"I saw a lack of quality job boards for the adult industry, and specifically for the online adult industry," AdultGigNet.com founder and CEO DJ Neawedde told XBIZ. "I'm actively promoting AdultGigNet, funneling job candidates to our job board and trying to work closely with companies that are hiring."

AdultGigNet.com can be searched in categories representing the entire online adult industry, ranging from legal services to design and content creation. Lawyers, programmers, web designers, webmasters, copywriters and aspiring talent can all find a place to look for work, as well as promote and sell their services.

AdultGigNet.com also will serve as a port of entry for new professional talent to get into direct contact with employers and start building a network of connections and references within the field.

Users can subscribe to the job board's RSS feed to learn of new opportunities the moment they are added.

For more information, visit AdultGigNet.com or email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

[by: Tod Hunter] via [Xbiz.com]

The new blogging service is called BayWords.com, and it runs on the Wordpress blogging engine.

BayWords co-founder Brokep said that he got the idea to start an uncensored blog service after a friend had his blog removed from the main Wordpress blogging service.

"Many blogs are being shut down for uncomfortable thoughts and ideas," Brokep told the news website TorrentFreak.com. "We will not do that. Our goal is to protect freedom of speech and your thoughts. As long as you don’t break any Swedish laws in your blog, we will defend it."

But Wordpress' Matt Mullenweg disputed the contention that Wordpress suppressed an "uncomfortable idea."

“WordPress.com supports free speech and doesn’t shut people down for 'uncomfortable thoughts and ideas,'" he said. "In fact we’re blocked in several countries because of that. However as a U.S.-based company we must comply with U.S. laws, which means if the primary purpose of a blog is distributing illegal material it’s not a good fit for WordPress.com."

This isn't The Pirate Bay's first addition to its content-sharing empire. The site's founders have also added an uncensored image-hosting service called BayImg.com, and they still have plans to launch a YouTube competitor called TheVideoBay.org.

Since its launch in 2004, The Pirate Bay has amassed a user base of roughly 2.5 million people and 10 million file-sharing peers.

In February 2008, the Swedish government charged the website with trying to break copyright laws.

[by: Bob Preston] via [Xbiz.com]

The testimony was presented at the FCC’s Public En Banc Hearing on Broadband Network Management Practices at Stanford University.

“For independents,” Prewitt said in her statement, “the Internet offers a new route to reach consumers and a new creative medium that will change the very form that story-telling will take. The Commission has the chance now to set down policies that will keep the Internet open and competitively accessible to all users. Neither we, nor the consumers, can afford to have large gatekeepers lock up the Internet as they have locked up television and cable.”

Prewitt and members of IFTA are concerned that broadband providers will discriminate against independent content producers by restricting categories of users, types of traffic or give preferential treatment to content providers, citing telecom provider Comcast’s decision to slow traffic to peer-to-peer sites as an example.

“Blocking Internet applications and interfering with the public’s ability to access information is discriminatory and must not be a consequence of acceptable network management practices. Additionally, there must be transparency, equal treatment and a method of redress when provider’s private decisions impair the rights of others and the public interest,” Prewitt said.

Prewitt also pointed out that copyright infringement enforcement has been cited as a reason for implementing “network management” by broadband providers. While an important issue for content producers, Prewitt argued that copyright infringement should not be allowed to deny open access to the Internet for legitimate users.

Citing the role that large media conglomerates have played in virtually eliminating independent film and television producers from outlets on U.S. broadcast and cable networks, Prewitt said that the Internet offered route for independent producers to reach the consumer.

Independent film and television producers are defined as production entities that are funded outside of the established system of major U.S. film and television studios.

Members of the IFTA have been responsible for several well-known films, including “Juno,” “Crash,” “Lord of the Rings” and “Million Dollar Baby,” among others.

To view Prewitt’s complete statement, click here.

[by: Joanne Cachapero] via [Xbiz.com]

The government filed its request for an en banc rehearing in January, arguing that the 6th Circuit panel had erred in its reading of the statute.

“Construing the age verification and recordkeeping provisions to apply to private couples who create explicit images of themselves for personal use in their own homes, the panel invalidated the act on the ground that it is so over-inclusive that it can no longer constitutionally be applied even to producers of commercial images for the pornography industry,” the Justice Dept. stated in its January petition.

Free Speech Coalition Chairman Jeffrey Douglas told XBIZ that the court’s decision to grant the rehearing was “disappointing, but by no means surprising.”

“Any time a federal statute is struck down, there is a tendency for the court to want to hear the issue en banc,” Douglas said. “The reasoning of the panel majority was excellent, however, and I’m reasonably optimistic that it will stand.”

Adult industry attorney Larry Walters was less optimistic about the prospects of the panel’s decision being upheld, however.

“The granting of rehearing en banc does not bode well for the viability of the decision under review,” Walters said. “I suspect that one or more judges voted to rehear the case in order to change the decision and ultimately uphold section 2257. It all depends on how many other judges go along with that approach, however. Only time will tell.”

[Q Boyer] via [Xbiz.com]