The Great IPv6 Experiment: Free Adult Content
ipv6experiment.com
ipv6experiment.com
"IPv4 only had 256^4 possible names, and we needed more, so we came up with IPv6." "But how did they get everyone to switch over from version 4 to version 6?" "Porn."
That's not a good sign, IMO.
"Everything is pretty much ready for launch, we're just waiting for content at this point. I've got 8 quad-core boxes working feverishly to transcode the videos I have already into several formats, which is about 50% of the videos that will be there for launch. The other 50% is hopefully on its way soon, and we're good to go."
This is an incredibly stupid idea for promoting a questionable technology that can't make it into the reality on its own. If the technology is so "right" why isn't everyone switching to it (like IPv4, HTTP, etc)? Because there are problems with it: IPv6 is more complicated than needed for solving the problems it was meant to solve. And finally, advantages of IPv6 are so far only theoretical.
And I just hope this experiment will remain unique in this industry.
It is far, far too late for that. Pron is often credited as the force that built the home video industry, for example. (Although I admit I've never seen actual data.) And I suspect that pron been a huge driver of broadband, er, penetration.
Anyway, we "agree" to this because (a) it's not as if we can stop it by protesting; and (b) it's a hilarious promotional idea -- probably more for the pron company than for IPv6, but maybe for both. It's right up there with Diskette Day at the Carnegie-Mellon/CWRU football game in 1986. [1] I agree, though, that it's not especially likely to improve IPv6 deployment. IPv6 has been the technology of the future for a decade, and it may remain so for a while yet.
[1] http://honesthypocrite.blogspot.com/2005/10/hail-carnegie-an...
Assuming you believe that statement it seems they're on the up-and-up as far as copyright goes.
"Copyright laws exist to ensure the creators of content are motivated, and are integral to our economy. So that people aren't dissuaded from making more hot XXX porn, we are aggressively pursuing anyone who violated the copyrights on Anal Squirting MILF's. We assure you that many senior personal at the department have taken an intense personal interest in this case. We must seek out all infringing porn and restore the economic incentives to create and distribute this hot hot pornography at all costs."
"Well, if they don't enforce this, it will look bad when they try to enforce something else."
Because the US government and the fourth tier Pat Robertson law school grads and Bush's Youth alums running the justice department would never selectively enforce laws so the effects of that enforcement would conform to their irrational religious bigotries.
The whole purpose of the system of laws in this country is that everyone is always breaking some law. This allows the people in power to have a lever they can use against anybody, at their discretion. Although not applicable to this case, selectively enforcing laws (and being hypocritical about it) is part of the foundation of the US legal system.
Right wing fascist states always depend partially on sexual repression (and the associated fear/hatred of the feminine other that come with it) to create the psychological preconditions in the collective unconsciousness to allow authoritarianism to thrive. They would never side with porn producers that relieve sexual frustration. They would only side with porn producers when the pornography was titillating (like American Idol or beer commercials) instead of overtly erotic.
When they do go after pornography, they go after pornography that contradicts the masculine objectification of females. This is why the last DOJ cases concerned squirting fetish movies (which are all about female orgasm, and deemed so dangerous that we must be protected from it) but the DOJ never goes after porn where the male orgasm is fetishized.
Until people stop confusing titillation with eroticism, and eroticism with sex, the government will not stop being aggressively hypocritical in it's reaction to all three.