<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimQ-MTmu6veVZ72mYqOziQ5DsQjri=kaoZS=cYR@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:marc@churchofreality.org">marc@churchofreality.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than
.COM ?</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Why not?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>They certainly have higher costs in terms of diligence. And
they do have years of litigation to recoup, and, um, I think
there are few more .com registrations.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony
of the phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote
at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I&NR=1">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The question about why to charge more isn't "why not" but "why". Why
should one kind of business be charged more that another. What you
refer to as "smut" is human reproduction without which none of us
would be here. We all owe our very existence to "smut".<br>
<br>
There is indeed intellectual property associated with "smut". Good
porn is not easy to produce and those people work hard for their
money. I don't see the difference between that and any other subject
matter covered under copyright law. I personally own adult
intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's instructional
information.<br>
<br>
I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling for oil,
running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing guns, or any other
business that some people disagree on moral issues. And I thought we
were against ICANN becoming the moral police. <br>
<br>
The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging more for .xxx
and that reason has to be based in some sort of reality and such a
test needs to be applied to other similar domains. Also - I don't
see the moral difference between these domain names:<br>
<br>
sluts.com<br>
sluts.xxx<br>
<br>
I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument.<br>
<br>
Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx people don't want
kids and Christians wasting their bandwidth. I think there is a
right to have porn and a right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of a
truth in labeling issue that helps both seekers and avoiders of
porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever want to see laws
requiring adult content to have an .xxx listing. But if more of it
moved there it would help both sides. Charging more for .xxx helps
defeat the purpose of having .xxx in the first place.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>