Every second, $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography, 28,258 Internet viewers are viewing pornography, 372 Internet users are typing adult search terms into search engines, and every 39 minutes, a new pornographic video is made in the United States (Internet Filter Review, 2006).
pornography 2006 profit sales
DOWNLOAD: https://urlcod.com/2vAgPR
The pornography industry generates $12 billion dollars in annual revenue - larger than the combined annual revenues of ABC, NBC, and CBS. Of that, the Internet pornography industry generates $2.5 billion dollars in annual revenue. (Pornography Statistics. Family Safe Media. January 10, 2006. > _statistics.html).
In a long and thoughtful article on the internet pornography phenomenon, Adrian Turpin notes that the number of porn pages on the web reached 260 million in 2003, up from 14 million in 1998, and that online porn sales hit $2.5 billion in 2005, well over double the sales of music downloads. Writes Turpin:
Child pornography is material that visually depicts sexual conduct by children, and is unprotected by the First Amendment even when it is not legally obscene. Federal statutes, in addition to making it a crime to transport or receive child pornography in interstate or foreign commerce, prohibit, among other things, the use of a minor in producing pornography, and provide for criminal and civil forfeiture of real and personal property used in making child pornography, and of the profits of child pornography. In addition, child pornography crimes are included among the predicate offenses that may give rise to a violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Misleading words or digital images on the Internet. This provision, which was enacted as P.L. 109-248 (2006), 703, does not concern child pornography, except to the extent that it falls within the categories that the provision does cover, namely obscenity and material that is "harmful to minors." We note it here because it is codified among the child pornography statutes. It makes it a crime to knowingly embed words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material that constitutes obscenity, or with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is "harmful to minors." It defines "harmful to minors as defines in section 2252B.
Criminal forfeiture. This section provides for criminal forfeiture in child pornography cases. Specifically, it provides that a person convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, or 2260, shall forfeit to the United States (1) the child pornography involved in the violation, (2) property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to gross profits or other proceeds obtained from the offense, and (3) property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to commit or to promote the commission of the offense.20 P.L. 109-248 (2006), 505(c), repealed subsections (b) through (o) of section 2253 and made "[s]ection 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), with the exception of subsections (a) and (d)," applicable to the criminal forfeiture of property pursuant to section 2253.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, P.L. 109-248, included several child pornography provisions, including section 502, which amended 18 U.S.C. 2257, which requires by producers of material that depicts actual sexually explicit conduct to keep records of every performers' name and date of birth; and section 503, which enacted 18 U.S.C. 2257A, which requires essentially the same thing with respect to simulated sexual conduct.
A federal court of appeals held that "use of the Internet satisfies the interstate commerce element of the federal law prohibiting the receipt of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(B)." United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006). The court held, in other words, that the statute requires only that the defendant had used an instrumentality of interstate commerce, not that the images had crossed state lines. P.L. 110-358 (2008) subsequently added the phrase "using any means or facility of interstate commerce" to the provision.
A federal court of appeals upheld a conviction under 2252A(a)(5)(B), finding that Congress has "the power to proscribe purely intrastate possession of pornography, regardless of whether the pornography had traversed interstate over the Internet." United States v. Sullivan, 451 F.3d 884 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
One 2006 estimate has the global porn industry at $97 billion in revenues. Although piracy is eating into the profits of more traditional outlets like paid online subscriptions and DVDs, underpaid porn stars and nearly infinite distribution channels ensure that the industry remains strong. Everyone from Verizon (smartphone porn) to Marriott (pay-per-porn) profits off the stuff. According to one estimate, 28,000 Internet users are watching porn every second.
Harrison founded the non-profit organization Charity: water, which since 2006, has given 8 million people around the world access to clean water by funding nearly 30,000 water projects in 26 countries across the world. Over one million people have donated more than $300 million to its cause.
Statistics show that child pornography is the fastest-growing of all Internet businesses, estimated to bring in several billion dollars a year. But while such information may enrage or frighten us, it changes nothing. Our knowledge of cold statistics will not alter the conduct of those who take pleasure or profit in the exploitation of children. Instead, if we are to wage war, we must know our enemy. We need to know more about those who create this unspeakable "product," why they do it and the various ways it is used.
Child pornography has become a business so profitable that it is no longer limited to pedophiles. Demand exceeds supply and always will. (Some pedophiles, if they had the resources, would acquire a copy of every single piece of child pornography ever produced.) The risk/gain ratio is extremely favorable. And the return on investment is extraordinary. What crime syndicate would pass up such an opportunity?
Third, to further deter criminal syndicates, we must enact federal laws to allow the United States to sue on behalf of any as-yet-unidentified children depicted in seized child pornography. This will allow predators to be immediately stripped of their property and profits, which can be held in escrow until their victims are identified.
Fourth, we must recognize that child pornography is an international crime. Many of the servers that contain and distribute it are safe-housed in foreign countries. Typically, a "gateway" operation is set up to protect credit card users from discovery when they purchase child pornography from overseas merchants. But when such a Web site's defenses are broken, too often only the American participants ever see the inside of a prison or face forfeiture of their filthy profits. Since we bring economic sanctions against countries that commit human-rights violations, why should we do less when child-pornography syndicates operate with the clear complicity of their governments overseas?
As is noted by the Government in its brief, child pornography is not a victimless crime. Indeed, "no child is capable, emotionally or legally, of consenting to being photographed for sexual purposes. Thus, every image of a sexually displayed child-be it a photograph, a tape or a DVD-records both the rape of the child and an act against humanity." (Gov't's Exhibit A, "Let's Fight this Terrible Crime Against Our Children," by Andrew Vachss, February 19, 2006, PARADE Magazine). Moreover, statistics clearly demonstrate that internet "child pornography is the fastest growing of all internet business, estimated to bring in several billion dollars a year." (Id.). Although Fuhrman and those writing on his behalf intimate that he was merely viewing the images and thus, he should not be punished so severely for viewing what others have created, this is a serious mischaracterization of the nature of this crime.
I don't have 2006 numbers, but I would say that it's possible in 2006 the revenue of the entire pornography industry was the size of half of the revenues of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix. But the comparison is apples to oranges, and given some quick duck-duck-going on these 3 companies, I doubt that the revenue of the porn industry is equal to half of the revenue from the above companies.
In March 2006, the FBI arrested Kenda Henry of Dallas, whom police accused of using the Internet to prostitute her three young children to pedophiles from as far away as Great Britain. Henry was arrested when authorities from Canada, the United States and Interpol busted the world's largest child pornography ring. 2ff7e9595c
Comments