How Do Sites Like Xtube / PornTube / Etc...

[Lee]

Know that the guys and girls posting videos of them getting off are actually 18+?

Have any of you folks ever used these types of site to watch porn and if so, has that ever been a concern of yours?

Regards,

Lee

[jIgG]

i've been wondering that myself
and they also allow those posting their own videos/photos to charge for it but im guessing then they have some sort of screening

[nickbaer]

Well, XTube is in Canada... if they push the window too far, Canadian laws may get revised to be more restrictive, on the same par as laws in the US.

XTube is a great potential revenue source. There was a time my studios were in the Top 10 there, but then (without my knowledge) they started running "free" teaser clips of my videos, complete with full frontal dick... and my rev fell about as far south as one can go.

Once they gave away my models' dick, that was the end of the revenue.

[Kushiel]

Know that the guys and girls posting videos of them getting off are actually 18+?

Have any of you folks ever used these types of site to watch porn and if so, has that ever been a concern of yours?

Regards,

Lee

AEBN owns a similar site, pornotube.com. If you recall there is an exclusion for Google.com, Yahoo.com, Ask.com, etc. in regard to secondary production legislation for 2257. This is because they are net-spider software platform that provides a service -finding- media. They are not responsible for providing 2257 information as a secondary producer. Currently, neither are we, under the concept that we are simply a hosting company (which also is not responsible for what media is supplied on the space provided), which then provides a search-engine software to search through the web content that we host.

There are exceptions for this. We -do- have filters and red flags for such things as incest, underage porn, bestiality, etc. that notify us when things tagged with this nature are uploaded. Also, we make full use of the ability to remove content that is reported to be abusing and breaking these terms of service by providing said illegal content.

That being said.. we also give full and -numerous- opportunity for anyone making use of our service to provide their own 2257 information. If you'll look at the content that is uploaded by actual studios, they have the legal information required by law.

With the new legislation coming, things may change at the drop of the hat. We may have to require Joe Montana with fruit hanging out of his ass to submit 2257 info. Currently; however, we are not legally responsible for the content "Joe" puts onto his personal space of the internet...He is.

[gaybucks_chip]

Wow, that's a really interesting read on 2257, and I'm no attorney, but I'd be really surprised if anyone at Justice would agree with that read. My assumption was that AEBN was simply taking the "bring it on" mentality.

Google is a search engine. It doesn't host content. Ditto Ask. Pornotube hosts the content. It also exercises the ability to moderate the content, I remember when the 16 year old kids had their content up there (it was clearly marked as such) and it took half the adult webmaster community on GFY half the weekend to get somebody at Pornotube to take the stuff down.

As I've always heard it interpreted, the ISP exclusion is for ISPs (web hosting providers) or search engines who really *don't* have any access to the content or means of taking it down other than, maybe, to pull the whole server down. Pornotube clearly is in a different category:

While pornographic and adult content are accepted, PornoTube also reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright infringement and violations of intellectual property law, such as, but not limited to, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length. PornoTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User’s access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion. (From Terms of Service at pornotube.com)

Doesn't sound like a platform that finds media and reports on its location to me. But on the other hand, AEBN is one of the few companies in the business that could afford a phlanx of lawyers to defend it, which is why Justice probably won't bother to go after it.

[Xstr8guy]

Google is a search engine. It doesn't host content.

Google does indeed host video on their own servers.

http://video.google.com/

Google Video
Search and browse all kinds of videos, hosted on sites all over the web, including Google, YouTube, MySpace, MetaCafe, GoFish, Vimeo, Biku, and Yahoo Video.
video.google.com/ - 135k - Jul 20, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

[gaybucks_chip]

Hmmm. I misspoke, because I've definitely used Google Video, but I also wasn't clear with what I was trying to say.

As far as I know, Google doesn't allow porn on video.google.com, so it is not subject to 2257, it simply removes any adult content that shows up.

And it's weird, but if you look, Google recently changed video.google.com into a search engine... it now returns results from Google Video, Youtube, and a number of other Youtube clones.

[Matt 26z]

To me, any third party service that hosts content for you pretty much falls under the label of "very user friendly webhost." Is there REALLY a difference between xTube, Kinghost and regular adult hosting? Each one just caters to a different level of experience.

I heard xTube does have a method to confirm all of their users are 18. It's the same process that adult webmasters utilize to screen the viewers of free hardcore galleries. Oh that's right. POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

What I'd really like to see are user controlled sites like xTube become exempt (if they aren't already). It would be up to the uploader to comply. Commercial porn would have a 2257 statement in the video. Non-commercial porn uploads have no business being regulated by the government since that would include things like exchanging photos in email. If a minor uploads something to the service, authorities would deal with him and his parents.

[gaybucks_chip]

I heard xTube does have a method to confirm all of their users are 18. It's the same process that adult webmasters utilize to screen the viewers of free hardcore galleries. Oh that's right. POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

BIIIIIGGGG difference. Adult membership sites are required to comply with 2257 and, as such, must keep records for inspection showing that all models are 18, with IDs and so forth. Xtube, Pornotube, and the others are allowing *anyone* to upload content, which they (xtube,pornotube) distribute with NO recordkeeping or verification docs whatsoever.

One can argue that a youngster under 18 might or might not be harmed by viewing porn before he's 18, but there's almost no dispute that actively involving children in the production of pornography is extremely damaging to them.

I'm not in favor of kids under 18 viewing porn, but I agree that parents have some responsibility to know what their kids are doing, and as long as the industry take reasonable steps to ensure their materials aren't viewable by kids, then the parents can take the rest of the responsibility.

But... allowing anyone to upload anything without any indication (such as, a URL of the site where the sample clips point to, which has an acceptable 2257 notice) of records or proof that the models depicted are of age is simply irresponsible, legal or not. I do not think that sort of service is exempt from 2257 under current regulations, and it certainly won't be under 2257a/4472.

What I'd really like to see are user controlled sites like xTube become exempt (if they aren't already). It would be up to the uploader to comply. Commercial porn would have a 2257 statement in the video. Non-commercial porn uploads have no business being regulated by the government since that would include things like exchanging photos in email. If a minor uploads something to the service, authorities would deal with him and his parents.

I disagree with this as well, because public display of pornography on a website is in a completely different category from something one person sends to another. CP is banned in any form, whether emailed or on a local computer, but to have an open loophole for pedophiles and ephebophiles to post their wares on a public site is not in the best interest of anyone (except the ********* lobby.)