Anyone here feel best qualified to be point man with the FSC?

[Chop Smith]

Not that Greenguy needs to justify his positions on warning pages, but here is some petty good reading for those that do not get xbiz. http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=13995

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by karomesis

...Greenguy, are you confident that if we did mandate the warning pages that it would stop them from asking for more? If so, then I think it's a great idea, and Hopefully you're right.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. I've used warning pages for as long as I can remember. They make sense to me. I think I started using them in 97, but the oldest pages I can find in the waybackmachine is January 98:
http://web.archive.org/web/199801280...nk-o-rama.com/
(ugh - what was I thinking - LOL)

Maybe try to think of it this way - if a local adult store had ads in the windows depicting hardcore sex & the door was open & there were no signs posted that it was an adults only store, would that fly?

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

DJilla: At the end of the day, the FSC is a global umbrella organization that by it's very nature cannot and will not represent the needs of the online world unless those needs match those of the video industry. We are still the bastard children, and we don't have the power with them to make it work out.

If I understand correctly, the elections within FSC are only for a limited number of positions, and the rest are by appointment or by "representitives from various parts of the industry". Even if the online people outnumber the video members 3 to 1, there would be no way to vote a more online friendly board.

We truly need an "online porn" organization that could work with FSC on things, but that would come to the forefront on issues directly related to the online world.

.kids is an idea I have pushed in the past, I think it is a great idea, but it also may put an unrealistic burden on content neutral sites (such as dictionary.com or whatever) to have a duplicate site because kids often access their site for information. I think that in the end both .XXX and .KIDS are misleading, because they fail to address the simple point:

Alex

As usual I generally agree with your post. But from my perspective, I usually take the slow and plodding path towards success. Influence, control, acheievement is usualy made in increments and baby steps.
I've always found that it is easier to take over and turn around an existing entity, business, social group, etc. rather than reinvent a brand new one. FSC has done alot of the advance work and I think we could become a major factor within it over time. First step is to truly have someone on the inside. Even if he/she/they were initially ignored (which I really wonder about, maybe not) there is a path that can build with pressure. Again, I point out IMHO video stores/sales are dead, they just don't know it. Electronic delivery is inevitable and that's our domain (pun intended). We also could potentially muster a PR/news delivery system that would dwarf their current mainstream efforts. Starting a new org would be cool and why not? But again IMHO it would be way behind the curve and probably take much longer to come up to speed than we have to address the present issues. Best yet, do both.

Re: .kid, Having given this a lot of thought my strategy is first, this is something that we and the FSC can already agree on and a unifier. Second, regardless of the realities of parental responsibility, we HAVE to give parents something to work with. Third, it takes the pressure off us and puts it on filters, search, etc! Fourth, I think a .kid domain would turn out to be something truly wonderful. Finally, I don't give a whit about content neutral sites who might have to create duplicate sites. Too bad, comes with the teritory of the changing electronic frontier.

That still leaves the problem of warning pages. Naw, I can't imagine they stop anyone in their tracks with guilt or fear. But I use em and with the combo of .kid it puts the onus on "supervision" and not us.

Bottom line, I'll support everything those who are far more experienced than I say is a good idea.

[Chop Smith]

Did not want to start another thead but thought this was related to this one.

I was working on my2257records today and a light went on. Let's say that congress does pass some of the things they are considering, will it put the US adult webmasters out of business and open it wide for other webmasters in other countries.

For example, if congress requires age verification before hardcore images can be viewed the likely solution will be to have a one time charge paid with a credit card. Even, if the charge is $5 will surfers pay it to view US sites if they view UK sites free without age verification?

[RawAlex]

Chop, that is one of the difficulties in all of this. The US senators do not realize that when it comes to the internet, they are but the tail attempting to wag the dog. They can apply certain means to force the issue, but at the end of the day, free porn will move offshore, membership porn will remain in the US, and nothing will have changed except who is cashing the checks.

They are still thinking in terms of magazines sold in stores. They don't realize that it is as easy (and really transparent) for an end user to get free porn from where ever it comes from. It doesn't become a longer wlak to the store or perhaps having to drive over state lines, but rather a click of the mouse that gets the same result, albeit from a different source.

One of the reasons they are split on the .XXX thing for sure is I think many lawmakers are worried about creating any legitimacy for porn at all. It is the same reason none of them are running out to tax porn. Anything like that would mean they would have to accept porn as real and legal. That isn't in the cards.

I think the next couple of years are going to be filled mostly with unenforcable laws, court challenges, constitutional challenges, and election year grand standing.

Remember too, that the numbers typically don't lie. Even conservatives know that a large majority of americans have viewed one or more porn movies, and a good percentage surf, view, or rent adult material. While many people are too shy to admit it, taking their candy away from them would piss them off come voting time. Conservatives know this, and as a result, rather than attacking porn head on, they are trying the end run "zoning law" style attempts to put the hurt on the industry. It is funny as hell to watch them go at it.

Alex

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

For example, if congress requires age verification before hardcore images can be viewed the likely solution will be to have a one time charge paid with a credit card. Even, if the charge is $5 will surfers pay it to view US sites if they view UK sites free without age verification?

Also remember that some First Amendment lawyers are trying to patent their own age verification system that does not require any credit card processing. It's based on the honor system which obviously is silly but if they can get it passed then they'll make a killing since they'll have the patent.

[Chop Smith]

Damn lawyers! Wonder what would happen if a broken down old cpa and a few webmasters did one for free?

[Bill]

That's a concept Chop, I suggested something like that when that lawyer first published on his 'patent pending' system.

At the time I think I was thinking about using a form button with a radio check spot (or whatever it is that those form do-hickeys are called) as the way to get into a free site, so the person has to check a button saying they read the rules and agreed to them before they could enter.

the problem with that is that linklists wouldn't currently accept that type of entry.

However, planning it out so that we were ready to use it the day after the verification crackdown happened might be smart.

[Chop Smith]

Bill, I missed the patent pending deal. Can you point me to it?

[Bill]

I'll have to hunt it down Chop, and I'm not even sure where to start - but my memory of it was that this one fairly well known adult lawyer type said he had invented a javascript tool that worked as a legally viable age verification, and that he had submitted it for a patent, thus I called it "patent pending".

The tool required that a visitor enter his birthdate into a field before entry was allowed. The logic was that the birthdate was part of the current legal method of establishing identity (name and date of birth), and therefore was an acceptable way to anonymously collect a unique agreement to be bound by the rules for entry.

If he was sucessful at getting a patent, that should mean no-one can use an age verification scheme that uses a bithdate identifier without paying him a fee.

So, I was playing with ideas that didn't rely on that patent's concept.

I'll look thru my bookmarks and see if I have it somewhere.

[Bill]

Okay, I haven't found the original article in which he claimed to have filed a patent application (according to my memory of the article), but this is the tool thingy.

It was Larry Walters, and here's the link to his demo website, which looks exactly the same as the first time i saw it:

http://www.birthdateverifier.com/details.html

[RawAlex]

Javascript? There is a nice 1997 idea.

I wonder if Budweiser and other beer companies know about this product.

Alex

[RawAlex]

http://budweiser.com/

Interesting.

Alex

[walrus]

I'll be damned the dude really does have a patent (# 6,959,861) for having someone enter their birthdate, calculating against todays date, entering a name (digitally signing) and storing that information along with the IP address.

Budweiser must be getting around the patent issue since you don't digitally sign for their age verification.

And this is somehow better than a warning page?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by walrus

...And this is somehow better than a warning page?

I guess the legal basis would be that anyone entering that isn't over 18/21 would have falsified their DOB to gain access. Basically a higher level of CYA than a simple warning page. This also requires that scripting is in place to make sure anyone entering the site via another page is redirected to the entry page.

Higher CYA yes, but at quite a price. It's search engine suicide, since spiders will only be able to see the entry page.

[RawAlex]

Walrus, probably the reverse - bud has had that on their site for as long as I can remember (more than 5 years I am sure). Me thinks that not everything that has a patent pending is in fact, well, original.

Alex

[Chop Smith]

Credit card or driver license seems to be the ticket for age verification with driver license being the best. Found this site while researching driver license verification.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

http://budweiser.com/

I guess they don't test for the Mac platform.

I see this at the top of their index page in Safari and in Firefox:
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-') //-->
<!------------------------------------------------------>

The real problem is shown in the screenshot below, which shows Budeweiser's entry page with no way to enter for Mac users surfing with Safari, the standard browser on the Mac platform. Not just nowhere to enter or choose a birthdate, but absolutely not one clickable thing on the entire page.

I see this all the time with sites that aren't careful about making sure their Javascript works in all browsers on all platforms, and that don't 'sniff' for browsers they don't support so they can supply an alternate way to enter.

If it's important, I may keep switching browsers until I find one I can use to enter (like Firefox in this case). But sometime it's just "off to the next site" rather that trying to use a site that many have more problems for me just waiting inside.

Mac users are a small segment of total Internet users, that's true. But it's just sloppy coding to completely lock your front door so someone can't get in at all.


Simon

P.S. Yeah, I'm letting them know.

[Surfn]

Originally Posted by Simon

I guess they don't test for the Mac platform.

I see this at the top of their index page in Safari and in Firefox:
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-') //-->
<!------------------------------------------------------>

The real problem is shown in the screenshot below, which shows Budeweiser's entry page with no way to enter for Mac users surfing with Safari, the standard browser on the Mac platform. Not just nowhere to enter or choose a birthdate, but absolutely not one clickable thing on the entire page.

I see this all the time with sites that aren't careful about making sure their Javascript works in all browsers on all platforms, and that don't 'sniff' for browsers they don't support so they can supply an alternate way to enter.

If it's important, I may keep switching browsers until I find one I can use to enter (like Firefox in this case). But sometime it's just "off to the next site" rather that trying to use a site that many have more problems for me just waiting inside.

Mac users are a small segment of total Internet users, that's true. But it's just sloppy coding to completely lock your front door so someone can't get in at all.


Simon

P.S. Yeah, I'm letting them know.

Who cares about you insignificant Apple surfers anyway?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Surfn

Who cares about you insignificant Apple surfers anyway?

Anyone who doesn't want their Apple/Mac surfers, please feel free to make a big old link saying "Free XXX Porn for Mac Users" and send them to any of my sites.

There aren't that many of us, true, but I don't think I know one without a credit card, or a healthy pre-disposition to spend more money than they probably should on things they think are cool.

The trick is just to make them think your porn is cool.

But you know that already.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Simon

Anyone who doesn't want their Apple/Mac surfers, please feel free to make a big old link saying "Free XXX Porn for Mac Users" and send them to any of my sites.

There aren't that many of us, true, but I don't think I know one without a credit card, or a healthy pre-disposition to spend more money than they probably should on things they think are cool.

The trick is just to make them think your porn is cool.

But you know that already.

Do you think that Mac users are the type of people that drink Budweiser? Mac users probably don't even drink beer and instead drink colorful liquids filled with umbrellas through little straws. Certainly they don't drink anything that's hauled around by horses

Your comments do make me wonder why Apple doesn't fix that problem

[Simon]

Sure, they drink Bud... 'cause they think the Budweiser commercials, including the Clydesdales, are cool.

(Plus, if you don't drink Bud, the terrorists have already won.)

Not sure which problem you wanted Apple to fix though. Was it the amazingly strong brand loyalty or the willingness to pay a higher price that you thought needed attention..?

[docholly]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

Credit card or driver license seems to be the ticket for age verification with driver license being the best. Found this site while researching driver license verification.

WTF??? Now anyone can find if you have a valid license or not? and I hate that picture they have of me.. my hair wasn't even freaking brushed that day.. and the minimum wage photographer wouldn't let me fix it.

******back on the subject at hand so to speak********

i had a dream last night that somehow we held an election and GG was elected to represent us in the Porn Congress. It was really kind of a weird dream.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Simon

Not sure which problem you wanted Apple to fix though. Was it the amazingly strong brand loyalty or the willingness to pay a higher price that you thought needed attention..?

You mentioned a problem with Safari "the standard browser on the Mac platform". Shouldn't Apple fix it so that it displays these web pages?

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by docholly

i had a dream last night that somehow we held an election and GG was elected to represent us in the Porn Congress. It was really kind of a weird dream.

Was it wet?