Slashdot Mirror


Celebrities Flock To Reserve .xxx Domains

hypnosec writes "Celebrities have moved swiftly to block their names from the .xxx domain, which is meant for websites that offer pornographic content. Thousands of celebrities have contacted ICM Registry to put their names on the permanently reserved list so that no one will be able to start offering porn under their name. The domain registration company, ICM Registry, failed to give out the list of domain names it had blocked nor it is willing to tell how long the list is. On a lighter note, OsamaBinLaden.xxx has been also blocked and we assume the Al Qaeda would have demanded to reserve the domain."

148 comments

  1. protection racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    protection racket

    1. Re:protection racket by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Informative

      I saw no cost to add to "reserve" list.

    2. Re:protection racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found that odd too, with the current economic climate, I would have welcomed an auction where the celebrities would have to outbid the porn site owners.

    3. Re:protection racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I saw no cost to add to "reserve" list.

      I did.

      There are no corporate trademarks on the reserved list. Companies that want to make sure their brands do not appear with a .xxx extension are expected to pay between $200 and $650 to to make sure they are removed from the pool of available names.

    4. Re:protection racket by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a clause inserted when the xxx domain started that allows companies and entities to register their own .com or .org domain as a .xxx for cheap if they don't intend to use it as an adult site and only to block others from using it? I have a hard time believing that charging a few benjamins to a celebrity that makes millions is a racket.

    5. Re:protection racket by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that basically anytime a new TLD comes out everybody with a .com/etc domain is allowed to pre-register. Everybody does. So then the new domain ends up being a replica of the main domains, and just another annual check to write for domain owners. What is the point of that?

      Either just make it all first-come-first-serve, or get rid of all the TLDs, or enforce some criteria for actually registering on all but one TLDs.

    6. Re:protection racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? I just registered lucylawlesstits.xxx bouncybustybimbos.xxx stupidfuckingblonds.xxx boozewhores.xxx shirtlessobama.xxx everpresentfootballplayerrapists.xxx rapethecowboyscheerleeders.xxx stevejobsdoesgoatse.xxx tool.xxx smashingpumpkins.xxx tonelock.xxx

    7. Re:protection racket by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "just another annual check to write for domain owners."

      You answered your own question.

  2. Streisand.xxx Effect by retroworks · · Score: 1

    This will lead to more and more .xx1, .xx2, .xx3 domain reservations.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Streisand.xxx Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Streisand.xxx? She's almost 70, I suspect the time for that has now passed.

    2. Re:Streisand.xxx Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...unless they thought of that and blocked anything containing the blocked list, or some similar algorithm. Yeah I'm gonna go with they probably thought of that.

  3. VinDiesel too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just wondering...

    1. Re:VinDiesel too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just wondering...

      He is the very best actor ever and his movies are totally unpredictable plot twists. He's even better at acting than Keanu Reeves.

    2. Re:VinDiesel too? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      He's even better at acting than Keanu Reeves.

      The same can be said of my kitchen table, even though it is made of wood...

      (NB. I quite like Mr Reeves and many of his films, including one of my all-time favourites Point Break. But please don't try to tell me he's a good actor.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  4. people can be creative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ParisHilton.xxx may be blocked, but what about Paris-Hilton.xxx, Paris_Hilton.xxx, ParisXHilton.xxx, xxxParisHilton.xxx and WeWillAlwaysHaveParis.xxx?

    1. Re:people can be creative by mtinsley · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can't use underscores in domain names.

    2. Re:people can be creative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ParisSucksButParisDoesntSwallow.xxx

    3. Re:people can be creative by alen · · Score: 1

      it's OK until she finds out and sues you for making money of her name

    4. Re:people can be creative by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

      paris.hilton.xxx

    5. Re:people can be creative by dbet · · Score: 1

      Is that even a thing? The tabloids make money off of celebrities all the time, and surely without their consent. What makes a website different?

    6. Re:people can be creative by Cyko_01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      don't forget OneNightInParis.xxx

    7. Re:people can be creative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that's called a subdomain dumbass...
      i'm sure that hilton.xxx is long since reserved as well.

    8. Re:people can be creative by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Presumably he realised that was a subdomain, so I'm not sure the "dumbass" is entirely appropriate...
      Is "lton.xxx" reserved? e.g. parishi.lton.xxx
      Or "ilton.xxx"? Or "ishilton.xxx"?

    9. Re:people can be creative by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Should probably be modded informative, not funny. One Night In Paris (possibly NSFW) is the name of the DVD.

    10. Re:people can be creative by S.O.B. · · Score: 3, Funny

      How about ParisSucksCo.xxx?

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    11. Re:people can be creative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting someone's name in your content is legal. Naming your content after someone is questionable (and easy to sue over).

    12. Re:people can be creative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if your boss told you to put up an AD for .com?

    13. Re:people can be creative by houghi · · Score: 2

      Enough with the anti-french postings already.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:people can be creative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not the establishment?

  5. This is stupid by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't just mean the reservations, but also the whole domain.

    If I wanted to see porn of the Celebrity named Jane Doe, I wouldn't go

    JaneDoePorn(com/xxx)
    PornJaneDoe(com/xxx)
    JaneDoePron(com/xxx)
    JaneDoePics(com/xxx)

    et cetera

    I'd open Google and type in "Jane Doe Porn" and see which links look good.

    If you're going to flood the xxx domain with useless garbage, then the whole concept of it is useless.

    1. Re:This is stupid by SomePgmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without enforcement, which won't exist and nobody wants anyways, the whole concept is useless anyway.

      There's no utility in this besides the cash grab.

    2. Re:This is stupid by rjch · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is to force all porn sites across to the .xxx domain eventually, which will make parental controls much easier to configure and enforce - hell, it could become a feature of your ISP that all .xxx domains are blocked by default, but can be enabled on request. (in the same way a few ISPs here in Australia block ports 25, 80, 135, 139 and 443 by default, but these port blocks can be removed simply by logging in to your account and disabling the port blocking)

    3. Re:This is stupid by SomePgmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't even begin to imagine the colossal nightmare of trying to figure what should and shouldn't be on the .xxx domain, and policing it. Such a rule probably won't ever happen, but if it does, it'll be either a damned mess, totally fail in its intended purpose, or both.

    4. Re:This is stupid by Zedrick · · Score: 2

      Seconded. There was a time, perhaps around -94 or -95, when I would type in an url that described what I was looking for. Then webcrawler (the first decent searchengine) came along and made that whole "SLD having any relation to the content" thing useless.

    5. Re:This is stupid by Calos · · Score: 1

      They block 80 and 443 by default?! Those are standard HTTP and HTTPS. How on earth can you log into any website to fix that?

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    6. Re:This is stupid by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      Only for a server though right? Unless you're planning on hosting your own server you won't need those open.

    7. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But that will not work unless we somehow can get global standard for what is porn.

      Should the content be moved to .xxx if all cultures think it is porn, or is it enough with only one culture?

      How about smaller groups or just personal preferences? With sites like this http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/ in the end you would have to move content containing people showing any skin what so ever or wearing clothes revealing any hints about body shape. You would also have to move content with animals, buildings, plants.

      If your site contains anything there will probably be someone, somewhere, thinking it crosses the line to being porn.

    8. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Inbound, to protect averagely uninterested users from accidentally exposing their routers configuration interface to the world.

      (25 to prevent access to open relays on customers' computers, 135 and 139 to prevent access to unprotected SMB shares)

    9. Re:This is stupid by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is to force all porn sites across to the .xxx domain eventually

      Sounds like a stupid idea to me. For what purpose? How could they possibly force every single porn website in existence (even unidentified ones) to use the .xxx domain? That'd be quite hard to enforce. And who would want to enforce it?

      I doubt this is their idea at all.

      it could become a feature of your ISP that all .xxx domains are blocked by default

      For what? People who could probably be considered overprotective parents? If they want to "protect" their children from something I deem as harmless, then I think they should be the ones doing the work.

      Not only that, but this kind of blocking is ineffective if the user knows even a little bit about computers (and even if they don't, I'm sure they can follow simple instructions).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:This is stupid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If I wanted to see porn of the Celebrity named Jane Doe, I wouldn't go...

      I know, right? I mean, Jane Doe is so hot. Her girl-on-girl and ATM are the best. Her brilliant schoolroom scene in the 2008, No Country for Old Milfs 2 is nothing short of a masterpiece.

      She lost a lot of her cachet after Tiger Woods did her, however.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:This is stupid by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Domains matching your search criteria would probably rate highly though...

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    12. Re:This is stupid by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      Its simple, Graphic depictions of sex acts thats pornography. Soft porn/erotica obscured or suggestive sex acts.Why do people make something that is so simple so hard?

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    13. Re:This is stupid by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      What about:

      - Artwork? Paintings? Photographs?
      -- Would you count "The Birth of Venus" as pornography? She has got a bit showing.
      - Nudism?
      - Certain Prose?

    14. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd open Google and type in "Jane Doe Porn" and see which links look good.

      I just did that..

    15. Re:This is stupid by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      ... and ATM are the best.

      I love Automated Teller Machines.

      Yes I know what it also stands for, but when I read that through the first time I was imagining a woman getting money from a bank and was wondering what is wrong with some people.

      I still wonder now though.

    16. Re:This is stupid by S.O.B. · · Score: 2

      Didn't you ever see "Debbie Does A Donkey Up Against A Ficus And Takes It In The Bungalow"?

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    17. Re:This is stupid by paiute · · Score: 0

      Its simple, Graphic depictions of sex acts thats pornography. Soft porn/erotica obscured or suggestive sex acts.Why do people make something that is so simple so hard?

      I totally agree. Now we just need to define 'graphic', 'depictions', 'sex', and 'acts'.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    18. Re:This is stupid by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Yes I know what [ATM] also stands for, but when I read that through the first time I was imagining a woman getting money from a bank and was wondering what is wrong with some people.

      And then you found out what "ATM" porn actually was... and you *really* wondered what was wrong with some people. I hope....

      Anyway, I'm sure there are women out there who certainly *would* get turned on if the amounts of money coming out of the ATM were enough. :-/

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    19. Re:This is stupid by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      http://www.google.com/search?q=leda&tbm=isch&biw=1680&bih=871

      Porn. Lots of porn. Lots and lots of porn. Except... it hangs up openly in art galleries around the world. Drawn by some of the most respected names in classical art, including Leonardo. How can that be porn?

    20. Re:This is stupid by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If it's blocked by default, then it'll probably stay blocked. Think of the problems of people trying to justify to their spouse while they need the porn unblocked, or of over-eighteens still living at home having to explain to their parents. If ISPs start blocking .xxx by default, it'll put .xxx sites at such huge commercial disadvantage they'll just have to go back to either .com or (if the US forces them to get off there) to one of the country-code TLDs.

    21. Re:This is stupid by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Yup - same with BT here. The router blocks all incoming ports by default, but you can open them as needed - or simply set up a single machine in a DMZ and use that to handle all incoming requests, port forwarding etc. Quite a good way to do it really. The downside is that (by default) anyone with a BT account can log in to your router. It's "opt-in" meaning you have to opt-out of it...

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    22. Re:This is stupid by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      If it has graphic depictions of the sex acts it belongs in the xxx domain. nudism isn't about sex acts nor do they show sex acts its nudity thats a million miles different then sex acts. Certain poses are meant to stimulate sexually,graphic poses of genitalia is Soft porn. Everything has its place and its common since and its very simple to figure out. Soft porn is 18 and above now for books and movies why should it be any different on the internet? It shouldn't

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    23. Re:This is stupid by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      ATM = Asynchronous Transfer Mode. So I get ATM porn is if both get to the climax at different times? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    24. Re:This is stupid by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      ... and ATM are the best.

      I love Automated Teller Machines.

      Yes I know what it also stands for, but when I read that through the first time I was imagining a woman getting money from a bank and was wondering what is wrong with some people.

      I still wonder now though.

      Well, if it's porn, that woman was probably naked, and you can imagine where the card was inserted ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    25. Re:This is stupid by similar_name · · Score: 1

      Anything that shows a woman's ankle or belly button should also be on the domain.

    26. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soft porn is 18 and above in some countries now for books and movies...

      FTFY

    27. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't specify what is "soft porn". Is it any of:
      * Tight clothes?
      * Showing part of legs?
      * Showing part of face?
      For some these would be soft porn, not to be seen outside of your home.

      How about these guys http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/ ? Should images of inanimate objects only be allowed on .xxx?

    28. Re:This is stupid by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine that ports 80 and 443 would be blocked by default.

      --
      signature is pants
    29. Re:This is stupid by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    30. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about:

      - Artwork? Paintings? Photographs?
      -- Would you count "The Birth of Venus" as pornography? She has got a bit showing.

      Considering I masturbated to it when I was 12, yeah I kinda would.

      But GP Stan92057 wouldn't -- Graphic depiction of sex acts? No, so not "pornography". Obscured or suggestive sex acts? Not unless she's masturbating herself with that hair, so not "soft porn/erotica".

      As he points out, it's simple to make simple rules, and that approach would probably work if everything was produced with that in mind. The trouble is, a certain group of prudes will complain that nude pics are allowed (which I have very little sympathy for -- wherever you draw the line there'll be someone saying you need to drag it 2 inches farther), and another group will complain that the small fraction of non-pornographic art which depicts sex gets branded porn (which I have more sympathy for, since you have many extant works of novel/miniseries size with a page or two of sex scenes -- neither porn-stamping the whole thing nor editing a "family-friendly" version is very staisfactory) which IMO is why we shouldn't bother with it.

    31. Re:This is stupid by bdabautcb · · Score: 0

      To play the devil's advocate, I did almost get kicked out of school in '95 when a friend directed me to www.whitehouse.com. He told me I would find info about the Clinton's kitty kat, Socks. I browsed for a while, and it happened that the dean of students was monitoring our computers at the time, and he thought that the amount of time I spent browsing "socks" violated the voluntarty 'STOP' policy.

      --
      Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
    32. Re:This is stupid by plunderscratch · · Score: 1

      I'd open Google and type in "Jane Doe Porn" and see which links look good.

      ...using the new google.xxx search which will allow you to link your fapping habits to your google+ account.

      --
      Guns don't kill people! Admins do!
  6. .xxx domain rules? by rjch · · Score: 1

    What rules are applied to this domain? If (for example) someone registers something like universal.xxx, would Universal Studios be able to challenge the validity of this domain in the same way as if someone registered universal_studios.com?

    1. Re:.xxx domain rules? by mbone · · Score: 1

      Of course. Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy - UDRP.

  7. Apparently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cowboyneal.xxx is still up for grabs.

  8. Most idiotic and futile task ever by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

    Misspellings, typographical differences (hyphens), and that is not even taking into account domain names can contain numbers.

    You can't buy them all. But the owners of the .xxx registry are making a tidy sum off the gullibility of celebrities, so it's all good.

    1. Re:Most idiotic and futile task ever by petman · · Score: 1

      From what I understand from TFA, the celebs don't have to pay to get on the list, so no one's making money out of this.

    2. Re:Most idiotic and futile task ever by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Named celebrities don't, but companies do in order to protect their trademarks.

    3. Re:Most idiotic and futile task ever by frisket · · Score: 1

      Hah! Just wait for full Unicode in domain names :-) Then the heist can start all over again...

  9. Oh, and since when did they have ownership of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that name? I never knew names could be trademarked, or in any way be owned by people. (unless of course it is some stupid made-up name)

    Oh well, not that I care, .xxx is just a mess now, it could have been grand, but no, they ruined it.

  10. Re:Oh, and since when did they have ownership of.. by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    They don't, which is why they're snapping up the domains before someone else can.

    Otherwise they could just wait and then pull an Atari.

  11. Congratulations ICANN by Co0Ps · · Score: 1

    Congratulations ICANN to all that extra cash. Defensive registrations is an untapped gold mine. I'd recommend adding one sex domain per year.

    1. Re:Congratulations ICANN by petman · · Score: 4, Informative

      From what I understand from TFA, the celebrities don't have to pay to get on the list, so no one's making money out of this.

    2. Re:Congratulations ICANN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ICM says that it has reserved roughly 15,000 domains from registration, but this includes names that have been blocked on cultural grounds (the world's capital cities and half a dozen spellings of Mohammed, for example) and thousands of "premium" names that the company plans to auction later.

    3. Re:Congratulations ICANN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and thousands of "premium" names that the company plans to auction later.

      I wonder if goatse.xxx is on that list.

  12. How can they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Al Qaeda would have demanded to reserve the domain

    Like who in Al Qaeda? Anyone who reserves a domain like that will have some security force knuckle draggers kicking their doors down and guns shoved up their asses - unless, they're some country that wants that domain for propaganda purposes to discredit them.

  13. Idea by Haedrian · · Score: 2

    I wonder if I can register a .sucks TLD.

    I'm sure businesses will clamour to register the companyName.sucks domain to prevent competitors messing it up.

    Win.

  14. Mentally normal, moral people don't think ab't sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This really shows how stupid celebrities really are. This practice of banning xxx names buy celebrities does NOTHING positive for their image, but it does make them look VERY stupid.

    Let's face it, celebrities have sex, and they are more likely to have sex with a prostitute than normal people (except for evangelical Christians and priests). But maybe there is nothing wrong with sex. I could never figure out why some people in society get so sexually aroused by sex that they feel the need to ban it and prosecute people who have too much fun having it.

    I wonder if Rob Malda reserved his name from the .xxx domain, so that nobody would associate a geek with sex. I wonder when we will start hearing about CmdrTaco-Sex.xxx. I wonder how long it will be before the (current) editors and employees of Slashdot will have their names sullied by a rogue .xxx domain. I wonder how long pudge will be free from dirty things like sex.

  15. This gave me a great idea by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

    I could register an .xxx domain on my name, create a website there for me which lots of raunchy stuff and me doing things, then start spearing ads of me in barely legal lingerie, raunchy poses and whatnot, and start spreading viral videos.

    Not that anyone would want to pay to see me, no, but sooner or later someone would buy my domain and pay me huge sums of money NOT to have to see me like that ever again!

    1. Re:This gave me a great idea by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No matter who you are or what you look like, you are someone's cup of tea. Internet porn has already proven this conclusively.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:This gave me a great idea by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      No matter who you are or what you look like, you are someone's cup of tea. Internet porn has already proven this conclusively.

      Well, tbh, that is a rather disturbing idea.

    3. Re:This gave me a great idea by ObitMan · · Score: 2

      So you are going to tease us all like this and not put out?

      for shame.

      --
      Who run Barter Town?
    4. Re:This gave me a great idea by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      I have to hope that rule 34 does not apply to us.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    5. Re:This gave me a great idea by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      With a nickname like "gaygirlie"...

    6. Re:This gave me a great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is porn of it. No exceptions.

    7. Re:This gave me a great idea by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      I'd pay to see that... :)

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    8. Re:This gave me a great idea by frisket · · Score: 1

      No matter who you are or what you look like, you are someone's cup of tea. Internet porn has already proven this conclusively.

      Moving all porn sites to .xxx simply makes it easier to find your perfect cup of tea.

      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

      Step 3: beat whites until stiff.
      (Black BDSM Cookbook, Meringues)

  16. He DID IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After years of serving the slashdot community CmdrTaco leaves to open up his new site CmdrTaco.xxx Maybe after 14 years he will finally get laid!

  17. Celebrities Give in to .xxx Domain extortion by mbone · · Score: 1

    There, fixed that headline for you.

    1. Re:Celebrities Give in to .xxx Domain extortion by mbone · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what I get for not RTFA first. Celebrities don't have to pay, at least for now. Companies, however, do

      There are no corporate trademarks on the reserved list. Companies that want to make sure their brands do not appear with a .xxx extension are expected to pay between $200 and $650 to to make sure they are removed from the pool of available names

      Most of the people I know who deal in domain names feel that the new ICANN TLD policy is primarily about domain name extortion, rather than actually providing a service, so pardon the cynicism.

  18. Re:Mentally normal, moral people don't think ab't by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    I wonder when we will start hearing about CmdrTaco-Sex.xxx.

    I'd pay good money to never see that.

  19. Oh, f-L-O-cking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a smudge on the monitor, and I thought, "They sure are! Sometimes it seems a new celebrity video 'leaks' out about once a month!"

  20. So... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Is it going to be "slashdot.xxx", or "xxx.slashdot.org" ?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  21. Oh but they can by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work in the industry and have followed this. The evil in the .xxx domain is staggering.

    First is the pure money grab, same as with .mobi and .travel and several others. Ever use them for legit sites? No? But lots of companies paid for their domain name nonetheless. Domain names are cheap? Not the .xxx ones. This ain't a service it is a commercial business and they want some real cash. Oh not enough to be a major worry to most companies but enough to add up.

    Then there is the provision that the registar has that they reserve the right to scan your site. That doesn't happen with any other domain but it does for the .xxx domain. Harmless you say? Most porn sites are members only. Is the registar going to need a full access account for every site to scan it? They refuse to answer. Who is going to responsible for leaked access? They don't even acknowledge that question. How is an American company going to deal with laws in different countries, as in why would a Japanese site have to follow US rules or vice versa?

    But the final evil is why lots of politicians are in favor of it.

    What is Playboy magazine? A porn mag OR a magazine with some pictures of nudity? The difference is important. The US has no clear anti-porn laws, instead it has laws that prohibit obscene material. What is obscene? That is a very good question and so far the courts have been unable to answer it.

    Porn is legal in the US as long as no court can define it as being obscene. In olden days this explains nudist magazines and movies. By shooting it as a documentary on nudist live a movie could be sold that was just a skin flick. It is educational!

    This has never gone totally away in the US although a lot of porn IS produced as purely porn the laws are still there and plenty of politicians would be willing to enforce them.

    But how can you proof something is porn? How do you proof playboy.com is just obscenity? Well, a bloody big clue would be playboy.xxx Godwin be damned but it is a yellow star. Why do you think the yellow star was used on jews but not say a black star on blacks in America? Because there was no need to, you can tell a black person just by looking a them and therefor there was no risk of a black person going into a whites only store. The only way to enfore "gein juden" was to force them to wear an identifier.

    If you force all porn on the .xxx domain you have also forced to label themselves as porn. To those who wish to purge porn from the web, step 1.

    Will this happen? Some believe so, the same kind of people that defended Larry Flint. Not because they liked Hustler so much but because of this "joke".

    An Arminain grandfather lies on his deathbed and calls his sons to him to depart some final wisdom, "Remember my sons, always defend the jews."

    Why the jews the oldest son asks.

    "Because once they are gone, we will be next".

    The web as it exist now is a mess, porn, business, copyright infringement, press all mixed up with no easy way to tell which is which. But it makes it very hard for a group to silence a part of it. See the US problems with trying to filter porn in public libraries. Oops, it may contain sex but it is also free speech. .xxx would have no such protection since by its label it is only obscenity and that doesn't fall under free speech.

    .XXX is a multi-layered beast. At first glance it seems just like a money grab until you realize that there is political support for it for over a decade from a certain quarter and they are NOT in it for they money. They got other motives and once they become evident it will be too late.

    Remember this, when it was asked during a conference that IF as the registar said market forces would decide if it was a success or not that ANOTHER option for the registar who invested a LOT of money in this MIGHT use their political mussle to buy ADDITIONAL laws to FORCE purchase of .xxx domains to save their business, the representative plain refused to answer.

    Google will do wonders for some more insights.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Oh but they can by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Clap. Clap. Nice soliloquy.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Oh but they can by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      Well you guys caused your problems,porn emails, faking web site names, Graphic sex acts not covered like magazines. You made the mess by being irresponsible. Playboy mags hustler,penthouse puritan mag all are covered with a brown wrapper in book stores/mag stands. Internet porn isn't covered or made difficult for children not to see even if they try with filters you guys try to beat the filters and thats irresponsible. Im no prude ive worked in an adult book store for a while so im all for porn. You dont have any right forcing people to view it

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    3. Re:Oh but they can by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Um... How are they forcing people to view it? Last time I knew I didn't just open up Firefox and ZOMG Pr0n EVERYWHERE!!!! Except for some malware that puts up porn popups along with screwing up your system, you don't randomly go on the internet and see porn. Porn spam e-mails is like every other spam e-mail, have a decent enough filter and it won't go through. Such things are like saying lets ban Viagra because it happens to be the subject of many a spam e-mail.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Oh but they can by tommy8 · · Score: 1

      It is Armenian not Arminain and the Armenians were killed during World War I before the Jews.

    5. Re:Oh but they can by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      How in the world did you find out about our evil scheme to hold children hostage and force them to look at pornography websites? The possibility that a child could accidentally look at pornography was also part of our plan. Their entire lives will be obliterated from looking at pornography!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:Oh but they can by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Some porn sites are known for their rather over-determined advertising - I've seen things like search engine manipulation, forum-spamming, etc. These sites typically aren't operated from the US though, or associated with any large porn company. They are just small porn distributors (Half the time distributing pirate porn at that) desperate to do anything to get customers in a saturated market.

    7. Re:Oh but they can by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your reasons why this is A Bad Thing, but I believe you are mistaken about the legal issue of pornography vs. obscenity. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (even in recent years) that pornography is protected speech. As long as it isn't obscene pornography, it still enjoys First Amendment protection, and any laws against mere "pornography" that are still on the books are not enforceable. Although putting a .xxx TLD on something would certainly prove to any reasonable person that it was "pornographic", it would not prove to the courts that it was "obscene". For that, you'd be back to the same fuzzy definition of obscenity (the Miller Test) that you'd be dealing with if the site's TLD were .com; those last three letters are a non-issue in making that determination.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    8. Re:Oh but they can by tverbeek · · Score: 2

      You do realize that the people stuffing your inbox with porn are not actually in charge of The Porn Industry, right? What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that [insert local minority here] deserves what they get because they steal things, bring down property values, etc.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    9. Re:Oh but they can by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      You DO force kids to view porn by using Innocent names.No censoring of the images to the open public, Whitehouse ring a bell????? Whats your explanation for porn spam? you guys try every trick in the book to bypass our filters so please don't be sarcastic and stupid. There are people who do not want there children to view pornography there are adults that don't want to view it and they also don't want to see it pop up when their kids are sitting with them. You the porn industry have brought all this upon yourselves so stop crying and do the responsible thing. And if you dont have a adult responce dont bother replying. And will it kill children to see porn,no but thats not YOUR right to deside its the parents. And with the XXX domain its just a tool for the parents,why dont you want parents to deside whats right for thir children?

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    10. Re:Oh but they can by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      You DO force kids to view porn by using Innocent names

      I know. I force all of them to type in those names.

      Whats your explanation for porn spam?

      What explanation? I don't care about it. But not everyone spams porn.

      And if you dont have a adult responce dont bother replying.

      What is an "adult response" and how is that relevant? A "childish response" could still have a valid point. Not to mention that that is completely subjective.

      And will it kill children to see porn,no but thats not YOUR right to deside its the parents.

      What is or is not a right is up to the law to decide. It's not a right, but neither is it a right for you to decide what domain names people are allowed to use in what is likely most circumstances. Perhaps they should monitor their children more often. Their problem.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    11. Re:Oh but they can by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      But how can you proof something is porn? How do you proof playboy.com is just obscenity?

      If you force all porn on the .xxx domain you have also forced to label themselves as porn.

      Wait, if people already have trouble identifying porn sites, how will you be able to "force" porn sites to .xxx? If you already know its porn, you don't need the .xxx to know that, and if you need the .xxx to know that, then you can't force them to move.

      If courts now can't agree on what is and is not porn, there is no way to force porn to the .xxx domain. If they go voluntarily, then its not much of a "yellow"star, is it? Your logic seems seriously flawed. Then again, I suppose I shouldn't have expected more from a person who compares the pron industry to the Jews. FFS, wow. Incredibly wealthy and lucrative business that sells an often addictive product is NOT like the Jews. AT ALL. Oh and it's "prove", BTW, not "proof". You use it twice so I point it out.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    12. Re:Oh but they can by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Then again, I suppose I shouldn't have expected more from a person who compares the pron industry to the Jews.

      Have you ever heard of an analogy? He was saying it was vaguely similar in one or more ways. That does not mean he was saying that it's as "bad" as what happened in the event that he's vaguely comparing it to. It simply means that it might be similar in one or more ways (like, for instance, the fact that no one will be able to stand up for you if you're the only one left).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    13. Re:Oh but they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen, you stupid fuck. I didn't register whitehouse.com, and neither did the person you were responding to. It was someone else. Porn sellers aren't all one big club that gets together once a year and decides how to conduct business, any more than people named Stan get together every year to decide what words to misspell. You torture the English language all on your own, and other people named Stan have nothing to do with it. Stan Lee is not responsible for the idiotic drivel you post. Neither is Stan Musial or Stan Rogers. All the stupid crap you've been posting is solely Stan92057's fault. So shrieking that the Stans are to blame for it, and demanding that they take responsibility for and all move to countries that end with -stan would be.... as stupid as everything you've posted today.

    14. Re:Oh but they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "can be seen" != "forced to view"

      Fail.

    15. Re:Oh but they can by Cito · · Score: 1

      http://motherless.com/ For children who have lost their mother, please gather around. :P

    16. Re:Oh but they can by Rough3dg3 · · Score: 1

      It is Armenian not Arminain and the Armenians were killed during World War I before the Jews.

      Try not allowing factual inaccuracy detracting from the point the OP was making.

      --
      Is this thing on?
    17. Re:Oh but they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those that don't know, that is most definitely NSFW.

    18. Re:Oh but they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm guessing you don't get to talk much at work

  22. I thought this was..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot, not Slashdumb. This is a good step forward in the porn war. The only people I see butt hurt over this are the same people that are trying to hide the fact that they are the ones watching porn (and bad porn I might add at that). If your scared say your scared!

  23. Duplicate names never happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure there will only ever be 1 person with any of the names on the list.

    Take Casey Donovan, for example.

    1. Re:Duplicate names never happen. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The policy is that anyone can contest a blacklist registration. I don't recall if a contested blacklist results in a refund for the applicant, but it probably doesn't considering the scummy actions of ICM thus far.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  24. Goatse.xxx by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

    Quickly! Someone please block this before it is too late!

  25. That's the point, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only explanation for the creation of new tla's is it forces companies (and in this case individuals) to buy up all the new variations of their domain names to protect themselves. It doesn't actually create new domains for people to actually use. How many times out there is X.com a different company than X.org, or X.biz?

    1. Re:That's the point, isn't it? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Originally the different names were supposed to be for different types of business. It didn't work out that way because trademarks are too valuable to not over-enforce.

    2. Re:That's the point, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the obvious solution is to create more of them...

  26. No no, it's the other Osama bin Laden by Gr33nJ3ll0 · · Score: 1

    Might be like being German, and being called Adolf 60 years ago, but that doesn't mean that another Osama bin Laden didn't ask to have him name removed....

  27. Bachmann? by cashman73 · · Score: 2

    I see that michelebachmann.xxx is reserved, but marcusbachmann.xxx is still available,. . . Likewise, rickperry.xxx is reserved, but Stephen Colbert could still reserve rickparry.xxx in the name of ColbertSUPERPAC,. . . ;-)

    1. Re:Bachmann? by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

      rickparry.xxx

      I feel like there's a "thrust" joke in there somewhere.

  28. How famous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How famous do I have to be? I plaster my name all over the internet, I'm pretty sure people know who I am. But I don't want my name associated with any of this smut stuff. I'm an utter Jerkass, but I'm a clean Jerkass.

    1. Re:How famous? by lorg · · Score: 2

      anonymouscoward.xxx, what exactlly will your page be sporting? blurred out faces? people doing it with masks on?

  29. Re:Mentally normal, moral people don't think ab't by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it will be before the (current) editors and employees of Slashdot will have their names sullied by a rogue .xxx domain.

    You're assuming that such domains will actually "sully" people's names. If too many of these things appear, it will be the entire xxx domain whose reputation will suffer--to the benefit of all I might add.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  30. Why is this needed? by slasho81 · · Score: 1

    Why is this needed? Celebrities have their name as a trademark. If someone registers a porn site to their trademarked name, they can make a small fortune by suing. This sounds like something that came out of a PR feed to create demand for .xxx domains.

  31. Hilton.xxx by tepples · · Score: 1

    Hilton.xxx? A hotel chain might take exception to that.

  32. Use it or lose it by tepples · · Score: 1

    As I understand legal procedure, being proactive about enforcing your exclusive rights is considered better practice than sleeping on your rights just to get bigger damages. This is true of trademarks even more than of copyrights and patents.

    1. Re:Use it or lose it by slasho81 · · Score: 1

      The issue you are talking about is enforcing one's rights by legal means. It does not mean one need to take preemptive action against would be imposters.

    2. Re:Use it or lose it by PPH · · Score: 1

      Celebrities are already 'using' their names in a trademark fashion. Just because somebody tacks .com, .net, or .xxx onto them doesn't make it a new name.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  33. First they came.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First they came for the lolicon manga....

  34. Extortion scheme. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ICM Registry: "Just as planned."

  35. mohammed.xxx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would love to see someone portray mohammed in anime-style porn (possibly with pigs, or at least chicks wearing pig snouts and ears) to piss off radical muslims. :-)

  36. Not all celebrities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    goatse.xxx is still available!

    1. Re:Not all celebrities... by laejoh · · Score: 1

      anonymous.coward.xxx is available too!

  37. Trademark/copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not trademark/copyright your name, personality, and features or whatever it is they do in hollywood, then you can bring legal action against those who would use your name in such a manner, without having to spend a ton of money on all the variations of your name?

  38. Also, I suggest by nu1x · · Score: 1

    A pair of domains .toucheshimself and .touchesherself.

    Instant blackmail material !

    Also, how about .pedo ?

    OH the humanity !

    --
    I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
  39. sex.xxx by ClaraBow · · Score: 1

    Okay, something really strange just happened to me. First, I must say that I was not trying to look for porn! Just out out of curiosity, I typed sex.xxx into my chrome browser awesome bar and the sex.xxx URL went to my Dlink router login page! I tried it again and it went to my Dlink router login page again! I'm in totally in disbelieve! Can some please try this and see if they get the same result! Yes I have had something to drink, but I'm not imagining things!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:sex.xxx by Davus · · Score: 1

      Confirmed, directs me to 192.168.0.1

      --
      The above is most likely humour. Slashdot foot icon goes here.
    2. Re:sex.xxx by ClaraBow · · Score: 1

      This is so strange to me! Some kind of joke?

    3. Re:sex.xxx by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Either a joke, or a false DNS result. It might have just been a glitch during testing of the new root servers, while they are still being configured, or it may be that his ISP is (ineptly) censoring all .xxx domains.

    4. Re:sex.xxx by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, that's actually what the authoritative DNS server returns for that name.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    5. Re:sex.xxx by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Then it's a testing thing. Most likely someone purchased sex.xxx but doesn't yet have the site ready to go public, or else ICM isn't letting anyone actually configure their domain A-record until the official launch of the domain.

  40. Get Rid of TLDs by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Seriously, their a terrible idea and this shows why. We don't need to create problems like WhiteHouse.com vs. .gov. Creating problems is just plain stupid.

    The only TLDs that should exist might be those that are meaningful like edu, gov, org and mil. The rest are crap. Get rid of them. /sophomoric excuse making in 3... 2... 1....

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. Re:Get Rid of TLDs by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Excuse 1: The USA is not the only country on the internet.

      Oh wait, that actually torpedoed your entire post. Whoops.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".