Archive for February, 2006

Sex.com: It’s not yours, it’s mine!

February 23, 2006

   Recently I read that the domain name Sex.com was officially up-for-grabs and sold for over $14 million! Apparently there was so much drama in the process, which happened around the turn of the century. A man named Gary Kremen, owner of Grant Media, had purchased the domain back in the mid-90s as a joke, not completely realizing the capabilities the site offered. The site was then apparently stolen by a man named Stephen M. Cohen, who secretly gained control by forging documents and the such. Cohen, behind the back and without the consent of Kremen, made upwards of half a million dollars per year illegally on the site. Kremen did get his sweet revenge, though, being awarded the domain name and $65,000 and, on top of that, he also sued for $20 million and got it! Cohen was arrested in Tijuana where he was later given up to U.S. authorities. Oh sweet revenge! So Kremen seemed to have made out well for himself in the end after all.

   How amazing would it be to go back in time, knowing that domain names would be so desirable that companies would pay millions of dollars to own them. Kind of like the gold rush of the mid-90s you could say. I mean Sex.com is like the ultimate site in a world obsessed with porn and sex! I don’t blame Stephen M. Cohen for accessing the site and making a killing on it, though it wasn’t the most honorable thing to do. If he would’ve covered up his tracks a bit more, though, and wasn’t so “greedy” (or so he seemed), then he might have gotten away with it. Not to mention the fact that Cohen was also busted for not paying income tax for over 20 years. That doesn’t exactly add a gold star to his already shitty track record now does it. Oh well, sucks to be him I guess! Maybe they will give him the Martha Stewart treatment and just put him on house arrest or something like that.

 

Advertisements

13-year old porn star on Oprah show and more

February 15, 2006

  I have read several posts about a young boy who was recently on Oprah, who was coaxed into online pornography at the age of 13.  This kind of disturbing story seems to be happening more and more these days.  Even the show CSI: Special Victim’s Unit did an episode on a similar story.  Unfortunately, though, TV is fiction and the story had a typical “happy ending.”

   It has been conceived that any type of contact with pornography at a young age, whether participating in the creation of it or just simply viewing it could increase the rate of sexual deviance later on in life, particulary rape.  Now I’m sure that every child that simply views pornography at an early age (under the age of 14) will not grow up to be a sexual deviant or a rapist, rapist being the most extreme of course.  I think that viewing of pornography at an earlier age would definitely desensitize a person for later on in life, leading to more extreme sexual practices, perhaps by developing fetishes or practicing masochism/sadism for pleasure during sex. 

   I sort of assume that this is relative to certain customs and traditions of a particular group of people.  For instance, some cultures marry by the age of 12 or 13.  Would these “children” be at risk for sexual deviance, being involved with sex at such an early age?  Even in the United States children are having sex younger and younger.  It is not uncommon to hear about 13-year-old girls getting pregnant.  And although being married and practicing sex within a marriage with young couples (12 and 13 year-olds) may be a bit different than being involved or forced into making pornography, it is still involving “children” with sex.  Getting married at the age of 13 does not instantly make a child and adult, no matter what a culture believes, but that is just my opinion. 

Organizations “Get Stiffed” by Adult Entertainment Groups

February 8, 2006

According to the article I read, “The number of domain names being allowed to expire–intentionally or accidentally–is at an all-time high.” (Carolyn Duffy Marsan, Network World March 08, 2002). This has caused quite a problem for many organizations worldwide. Since this time (2002) many adult entertainment groups have bought the domain names to expired sites such as ones previously belonging to the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra and even the Dutch Government. Now, anyone who tries to visit one of these sites get’s more than they bargained for: They get redirected mainly to porn sites (some are gambling sites also). “The links caused a hell of a stir,” says Edward Loeb, a program manager with Allied Technology Group, a contractor that operates the U.S. Department of Education’s Web site. “The public is not at all happy to find…their taxpayers’ dollars spent on Web sites that link to pornography. It was quite an embarrassment to us.” (Network World, 2002).

Clever, to say the least. Porn sites get advertisement through an already heavily visited channel, used by all types of people. The only problem I have is that even though this is done legally, should it still be legal? I mean, the Dutch Government losing their website to a porn group?! This is almost as bad as Michael Jackson buying out all of the rights to the Beatles songs when they were unaware that they were up for grabs! Should there be a law or something that allows only the same organization or group to purchase their domain name back?! If bought by someone else, shouldn’t it have to be changed. This is similar to the purchasing and selling of domain names during the early 90’s, which is now illegal to do (ex. I buy Disney.com and try to make a lot of money selling the domain name to Disney, etc).

Anyways, I know this happened a few years ago, but I thought it was interesting and perhaps not that many people have heard about it. If any laws have been passed in regards to this topic, please let me know. I haven’t found any.

 

*For more information about enterprise networking, go to Network World Fusion. Story copyright 2006 Network World Inc. All rights reserved.*

 

 

 

Response to Ang’s Blog

February 8, 2006

nickpanic Says:
January 31st, 2006 at 4:58 am

 

In response to Ang’s Blog entry, I think a lot of people, more than we probably think, feel uncomfortable with any kind of nudity. I took a drawing class my Freshman year here at UB and, to my dismay, involved sketching actual nude models in class on a regular basis. Now the fact that the model was about 75 years young was not what made me uncomfortable, but the fact that he was 75 and able to hold a pose for like 2 hours!! I’m still a little scarred from that class, I think. Anyways, my point (I do have one) is that almost all 28 people in that class seemed to be extremely uncomfortable having to sketch this old man naked. All of the girls were blushing and giggling the whole time, while the guys seemed to just look somewhat disgusted the whole time. I, on the other hand, just did the opposite of what my ECC public speaking professor told me: I pictured the old man with his clothes ON! Sorry, kind of a silly story but hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
As far as pornography goes, I was kind of raised to believe that any kind ‘nudity’ is considered pornography, having had somewhat of a strict Catholic upbringing. I think nudity is a beautiful thing, though, when used in good taste. As far as children nudity goes, I am not so sure it should be acceptable, even if it may be considered good taste, as in the Calvin Klein underware ads, as discussed in ANG’s BLOG. A lot of people may take offense to that. Besides, if children in their underware becomes acceptable in advertising, then what next? May not be good for Calvin Klein’s reputation, but then again, that company is known for pushing the boundaries.
In Europe, as well as much as the rest of the world, though, nudity in advertising is an everyday thing. I don’t mean people in their underware, I mean people completely naked in commercials! We are really the only country that has strict regulations (FCC and the such) so even pushing the boudaries does not compare to the rest of the world. But, ultimately, it all comes down to the individual, since everyone has different views and beliefs on what is acceptable or not.

 

Response to comment I received

February 8, 2006

Responses to “Uncle Sam Wants YOU!…and your Google search history too! ps. Bush Googles the World!”

  1. Soon2BMrsA’s Blog – Response to: Bush Googles the World… Says:
    February 6th, 2006 at 7:30 am e[…] Lately, it seems that everyone is talking about The Bush Administration’s plans to obtain information from Google as well as other search engines, for the purpose of national security and cracking down on child pornography. On this blog entry, nickpanic believes that the government is overstepping its boundaries, and has no right to obtain this type of information. While I can understand his concerns, I must disagree with part of his opinion. Please, don’t get me wrong… I am not a fan of Big Brother, and I believe that government should remain as small as possible. My personal feeling is that I want as little government intrusion in my life as humanly possible. With that being said, I have no problem with this particular program, if it is used to protect this country or if it is being used to stop people who search for Kiddie Porn. I approach this issue by ultimately trying to look at the bigger picture. If I become a victim of another terrorist attack, one that could have been prevented, had the government had the authority to obtain information from Google, Yahoo, etc.. well then, the fact that my first amendment rights have not been violated really doesn’t matter much anymore… But, as I mentioned before, I can completely understand nickpanic’s concern. The fact that the government can obtain these records and they have the possibility of falling into the wrong hands definitely is a scary thought. However, the thought of child molesters obtaining kiddie porn on the internet is equally scary to me. The thought of Terrorists using Google to plan another attack is absolutely frightening to me.  And at this point in time, I am willing to give up a few rights, for the sake of national security…     […]
  2. nickpanic Says:
    February 8th, 2006 at 9:29 pm eBenjamin Franklin once said “Any person who is willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither”