Online

Online video-sharing site Veoh has bested Universal Music Group (UMG) in a recent copyright infringement suit. UMG claimed Veoh was liable for any copyrighted material that appeared on the Internet TV service.

Veoh defended the site under the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This basically allows sites which rely on user-generated content to post videos without requiring proof of ownership.

“DMCA works well if the site is in the U.S.,” Brandon Shalton from FightThePatent.com told XBIZ. “The site has up to 48 hours to remove the content once they have received notice. But it gets more tricky, because how does the website know the person telling them to take something down is the copyright owner and not the competitor trying to knock out his competitor’s content?”

U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz found that because Veoh did not prescreen content, nor rely on infringement for profit, it was not liable for UMG’s claims of damages.

“We are gratified that the court has denied UMG's attempt to bar the use of safe harbor afforded to us under the copyright laws,” a spokesperson for Veoh told XBIZ. “We have always believed that Veoh is operating clearly within the bounds of the law and demonstrates the utmost respect to all copyright owners.”

Don't hold your breath for this fight to end any time soon.

British Cabinet Minister Andy Burnham hopes to get Barack Obama's help in creating a code of decency for the Internet, bringing a movie-style ratings system to all websites. And that's just the beginning of Burnham's aim to police the World Wide Web.

Culture Secretary Burnham sees the Internet as “quite a dangerous place" and feels governments must come together to control who sees what. It's censorship for the new age. He even wants politicians to consider forcing Internet Service Providers to establish "child safe" services which censor out websites that aren't "family friendly."

Mr Burnham said:  “There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.

“I think there is definitely a case for clearer standards online,” he added. “More ability for parents to understand if their child is on a site, what standards it is operating to. What are the protections that are in place?”

We've heard it all before. In fact, these exact same arguments have been used by U.S. legislators to justify state censorship since the dawn of the Internet. Perhaps the Brits are inspired by Australia, which recently implemented a two-tiered nation-wide firewall to block illegal and child-unfriendly websites.

BananaGuide would be on the naughty list for sure, but sites created by PFLAG and safer sex educators could also be targeted. As is always the case with Net censorship, the problem lies in who determines what is appropriate for kids and what is not. And that's what we thought parents were for. 

While the online adult industry is squeaky clean compared with the Wild West tactics of years ago, some scummy practices still do persist. One that we have noticed more of lately is the "pre-checked cross-sell." 

You'll see this when you go to the join page of a membership site. Above the "Submit" button there will be a check-box - already checked for you - by which you agree to get a cheap or even a free trial to an additional website, usually one you've never heard of (probably because it's absolute crap.)

It's up to you to follow the asterisk for the clincher. If you don't uncheck the box and then you don't cancel the trial for the crappy bonus site, it will rebill on you. In the example above the asterisked "offer" sits above the Submit button so it is relatively easy to spot, but once in a while it is below the button and so could be missed. Occassionally the rebill clause is even hidden on the Terms and Conditions page rather than being clearly stated on the sign-up page.

The practice is the subject of debate in the online adult industry, centering on both the legal and ethical aspects of pre-checked cross-sales. For us there is no room for debate: it's wrong, short-sighted and does nothing but alienate customers. 

What can you do? First, apply the "buyer beware" principle:  be on the lookout for pre-checked offers, and always uncheck them when you see them. Second, vote with your wallet: don't join sites that have pre-checked trial offers on the join page. There are plenty of  honest sites with great content that you can support instead.

Winter may be taking hold in North America, but the sexy men in Australia are getting ready for skimpy speedos as summer hits their country. And in celebration gay website SameSame.com.au has introduced a hot new online show called Surf Camp.

The show follows five sexy Aussies as they learn to surf.  Then, after each episode, viewers get to vote for their favourite boy; the man with the fewest votes gets sent home until one ultimate Surf Camper is left.

You can watch Ryan, Jesse, Brennan, Josh and Ben battle it out on the first episode of Surf Camp here.

YouTube has never tolerated sexually explicit content, but now the mother of video sites is really getting high-handed, taking a harder stand on any material deemed "sexually suggestive."

YouTube now promises a "stricter standard for mature content" and will tighten "the standard for what is considered 'sexually suggestive.'"

"Videos with sexually suggestive (but not prohibited) content will be age-restricted, which means they'll be available only to viewers who are 18 or older," a YouTube rep said. In addition, videos with such content will not appear on the "Most Viewed" or  "Top Favorites" lists.

Making the most watched videos harder to see: that'll keep YouTube competitive.

After eight years of refusing to help homosexuals find love, eHarmony.com will be providing matchmaking services to gays and lesbians starting in 2009. The new service will be called Compatible Partners.

This follows a legal battle between eHarmony and 46-year-old Eric McKinley. McKinley filed a discrimination suit against the company back in March 2005 when he was not allowed to post an ad.

"I heard their advertisement that winter and thought 'Hey, this could work for me," McKinley said. "So I went to their website but couldn't pass the initial screen. There was no option for man seeking man. It made me feel angry, mad, and sad. . . a whole range of emotions."

McKinley will receive $5,000 and a free membership for a year to the new service. The company will pay an additional fine of $50,000 to the New Jersey Attorney General's office for administrative expenses. An additional 10,000 people seeking same-sex partners will also be offered free six-month subscriptions.

Hooray, another dating site we have to pay for!

The Australian government is facing mounting opposition to their plan to censor what Australians can access over the Internet. The plan is to force all ISPs to filter the content their customers are looking at, giving adults more  (but still restricted) freedom than kids.

Michael Malone, boss of iiNet, an Australian ISP with 700,000 customers, said his firm would be happy to take part in the initial trial ... allowing him to prove the stupidity of the government's plan.

Malone told the Sydney Morning Herald: "They're not listening to the experts, they're not listening to the industry, they're not listening to consumers, so perhaps some hard numbers will actually help.

"Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we'll be publicising it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we'll be publicising it."

The trial is due to start on Christmas Eve. Since when did the Grinch become Australia's Prime Minister?

US escorts will no longer be getting a free ride from popular classified ad site Craigslist. Forty states have convinced Craigslist to crack down on the activities of online prostitutes.

This means that anyone advertising in the "erotic services section" will have to pay for their post and provide a valid phone number, said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

"Prostitutes will hopefully stop using Craigslist to break the law, knowing that their posts could lead to arrest and conviction," he added.

"Requiring credit-card verification, and charging a fee to post in this category raises accountability to a point where we expect few illicit ads will remain," Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster said. "... more than ever, those who would misuse Craigslist to violate the law will find that Craigslist is a very inhospitable place."

May we suggest another way to solve the problem: legalize prostitution.

Athletic Model Guild (AMG) launched the AMG Podcast this week, available on iTunes, to help promote its gay videos to a larger audience. The podcast will offer trailers, some bonus footage, and star interviews, and can be found on the iTunes website by searching for “Athletic Model Guild” or “AMG Brasil.”

“We wanted to do something special for the release of ‘Rio’ because it’s a movie unlike any other produced by AMG. We figured this was the perfect opportunity to show that just because we’re an ‘old’ studio, doesn’t mean we can’t learn new tricks,” said Christopher Trout, AMG promotions manager.

"Rio," the company's latest release, is the first video being marketed this way. Fans will find nine “video teasers” and a hardcore trailer, plus interviews with the film’s cast.

"In their interviews, they were encouraged to be candid about their lives. I wanted them to be completely honest,” Company president Dennis Bell said.

Actor Rodolfo Guerra, for example, admitted, “I believe Brazilians, especially the Cariocas of Rio, are sex addicts by nature. So I really like raunchy sex and orgies. I like to fill my life with experience.”

“Our fans want to know these models, and because they are in Brazil, there is little access to them,” Bell suggested. “The interviews for ‘Rio’ will only make fans feel closer to the men they lust after.”

And any chance to hear those sexy Brazilian accents doesn't hurt, either.

You can check out some of the men from "Rio" after the jump ...

Living in Australia isn't going to be as much fun as it used to be. The government has introduced an Internet filtering system which will control all citizens' access to the Web.

Calling their initiative a Plan for Cyber-Safety, and costing the country $125.8 million, two blacklists  have been created. One list will block all material deemed inappropriate for children. The second list will keep “illegal material” out of everyone's hands. Australians can opt out of the first list, but everyone must have their online activity filtered through the second.

The Australian government will determine what will go on either list, and though porn is allowed (for now) other controversial issues from legalising drugs to abortion could be banned.

"The news for Australian Internet users just keeps getting worse," said Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) Board member Colin Jacobs. "We have legitimate concerns with the creeping scope of this unprecedented interference in our communications infrastructure. It's starting to look like nothing less than a comprehensive program of real-time Internet censorship."

Perhaps they can get some pointers from the Chinese.

Facebook has removed two pages from its site set up by the gay men's retailer Priape.

Priape's director of marketing and sales, Michael Ain, thinks his site is getting a bum rap for being queer focused.

"I've found sites for women in bondage, women in latex," he says. "Bondage, whips and chains training is on here. It's all women. I have to wonder if it's an antigay approach to the same stuff. I have to be curious as to what we're doing in the gay community as opposed to what other groups are doing."

There was no warning that Facebook was considering closing the Priape pages.

"Around late July they terminated the site without explanation," he says. "Once they shut down the Priape group we started a fan page. Within a week and a half we had 4,000 members. We were very closely following the Facebook terms of use.

"About a month into it, it was flushed without explanation."

"The content on the Page you created is prohibited," wrote Autumn of Facebook's customer operations. "We do not currently allow content referencing, facilitating or promoting adult toys, videos or other adult products. Unfortunately we cannot reinstate this Page and ask that you do not recreate this page in the future."

Please, we all know the people for Facebook are only doing it for our own good. Aren't they?

Google co-founder Sergey Brin went on record through his blog on Friday stating that his company does not support a ban on gay marriage. With the company's headquarters in California and nearly 20,000 employees, Brin sees gay marriage as an issue of equality.

"As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay -- we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.

"However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love."

In May the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in the state, but opponents of gay lovin' have decided to bring it to the fore during the upcoming election. It will appear as a ballot question in California.

Whether or not Google will provide financial support against the initiative we do not know, but we're sure they can throw a few pennies towards stopping the forces of evil.