Porn 2.0, named after "Web 2.0", refers to pornographic websites featuring user-generated content. Sites may include social networking media including feature such as user-based categorizing, webcam hosting, blogs and comments. This is in contrast to the static content offered by "Web 1.0" porn sites. Porn 2.0 sites may offer features similar to mainstream Web 2.0 services such as video communities (Metacafe, Vimeo, YouTube) and social sites (Tumblr, Twitter), general blogging, (Blogger, DailyBooth, Lookbook.nu) and photo hosting (Flickr, Photobucket, Picasa).
Since their inception, Porn 2.0 Web sites have garnered great popularity, but have meanwhile encountered various legal and other difficulties. Among these difficulties are concern about the digital content copyright, trade media and affiliating partnership advertising. Other concerns include the idea of sharing vs. privacy and the legal ramifications of large quantities of free, user-generated pornographic content on the Internet.
For Porn 3.0, news media often suggest the usage of 3D stereoscopy, multi-angle DVD neural impulse actuators, and peripheral controller and devices similar to game controller vibration, eliminating less probable technologies such as holograms.
While some argue that pornographic sites are a natural development for an industry that has always been at the forefront of technological advancements, Porn 2.0 has presented several difficulties and challenges.
Copyright infringement is chief among the challenges that have confronted Porn 2.0. Porn 2.0 websites have come under attack as being potentially harmful to the economics of more traditional pornography outlets such as DVD sales and monthly paid subscription adult sites.
As more and more of the general public comes online, they are finding newer and cheaper ways to get their adult content fix. Just like the masses have flocked to sites like YouTube to watch professional clips from their favorite TV shows, video blogs, crazy stunts, and amateur movies, the adult audience has ditched DVDs and pay-per-view television to flock to similar sites (like xtube).— Jacqui Cheng, ArsTechnica.com
As with YouTube, any site that allows users to upload content runs the risk of infringing on the copyrights of the original producers. While this was a grey issue at the inception of the Web 2.0 movement, a billion dollar lawsuit filed by Viacom in 2007 against YouTube (see "Copyright Infringement") will bring this issue before the courts and will have a massive potential effect on the viability of Porn 2.0 as a business strategy. YouTube has since won the suit.
A 2007 decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 2257 legislation (Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act) was unconstitutional and violated first amendment rights. The decision was overturned in a 2009 en banc rehearing. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear the matter.
Unlike Web 2.0 ventures such as Facebook, Myspace or YouTube, Porn 2.0 has yet to find a strategy that proves to be commercially profitable. High server costs from hosting the large amount of user-generated content paired with little to no user-generated income puts Porn 2.0 websites in a challenging financial position. Because Porn 2.0 services have, so far, been free of charge to users, the only source of revenue for these sites is from advertising placement.
- Porn 3.0: the next gen of sex biz tech, p2, TechRadar
- Porn 3.0: the next gen of sex biz tech, p3, TechRadar
- Swartz, Jon (9 March 2004). "Online porn often leads high-tech way". usatoday.com. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
- "Porn 2.0, and Its Victims :: Mediacheck". thetyee.ca. 6 July 2007. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
- "Youporn Vivid Entertainment Profile – Culture Lifestyle". Portfolio.com. 11 September 2008. Archived from the original on 3 May 2012. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
- Cheng, Jacqui (6 June 2007). "Porn 2.0 is stiff competition for pro pornographers". Arstechnica.com. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
- Manjoo, Farhad (24 October 2007). "You and YouPorn are now free to make porn". Machinist: Tech Blog, Tech News. Archived from the original on 29 October 2007. Retrieved 25 February 2018.
- United States Court of Appeals - Sixth Circuit
- "Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, (6th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Opinions – UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT" (PDF). Retrieved 21 December 2010.
- "Order List (10/05/2009)" (PDF). Retrieved 21 December 2010.
- , Wired.com, October 2002