Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications The Almighty Buck

Canadian Phone Company Selling Porn 342

Posted by kdawson
from the couldn't-make-it-up dept.
westcoaster004 writes "Telus, Canada's second-largest telecommunications carrier has started selling pornography to its cellular subscribers. The service allows subscribers with mobile browsers to purchase both photographic and video adult-oriented content from Telus, at an average of CD$4 per download. Telus decided to introduce the service after noticing that there existed a certain 'segment of the population that is interested in that content' from review of the mobile Web browsing habits of their subscribers 'on an aggregate level.' They are the first telecommunications company in Canada to offer such content. A Telus spokesman said: 'We're fairly certain that if our competitors in Canada haven't launched it, they will soon. Same in the US.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Phone Company Selling Porn

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29, 2007 @12:13AM (#17795792)
    ...yourself.
  • by phillymjs (234426) <`gro.ognats' `ta' `todhsals'> on Monday January 29, 2007 @12:16AM (#17795822) Homepage Journal
    'We're fairly certain that if our competitors in Canada haven't launched it, they will soon. Same in the US.'

    Yeah, right, buddy. Maybe the population as a whole is a little more liberal up there in America Junior, but if AT&T, Verizon or any other U.S. cell provider even floats that idea in a meeting, the Bible-thumpers will start up the boycotts and letter-writing campaigns and raise all kinds of hell to make sure it never comes to fruition.

    ~Philly
  • What will happen (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29, 2007 @12:26AM (#17795914)

    when Canadians and others with porn on their mobilephones, beknownstly or unbekonwnstly illegal in the US arrive in the US and get deatained for it? It all sounds so salacious. what is an agent thinks the "performers" or "models" are not of age (even if there were) how'd you prove it quickly? I see lots of inconveneince. Leave your porn home....

    Anyway, what kind of mentality do thse people have needing porn on their phones.. Can't they wait till they get back home (or office at worst).

    Talk about people who can't contol their urges.

  • by hasbeard (982620) on Monday January 29, 2007 @12:32AM (#17795954)
    Well, except for the fact that it demeans women (and men for that matter), cheapens and turns a God-given gift into a commodity, reduces human beings from being to people to be loved and honored to being objects and tools for one's one self-gratification-- not much I guess.
  • Nothing. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Virak (897071) on Monday January 29, 2007 @12:33AM (#17795964) Homepage
    And most people bring up 'morals' because most people are idiots and are incapable of seeing the world from someone else's view, and also incapable of seeing the inherent subjectivity of morality.
  • by king-manic (409855) on Monday January 29, 2007 @12:45AM (#17796044)
    Are you sure? IMHO, it's equivalent to saying that CSI / TV-Drama's replicates what happens in real life in the real world, but in a more exagerrated way.. And by exagerrated, you would know what I mean. O wait,.. this is slashdot.....

    IMHO, I find these morals good in a sense that I would prefer living in area where such good morals are upheld than in one where it isn't. It brings a sense of protection for me, my family, etc


    I miss the point of the first sentence. CSI is to crime investigation as Porn is to sex. Both are fake replicas that stress quick umm.. resolution over the truth behind normal situations.

    IMHO, areas of strict morality only hide the vices better. Strict morality does not generally make you a better person. For each giving and self sacraficing "moral" person there is a dozen hippocritical, hateful "moral" person. Ditto for the Immoral.
  • by creimer (824291) on Monday January 29, 2007 @12:48AM (#17796062) Homepage
    Simple. If you're viewing pornographic material in a public area and people call the cops, you can be busted for indecent exposure. Do it within distance of a school, get busted as a child molester. Remember, not all "wackos" are fundamentalist fruitcakes. Some are concerned citizen who don't want their neighborhoods turned into a red light district.
  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Monday January 29, 2007 @12:51AM (#17796080) Homepage Journal
    >Porn to me, replicates what happens in real life...in the real world.

    How often have you seen someone in a porn film use a condom or say "I love you"?
  • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dorceon (928997) on Monday January 29, 2007 @01:27AM (#17796280)
    In Canada, violence is harmful and sex not so much! It's backwards land!
  • Re:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29, 2007 @02:15AM (#17796538)
    Sanctimonious blowhards like Michael Coren, Charles McVety, and Janet Epp Buckingham and her League of Decency might be outraged. *shrug*, too bad.

    I'm not sure why people would suddenly get outraged over Telus when telecom companies like Rogers, Bell, etc. have been carrying pay-per-view pr0n channels for a few years now, and probably getting a cut of the money too. A quick scan of my Rogers digital box shows such titles as 'Natural Born Boobs 3' and 'The Anal Express' available on PPV.

    No, what's outrageous is the fact that anybody would actually pay $4 to watch a pr0n clip on a tiny cell phone screen. You have to be pretty horny and desperate to pay that kind of money for something like that.
  • by montyzooooma (853414) on Monday January 29, 2007 @03:31AM (#17796880)
    "That is why Britain (a mostly agnostic and atheist country) seems to have more of them per capita than the US"

    That would explain why our free to air TV is so bland and safe and not at all full of swearing and nudity. Oh wait a minute....

    But seriously, aside from the Jerry Springer Opera fiasco which was an extremely organised campaign, we don't have anything like the Mary Whitehouse movement given any mainstream credibility. And the religious movements that there are react to perceived threats to their religion (the Jerry Springer Opera again...) which is as expected and don't seem to bother much with lewdity in general. Is lewdity a word? It should be.

  • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kripkenstein (913150) on Monday January 29, 2007 @06:15AM (#17797622) Homepage

    How big is Canada's bloc of religious wackos who think anything sexual is so horrible it needs to be banned?

    1. Don't equate pornography with sex. It isn't the same. You can be pro-sex but not pro-pornography.

    2. That said, I would say that 95% of violently anti-pornography people are, at some level, anti-sex.
  • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Monday January 29, 2007 @11:55AM (#17801214)
    What makes you think that Americans don't want their business minded? We're talking about a very insecure, frightened people here. A people without even the basic comforts of modern living, like profanity and explicit sex on broadcast television. Having other people mind their business makes Americans feel safe, loved, and protected.

    Freedom was a nice idea, but most people prefer to live in a cage. The cage has nice, well-delineated boundaries (the walls of the cage), you know your place (inside the cage), you're protected (by the cage). As long as you can convince yourself that YOU are the free one, and that it's the rest of the world that is actually trapped outside of the cage, then it's all gravy.

  • by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Monday January 29, 2007 @12:43PM (#17802012) Journal

    In case you didn't notice this is one party selling porn to another adult party. Which is still legal in the states.
    Yes, but if AT&T, say, started selling porn this way, then significant groups who have dealings with AT&T would pull out of other deals refusing to deal with such a company. So even though someone may want to buy porn from AT&T, and AT&T may want to sell it, other parties who deal with AT&T get to veto it. At each stage, all of the parties appear free to choose which contracts they enter into, and yet the net effect is that because of the culture of prudishness in the US, parties can't buy and sell quite as freely as they'd like to.
  • Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nightfire-unique (253895) on Monday January 29, 2007 @01:32PM (#17802754)

    A fear or pornography is rooted in the religious belief that on some level, sex itself is harmful and/or immoral. Consider the term: innocent. Someone who is a virgin is often described as innocent. The opposite of innocent is guilty. Guilty of what?

    We are a heavily Christian-influenced society and many of our collective morals are derived from this. It's still so pervasive that we don't recognize it. But we are changing, slowly, to a more neutral "live and let live" mentality.

  • by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Monday January 29, 2007 @02:39PM (#17803670) Journal

    What prudishness exactly are you referring to?
    The one that results in a nationwide furore over the accidental revelation of a nipple during a live TV performance. The one that causes a bare ass to be blurred out when shown on an innocent movie like The Full Monty. The one where you can't use a nude female body to sell a product used in the shower. I'm probably referring to the US you don't realise exists until you step outside its borders for a few minutes to contrast and compare. It's also the culture where people care more about the sexual infidelity of the president than the sacrifice of thousands of lives for a war started under false pretenses.

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Working...