So, the Olympics can never be mentioned by anyone without paying them first? Oops, I owe the IOC a charge, because I made a comment that mentioned them, and the comment is advertising for my point of view, and I'm using the power of the Olympics brand to push my point of view of freedom and liberty ... I guess I owe the IOC a ton of money now, too.
And the athletes bring the value, not the IOC. You have that entire concept backwards. Would you rather watch the snowboarders in the Winter X Games or on your local slopes tearin' it up ... or watch video of the Olympic downhill track with nobody on it or if it were filled with a bunch of local kids just learning how to not fall down?
Do people only watch hockey games once every four years? Would the Olympic hockey rink be nearly as interesting if the hockey players weren't there or if it were filled with random Joe BlowBeerguts slapping away?
No, the IOC brings little value to the Olympics, it's the training and hardwork of the athletes and their coaches that create the value, and the IOC is banking off of their value and charging everyone else who even mentions any of the athletes or the event by name.
I'm not sure of their organizational status, but they generally get to keep the money they can't distribute. Thus, it's in their best interest to collect from everybody they can, and then have a hard time finding people to pay out to. After a certain amount of time, the money that's in "limbo" becomes theirs.
While I generally agree, why couldn't the husband have just waited several months for the home DVD release? Why did his wife have to see Avatar NOW? Other than she may not be alive when it reaches DVD?
The article doesn't mention this, but did the guy purchase a ticket for his wife? I would feel much more compassion for the situation if the man bought TWO tickets for the movie, one for him and one for his wife who would be watching the recorded version remotely later.
Then, he would have paid the price of two tickets, and two people would have seen the movie, albeit one of them at a greatly reduced level of quality. And if the copy was destroyed after that viewing then there would have been no contribution to piracy and the theater & movie studios would have sold one more seat (in fact, they could have double sold it).
Now, if he had only bought one ticket, then it'd be harder to play the sympathy card.
Obviously not. Because a dick is a dick. A picture of a dick is not a dick, so thus not porn.
"dsk" must be saying that only actual body parts are off limits. Thus, as long as your actual penis is not on the Internet then it's not porn, thus there is no porn on the Internet. The Internet is now kid-safe.
He spelled it out so plainly and simply, it makes everything easier¡
Because it's way too easy to bypass software locks. A TLD filter wouldn't require to constantly update a whitelist on client machines, and traffic could easily be filtered at the DNS/router/firewall level of a home network without needing it to update whitelists.
If it's a .kids domain, it's in the whitelist. That's a single, simple router rule that can limit specific computers that can't be cracked as easily as a desktop software solution.
"I think what is meant is that people will buy up the .kids domains and charge outrageous sums of money for the legitimate businesses to buy the domains"
Considering that a company would likely have to have a site for review before their use was approved (because you'd have to approve it as kid-friendly before selling them a domain and letting them go live), it's unlikely someone could park a lot of domains without having a kid-friendly site.
And besides, it would be no different than the other TLDs in terms of name disputes.
"A .xxx domain would be much easier to deal with than .kids. Easier to put the stuff you don't want kids to see into one place rather than vice versa."
I disagree with this statement 100%.
It's easier to put only stuff you want kids to see in one place, and keep them out of the other areas ... than cleaning out the entire world and sticking everything you don't like in a box.
No, TLD oversight bodies do have the right to dictate how their TLDs are used. This is already in place and has always been. ICANN simply controls most of the original TLDs like .com, .net, and .org. Most of the country TLDs are controlled by those countries' governments.
Such as, country level TLDs such as .uk, .us, and .tv all have different rules on who can get a domain with them.
With .uk, you HAVE to be in some way related to the UK to get it. If you live & work in the US with absolutely no ties to the UK, you aren't going to get a .uk domain.
With .tv, the TLD for Tuvalu, they are much more lax and sell domains to whomever wants one. They use their fortunate TLD to make money for their small island country.
Then there's country TLDs that give out free domains, but you have to have ads on your site for them. I forget the country that used to this, but I had a domain with them at one point for testing.
So, each TLD has a governing body that dictates the rules that people can get a domain with them. Most of them are open, some are closed, others have specific rules.
It used to be that .net was for ISPs and .org was for non-profits. But those rules were relaxed a long time ago.
Well, .kids wouldn't be global from a management point of view. There would be a single company in charge of it, and it would be their discretion as to what's "proper". And if parents think they're too lenient with it, then they don't have to let their kids use the Internet at all, because the rest of it will be far more "adult" even if there is a .xxx TLD for "porn" sites.
"As for the .kids, you can only imagine how fast the rates would skyrocket. It wouldn't take long before the .kids wouldn't be affordable."
That doesn't make sense. Why would a company make their product unaffordable? The point would be to get as many kid-centric sites on-board, because then the whole ecosystem becomes more valuable. The value of the .kids domain would be the amount of kid-centric sites are in the walled garden. Pricing it so that it was unaffordable would reduce the value of the whole TLD, which would only be something someone in the entertainment industry would think was a good idea.
Kids sites don't have to move. FoxKids.com and Fox.kids can point to the same site. I don't think most people would have a problem with children sites on a .com domain as they would with having porn sites on .com if they were supposed to be on .xxx.
Because, to tell ALL porn sites that they are no longer allowed to use .com, .net, .org and that they HAVE to use .xxx is unenforceable because where do you draw the line at what's appropriate for general use and what's classified as porn and needs to be moved to .xxx? Is sexually suggestive but fully clothed photos ok? Are bare breasts on a breast cancer site ok? What about all the various country TLDs like .tv, .us, .uk that have their own governing bodies? Is every country going to restrict porn sites turning away money?
On the other hand, with a .kids domain, there's one oversight body (every TLD has an organization in charge of it) that can spell out exactly what the rules are for companies registering domains within their TLD. So, the oversight body for .kids can spell out what it considers kid safe and ONLY approve sites that adhere to their policies and can remove sites that don't. It is entirely enforceable.
It's tackling the same problem from the other direction. Instead of making the vast wilderness of the Internet kid safe, make a walled garden for them.
On the post: How Hard Is It To Realize That One-Click Buying Doesn't Deserve A Patent?
On the post: Olympics: Thou Shalt Not Tweet (Without Paying Up)
Re:
To the IOC it does. You are not allowed to even mention the athlete's names while the games are going on without paying the IOC sponsorship money.
On the post: Olympics: Thou Shalt Not Tweet (Without Paying Up)
Re: In defense of the IOC
And the athletes bring the value, not the IOC. You have that entire concept backwards. Would you rather watch the snowboarders in the Winter X Games or on your local slopes tearin' it up ... or watch video of the Olympic downhill track with nobody on it or if it were filled with a bunch of local kids just learning how to not fall down?
Do people only watch hockey games once every four years? Would the Olympic hockey rink be nearly as interesting if the hockey players weren't there or if it were filled with random Joe BlowBeerguts slapping away?
No, the IOC brings little value to the Olympics, it's the training and hardwork of the athletes and their coaches that create the value, and the IOC is banking off of their value and charging everyone else who even mentions any of the athletes or the event by name.
On the post: Russian Collecting Society Sues Promoters For Not Paying Up To Let Beyonce Sing Beyonce Songs
Re:
On the post: Russian Collecting Society Sues Promoters For Not Paying Up To Let Beyonce Sing Beyonce Songs
Re:
On the post: Russian Collecting Society Sues Promoters For Not Paying Up To Let Beyonce Sing Beyonce Songs
Don't you see?
Beyonce pays to play Beyonce music to RAO
RAO collects money to distributes it to Beyonce
RAO can't "find" Beyonce
RAO keeps Beyonce's money
Beyonce wouldn't be able to make money making music any other way¡
On the post: 88-Year Old Man Caught Taping Avatar With A Camcorder
Re: What has this country come to...
I say what has this country come to when cops blindly follow the law with disregard to circumstances or appropriate levels of force.
On the post: 88-Year Old Man Caught Taping Avatar With A Camcorder
The article doesn't mention this, but did the guy purchase a ticket for his wife? I would feel much more compassion for the situation if the man bought TWO tickets for the movie, one for him and one for his wife who would be watching the recorded version remotely later.
Then, he would have paid the price of two tickets, and two people would have seen the movie, albeit one of them at a greatly reduced level of quality. And if the copy was destroyed after that viewing then there would have been no contribution to piracy and the theater & movie studios would have sold one more seat (in fact, they could have double sold it).
Now, if he had only bought one ticket, then it'd be harder to play the sympathy card.
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: Re: Re: We Can't Always Agree Across The World...
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .kids
"dsk" must be saying that only actual body parts are off limits. Thus, as long as your actual penis is not on the Internet then it's not porn, thus there is no porn on the Internet. The Internet is now kid-safe.
He spelled it out so plainly and simply, it makes everything easier¡
On the post: Advertising Is Content, Content Is Advertising, I'm On A Horse
Re: Old Spice Commercials
Personally, I neither want to smell Old or like Spice.
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: Re: Re: Re: .kids
If it's a .kids domain, it's in the whitelist. That's a single, simple router rule that can limit specific computers that can't be cracked as easily as a desktop software solution.
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: Re: Re: Actually it's Simple
Considering that a company would likely have to have a site for review before their use was approved (because you'd have to approve it as kid-friendly before selling them a domain and letting them go live), it's unlikely someone could park a lot of domains without having a kid-friendly site.
And besides, it would be no different than the other TLDs in terms of name disputes.
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: Pros and Cons
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: re
I disagree with this statement 100%.
It's easier to put only stuff you want kids to see in one place, and keep them out of the other areas ... than cleaning out the entire world and sticking everything you don't like in a box.
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: .kids confusion
Such as, country level TLDs such as .uk, .us, and .tv all have different rules on who can get a domain with them.
With .uk, you HAVE to be in some way related to the UK to get it. If you live & work in the US with absolutely no ties to the UK, you aren't going to get a .uk domain.
With .tv, the TLD for Tuvalu, they are much more lax and sell domains to whomever wants one. They use their fortunate TLD to make money for their small island country.
Then there's country TLDs that give out free domains, but you have to have ads on your site for them. I forget the country that used to this, but I had a domain with them at one point for testing.
So, each TLD has a governing body that dictates the rules that people can get a domain with them. Most of them are open, some are closed, others have specific rules.
It used to be that .net was for ISPs and .org was for non-profits. But those rules were relaxed a long time ago.
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: We Can't Always Agree Across The World...
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: Actually it's Simple
That doesn't make sense. Why would a company make their product unaffordable? The point would be to get as many kid-centric sites on-board, because then the whole ecosystem becomes more valuable. The value of the .kids domain would be the amount of kid-centric sites are in the walled garden. Pricing it so that it was unaffordable would reduce the value of the whole TLD, which would only be something someone in the entertainment industry would think was a good idea.
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re:
On the post: Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx
Re: Re: .kids
Because, to tell ALL porn sites that they are no longer allowed to use .com, .net, .org and that they HAVE to use .xxx is unenforceable because where do you draw the line at what's appropriate for general use and what's classified as porn and needs to be moved to .xxx? Is sexually suggestive but fully clothed photos ok? Are bare breasts on a breast cancer site ok? What about all the various country TLDs like .tv, .us, .uk that have their own governing bodies? Is every country going to restrict porn sites turning away money?
On the other hand, with a .kids domain, there's one oversight body (every TLD has an organization in charge of it) that can spell out exactly what the rules are for companies registering domains within their TLD. So, the oversight body for .kids can spell out what it considers kid safe and ONLY approve sites that adhere to their policies and can remove sites that don't. It is entirely enforceable.
It's tackling the same problem from the other direction. Instead of making the vast wilderness of the Internet kid safe, make a walled garden for them.
Next >>