge.

          Not only that, but having your government decide on what's good for you, isn't considered "free". I'm assuming you live in the USA and not in the former DDR, North Korea or mainland China. Why on earth woul
        • by Patch86 (1465427)

          So tell me- does The Sun's Page 3 count as porn (when you can buy it without age restriction)? What about "lad's mags", which are basically a whole magazine of page 3? What about a movie with a sex scene in it? A movie which is all sex scenes (i.e. softcore porn)? Maybe just harcore porn- but what's that? Just sexual penetration? Oral sex? What about lots of explicit breast-massaging? Sadomasochism, with lots of whips and whatnot, but no conventional sex?

          Different governments will have categorized which of

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        Things to add to the white list approach. It is not free, it is held by government and it is age graded very young (toddler), young (primary school) to teen (high school) to business adult (safe for work), to be more effective. You pay to get reviewed and placed on the list, you pay more to self grade and be audited randomly. Of course advertisements are strictly controlled to be on the approved white list, they must be 100% truthful, have no false associations and lack any peer pressure traits.

        Once you

      • by houghi (78078)

        There is another reason it won't work. com, net and org are subject related. However there are also country related TLDs.

        What if e.g. the .va domain allows child porn (Going right to the most evil thing there is.). Or if .cn allows for porn sites?
        Oh? Going to censor the Chinese who we hate because they don't allow free speech?

    • by nick_davison (217681) on Friday November 18, 2011 @09:06PM (#38105212)

      Porn will exist on the internet whether you want it to or not. Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it.

      Jewish owned sites will exist on the internet whether you want them to or not. Using a .jew TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter Jewish sites if you don't want to see them.

      Jewish owned businesses will exist in Germany whether you want them to or not. Using a Star of David badge makes it that much easier to identify and filter Jewish businesses if you don't want to use them.

      Jewish people will exist in Germany whether you want them to or not. Using a Star of David badge makes it that much easier to identify and filter Jewish people if you don't want to associate with them.

      That chain of thought started out as seeming pretty damn reasonable in an era when, not just Germany but the US, the UK, France, Russia, you name it, all regarded Jewish people, particularly Jewish businesses, with suspicion. Why shouldn't people have the right to choose where to do business and avoid those they find morally offensive? It's just a badge, right? How badly could it get misused?

      In any environment, singling out a group you regard as morally inferior, forcing them to wear badges is generally a slippery slope.

      Mix in the US government's current belief that it has the right to censor websites not just within the US but globally is their registrar is US based. Now what happens when a good [religion of your choice] president gets voted in and, pandering to his voter base, promised to disable .xxx. Now you've not only handed users the ability to easily filter their own content, you've handed politicians from a single nation the ability to globally switch off porn because they feel it's "bad."

      How would America's gun lobby react if we ghettoized all gun related websites to .gun or .violence? How would our moral minority respond if we pushed all religious sites over to .religion? Of course, this being the US these days, .muslim would probably be plenty. How would the politicians supporting .xxx respond if all of their campaigning was forced to .politics and a flick of a browser switch could hide their campaigns from people? A lot more people are killed in the name of guns or of religion or of politics, a lot more lives ruined, than porn achieves. Yet the same people who support .xxx would freak over their interests being treated the same way.

    • Re:Religious groups (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dwonis (52652) * on Friday November 18, 2011 @09:17PM (#38105258)

      Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it.

      RFC 3675 [ietf.org] disagrees with you.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by dougmc (70836)

        Using a .xxx TLD makes it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it.

        RFC 3675 [ietf.org] disagrees with you.

        Of course, that RFC is just somebody's opinion on the matter. It's hardly the last word.

        And really, the title is ".sex Considered Dangerous" -- not "A mandatory *.sex (or *.xxx) domain will not make it that much easier to identify and filter porn if you don't want to see it".

        If all porn was forced to be on *.xxx domains by law and was not directly reachable via any other DNS tlds, then it certainly would make it that much easier to identify (though there's the risk of false positives) and filter porn if

  • It IS extortion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tompaulco (629533) on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:06PM (#38104846) Homepage Journal
    Domain names cost like $7. Why do they have to pay $200 for one in another TLD just because it has the same base name? Disband ICANN and ICM and sell of their assets.
    Domains used to be free. Whose brother-in-law in congress gave these a-holes authority to charge money for a free service?
    • by hedwards (940851)

      The cost depends upon what services are being provided. In this case I'm guessing that it's primarily profiteering. I could imagine services that would make it worth $200 a year, such as verification that the sites are legal in whatever jurisdiction.

    • by Surt (22457)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#History [wikipedia.org]

      Domains really couldn't truly be free forever. When the first troll arrived on the internet, dispute resolution became necessary, and that meant more employees and costs, going well beyond what a few volunteers could do with their spare time.

      • Re:It IS extortion (Score:5, Informative)

        by mysidia (191772) * on Friday November 18, 2011 @11:56PM (#38106118)

        Domains really couldn't truly be free forever. When the first troll arrived on the internet, dispute resolution became necessary,

        Nonsense... dispute resolution wasn't necessary, for 25 years during which the NIC was in operation, and the internet had broad commercial use for a long time with plenty of trolls, "dispute resolution" and ICANN and came long after the Network Solutions InterNic started charging outlandish prices for domains; the inception of ICANN was in 1998...

        There was a very simple dispute resolution process.... file a lawsuit and let the courts sort it out, while preserving the rights of the parties involved. A much fairer, more proper process than what we have today.

        There's a much simpler reason domains can't be free though -- the US government stopped funding the NIC, due to its commercial use - it was deemed the funding has to come from the private sector.

        It's not free to run a domain registry, the money has to come from somewhere.

        Ideally a non-profit organization would have formed to operate the registry for the benefit of the community; and the community of ISPs / DNS users would support that registry by utilizing it.

        Guess what... that part didn't happen. Turns out there is so much money to be made running a domain registry, for-profit entities slipped in there first through their existing contracts, lots of money to be made by treating domain names as tangible items that "expire" or are "rented" at high price instead of community resources allocated to the registrant, with costs to be recovered from the community of users.

        Instead of a "non-profit" central domain registry operated in a manner that bests benefits the entire community and all registrants.

        We have a multitude of for-profit registries... that's the substitute answer. Instead of providing the community as a whole a single central DNS service that bests serves the community, a strange idea one out that if we have enough for-profit organizations competing, and all selling the same registry-operator service with their own markup that is remarkably similar across all registrars (with special discounts to certain orgs that register hundreds of thousands of superfluous domains), that somehow makes it "OK".

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Yeah, when 12 people wanted them and it was run by a voluneterr, domani names where free.

      NO we have to pay for the service.
      and 200 dollars isn't extortion. N fact, I wish all domains cost 200 dollars, with the exception of some sory of domain for personal use only. No corporation, not business.
      That should be free.

    • by ewieling (90662)
      Nobody is forcing them to pay $200. They they are "forcing" themselves to pay $200.
  • by muon-catalyzed (2483394) on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:09PM (#38104864)
    $200 is definitely a high price when you try to register all typos, abreviations and variants of your mark, but a good price to deter squatters and bulk buyer speculators.
    • by bmo (77928)

      but a good price to deter squatters and bulk buyer speculators.

      Who says you have to buy a damn thing?

      domain kiting, v., the act of registering a domain, deleting it before the 5 days grace period is up, and reregistering it. Wash, rinse, repeat.

      200 bux is extortion.

      --
      BMO

      • Who says there's a 5 day grace period on .xxx or any other domain? There are plenty enough TLDs that don't have this irritating feature.
    • by stephanruby (542433) on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:54PM (#38105142)

      ...but a good price to deter squatters and bulk buyer speculators

      I vote that we move all ecommerce and technical sites to .xxx since they do seem to have better quality control.

  • that the whole .xxx issue is causing more problems than solutions. If porn gets its own TLD then why don't gun companies have their own TLD extension? Because violence is okay and porn is dirty? Double standard...
    • by ragefan (267937)

      Considering the way many Americans treat guns, gun should be in .xxx too.

    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday November 18, 2011 @11:03PM (#38105782) Journal

      Has EVERYONE forgotten about .mobi and .travel? There ARE already industry specific TLD's and they failed dismally. In fact, I am in the industry and when I asked at fairly high level people why .xxx was expected to go any better then .travel and .mobi it was awfully silent.

      INCLUDING about the claim "well if nobody wants it the price will just drop" with the question "But you invested a fortune in lobbying so you will then just give up instead of using your bought politicians to mandate porn sites to buy an XXX domain".

      Baby steps. First you register the jews, then you make them identifiable, well you know the rest. Godwin? Yes absolutely, it is not about the eradiction of undesirables BUT the .xxx domain has some very odd supporters. Lots of politicians that would dearly love to see porn gone (and freedom of expression) supported the .xxx domain. Why? I think a phase 2 might happen maybe not by design but by the business behind it who spend a fortune getting this wanting to make sure it succeeds. Again with Godwin but do you think the census takers at IBM who recorded the faith of people in Germany knew the final solution?

      Anyway, ICANN has long been thinking about launching endless TLD's. Think .gun or .apple is bad? How about .paris and .washington? Each town, their own TLD, every business their own TLD.

      .xxx is an experiment. Not so much about whether their is a market but how a market can be forcible created.

      A lot of people think they can get .xxx to work for them, it is sold to some porn companies as in that the .xxx domain will be more legit so they can get better deals with mainstream business for advertising... yes, they really are that stupid.

      Playboy had no problem getting mainstream advertising but most porn sites are a squalid dirty mag that even the industry itself would be reluctant to advertise in.

      But you can claim you read playboy.COM for the articles. Good luck doing that with playboy.xxx

      For decades the industry has attempted to seem legit, that they are just a business, just like Playboy is. And now a lot of them think the best way to do that is cover their faces in the cum of the .xxx tld. Yeah, that will work. Why not wear a star and paint your face black (the only difference between Germany and the US is that you don't need to get blacks to wear anything to tell them apart. People can just tell it seems. Must be the big noses)

    • by mysidia (191772) *

      If porn gets its own TLD then why don't gun companies have their own TLD extension?

      Because gun companies aren't a popular internet destination. It's NOT porn companies that want a .XXX TLD extension. It is (1) a certain large company that stands to make a mint by operating the .XXX registry, and

      (2) domain registrars that stand to make a mint, because they know the popularity of porn destinations, and they hope to sell a lot of domain names, both to companies who don't want someone else to us

  • It's Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brainzach (2032950) on Friday November 18, 2011 @08:41PM (#38105062)

    This is just a racket to force many companies to pay ICANN for protection.

    Unlike the uselss .biz and .co TLDs that no one care about, .xxx can be used to be actively exploit and damage the names of respected businesses and organizations.

    Legitimate porn companies will probably stay away from .xxx names because it is saying that we can't afford a real TLD. It will also open themselves up to be easily censored. There is nothing advantageous to it.

    • by frisket (149522)

      Unlike the uselss .biz and .co TLDs that no one care about, .xxx can be used to be actively exploit and damage the names of respected businesses and organizations.

      This entire argument is bogus. In what way does it damage their names or reps? You really think anyone of any significance would actually believe that sears.xxx or ibm.xxx means that Sears or IBM have just started up porno services?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I was thinking the same thing. Then I remembered my neighbours. Most people are stupid. I mean really fucking stupid.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      Companies don't own a name. They own a name PLUS a TLD. If they had some magical right to all TLDs after they have registered one would make TLDs pretty useless. And would you care to elaborate exactly how a similarly named .xxx site is going to "damage the names" of businesses? I doubt that their potential customers will be searching for services on the .xxx domain.

  • $5 to cover the cost of the paperwork sounds better.

    The "pre-emptive block" should in no way be a moneymaker for anyone.

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@ya ... m minus math_god> on Friday November 18, 2011 @09:14PM (#38105242) Homepage Journal

    Porn is legitimate.

    the point of .xxx is censorship. mainly censorship by whoever owns the system.

    And any domain with your copyright in the name will be turned over to you through normal court process. Something I don't agree with, but there you are.

    • The point of .xxx is to make money for registrars. Most people who seriously want censorship don't care about the .xxx domain because it's impossible to force all porn into one domain (US laws don't apply for .ru domains, for example).
  • by powdered toast dude (800543) * on Saturday November 19, 2011 @10:03AM (#38108150) Journal
    I've always been of the opinion that no TLDs other than country codes should have ever existed. Might have kept things a little more civil. Might not have, too, of course. $0.02, ptd
  • by ElusiveJoe (1716808) on Saturday November 19, 2011 @09:19PM (#38112488)

    And thank you for not being a lazy excuse of a parent and spending your time with your kids.

    It'd be so much better for both children and the Internet if they were separate from each other.

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...