Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has the internet pirates squirming and sweating! - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Matyko · 11-01-2011, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank21

Yes funny no more internet freedom.
And if you had read the whole bill you would know that will be used against you too by sueing you for the music you have in some of your vids.
1 song in 1 vid is enough to shut down your whole website.

Yes, and it's cool! Theft is theft

RycEric · 11-01-2011, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnRingo

And since myfeecams models have copywritten music playing all the time they will go down too

Not quite.. I already told you that's on the models not them.

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 12:14 AM

Can anyone point out how a law to stop piracy is going to effect my freedom please.

No smart Alec replies. Just point out what in the law makes them bringing down piracy a threat to my freedom to publish and read the truth or grab products that are put out by the owners of licenses that allows them to do this?

DamianJ · 11-02-2011, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I'm just asking questions.

someone told me you were a pirate and made money from piracy, Is that true too?

Someone told me you actually had sex with an underage girl , filmed and posted on here saying that.

Is that true?

Someone else said you raped your make up assistant.

Is that true?

How long do you want to play this game Markham? You are just lying. I am posting things people said to me at trade shows, and you know it.

porno jew · 11-02-2011, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Someone else said you raped your make up assistant.

that sounds like something a deluded self-centered narcissist would do, not our friend paul m.

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Someone told me you actually had sex with an underage girl , filmed and posted on here saying that.

Is that true?

Someone else said you raped your make up assistant.

Is that true?

How long do you want to play this game Markham? You are just lying. I am posting things people said to me at trade shows, and you know it.

The only time I had sex with an underage girl was when I was underage.

I was once accused by a girl of raping her, she dropped the charges immediately when the police told her I filmed everything that went on in my studio. I have posted that here and told the story many times.

So the lies about me raping a make up artist is just that a lie. One of my make up artists was Vida Garman, good luck trying anything with Vida. The other one did Eva's make up for our wedding. So she wasn't raped. Her husband was a soldier and he would of killed me.

So you post other peoples lies. I guess that condemns you to a rest from GFY. Want to name the people who told you this so they can come here and defend you?

If all it takes to break rules is to say "Someone told me" then the rules are for nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

that sounds like something a deluded self-centered narcissist would do, not our friend paul m.

It sounds like Damian twisting a lie to "I heard that" it makes the rules a joke if all we have to say is "Someone told me."

DamianJ · 11-02-2011, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So the lies about me raping a make up artist is just that a lie.

I just asked a question Paul. I didn't post a lie. Unlike you.

So anyway, back to your friends advising you not to get a teaching job in case you couldn't control your urges to fuck a child. How do they feel about your new venture of teaching children?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

If all it takes to break rules is to say "Someone told me" then the rules are for nothing.

Yeah, bet you wish you hadn't started baselessly accusing me of illegal activity now.

Funny thing is, you are just maliciously lying trying to hurt my reputation and business, whereas I am just posting things you have posted here yourself. It must be so embarrassing to shot yourself in the foot. Repeatedly. I guess you are old...

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 01:11 AM

I think you have an interest in piracy on your repeated statements on the fight to stop it. You have always ridiculed, complained and protested about any attempts to restrict or slow down piracy.

You base your lies on "Someone told me."

I don't have to hear what others tell me to form an opinion. I read your words.

DamianJ · 11-02-2011, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I think you have an interest in piracy on your repeated statements on the fight to stop it.

So you have some proof? You know this is a forum and you are libelling me, right?

Whereas you actually did post saying your friends said it would be a bad idea for you to be in charge of a room of 15 year olds, and you did post saying teachers need a will of iron to resist fucking 15 year olds.

Can you see the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You have always ridiculed, complained and protested about any attempts to restrict or slow down piracy.

That's because history has PROVEN it is a total waste of time and money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You base your lies on "Someone told me."

What lies?

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

I just asked a question Paul. I didn't post a lie. Unlike you.

So anyway, back to your friends advising you not to get a teaching job in case you couldn't control your urges to fuck a child. How do they feel about your new venture of teaching children?

More lies. where did you get that one from? I joked about 15 year olf girls here being very flirty. And teachers needing to resist them. The rest is your lies.

Quote:

Yeah, bet you wish you hadn't started baselessly accusing me of illegal activity now.

I didn't accuse you, I asked you. I told you an opinion. I don't think you're that good at marketing. I don't think you're that good at anything. But I do get the impression you're very anti any control of piracy and always have been. You're very clued up on it. So basing an opinion on it.

Quote:

Funny thing is, you are just maliciously lying trying to hurt my reputation and business, whereas I am just posting things you have posted here yourself. It must be so embarrassing to shot yourself in the foot. Repeatedly. I guess you are old...

Hi Pot I'm Kettle.

Your reputation and business are not something I can do a lot of harm to. you do that yourself by posting videos of yourself in your home.

You have constantly criticised my work and my business. Accusing me of shooting scared girls, of dry pussies and more.

And now you twist something I've said here and twisted it into a lie. Ad added your own lies.

Post proof.

DamianJ · 11-02-2011, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

More lies. where did you get that one from? I joked about 15 year olf girls here being very flirty. And teachers needing to resist them. The rest is your lies.

You said it Paul, you said it. Bless you. Of course you can claim it was a "joke" but you said the words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

But I do get the impression you're very anti any control of piracy and always have been. You're very clued up on it. So basing an opinion on it.

There is no control of piracy. You cannot control it. Only idiots like you think you can. So I point out why you are wrong. That doesn't make me a pirate. It makes me against stupidity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Post proof.

Of what?

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

There is no control of piracy. You cannot control it. Only idiots like you think you can. So I point out why you are wrong. That doesn't make me a pirate. It makes me against stupidity.

So if a crime can't be controlled we shouldn't try?

To what level, do you think, the minimum should be to warrant it being controlled?

Your thinking is beyond stupid. If it was applied to everything the police would disappear. You would get mugged, robbed, burgled and no one would stop them. Because it couldn't be controlled.

In a modern civilised society we do what we can to minimise the law breakers. No one expects all crime to disappear over night and only the foolish think that passing a law means the crime will disappear. To make a crime disappear. you just make it legal. Is that your argument?

Reading this thread it's obvious that those with something to protect are in favors of protecting what they have. Those with little to protect or profiting from the crime are saying, that any control is wrong. for what ever reason they can think of.

Well change is coming. Too many big companies and countries lose too much revenue to piracy for it to continue.

The West leads the world in "Digital media" from porn to programs. This is a huge revenue generating business. To allow sites in countries or owned that don't have a hand in creating and profiting from their work isn't going to carry on. It costs them too much money.

Apple will need to rethink iTunes, Youtube, Twitter, etc will need to rethink itself. Sites that advertise on piracy sites will have to look at their strategy as the piracy sites get closed. Adapt or die.

Whether this law or the next one goes through is just a matter of time. Change is coming. I thought you guys loved change?

So far no one has illustrated how laws to stop piracy will effect my freedom.

DamianJ · 11-02-2011, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So if a crime can't be controlled we shouldn't try?

Because it is a waste of time, effort, resources and money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Apple will need to rethink iTunes

Why? Seriously, can you explain what iTunes is in one sentence?

nextri · 11-02-2011, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Can anyone point out how a law to stop piracy is going to effect my freedom please.

No smart Alec replies. Just point out what in the law makes them bringing down piracy a threat to my freedom to publish and read the truth or grab products that are put out by the owners of licenses that allows them to do this?

Your freedom will be limited in the way that you can no longer create any sort of social or interactive website. The law is directly preventing innovation on the internet, it creates censorship in that each and every website owner will need to moderate each and every user interaction, which is in fact impossible to do, so such websites can no longer exists. There can be no blog networks like wordpress.org because just one infringing blog can get the whole network closed down. How is that not limiting your freedom?

Answer this simple question:
Should facebook have to have moderators to moderate each and every status update, user comment and photo upload from their 700 million users?
Should youtube be forced to approve each and every one of the thousands of videos that gets uploaded every minute?

If your answer is no to these questions, then you can't approve of this bill, cause that is what they will need to do in order to still operate their sites without worrying about suddenly getting shut down, without having a say in the matter.

How are they suppose to be able to have enough moderators who even know if any of the content is infringing anyone's intellectual property? It is impossible, and the sites couldn't operate like today. Not to mention the websites would be useless if they couldn't have real time updates.

There should definitely be done things to fight piracy, but not in ways that can result in websites being taken down without due process. If they are going to make a law to target sites that are mainly distributing copyrighted material, they need to make it a lot more specific so it doesn't destroy the very basis of an open social interactive internet.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 11-02-2011, 03:04 AM

This sounds like a job for Winston Wolf...

Ban both Paul and Damian - problem solved.

Make me a fucking mod, and I swear some knucklehead noggins would be knocked together and rolling around gfy'ville (might try and use some AVN resources to actually conduct a real investigation or two as well, lol).

Well, at least one good thing came from this thread, Silly Rant / ondree was (finally) banned (again).

I guess AVN should still keep Tender Thighs on the payroll (the old fart should be just about due to start pulling pension one of these days, I reckon).

ADG

DamianJ · 11-02-2011, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Well, at least one good thing came from this thread, Silly Rant / ondree was (finally) banned (again).

Thanks to my unfaltering work in trolling the cunt until he finally went too far. I think it was repeatedly posting that picture of him that was doing his head in.

If I was banned, Marion would still be here.

Think about what you wish for, my friend.

:D

Jel · 11-02-2011, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Oh noes... What an oppressive burden it is to actually check what's going on at your fucking site. That's so fucking hard OMG the sky is falling what those evil obsolete outdated copyright holders want from us. It's their duty to produce content for us and then to police our sites too and do all other dirty ground work for us, while we should only be creative and innovative meaning we're entitled to enjoy free content created by other people and we aren't going to spent a minute of our precious time to respect the rights of people who actually created the content that made our "innovative" services worth a shit to surfers.

Yawn. Same old song we've been hearing over and over again for years.

Speaking of huge and unnecessary burdens, have any of you free shit lovers ever tried to police literally dozens of thousands of piracy sites that post links to stolen content? Do you know what kind of burden it is? Do you know how astronomically huge piracy numbers are and that no copyright holder will not be able to check 1/10th of it in his entire lifetime? Now THAT'S the burden, but of course it is OK because it's them evil obsolete copyright holders have to do it. Save God some brilliant innovative kid that is scheming new youtube in his garage is forced to do it. That's the end of the world. No more innovation. Oppression and totalitarism. But of course.

Jel · 11-02-2011, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

It is utterly, uncategorically impossible to stop piracy. Not even worth debating if you think it is.

It's impossible to stop ANYTHING with laws, are you saying we shouldn't have speeding laws, racism laws, sexism laws, murder laws, rape laws, fines for littering, laws for everything we currently have laws for that still happen anyway? You'll never stop it, so don't bother making it harder, or put deterrents in place - is that the argument you're putting across with your statement?

DamianJ · 11-02-2011, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

It's impossible to stop ANYTHING with laws, are you saying we shouldn't have speeding laws, racism laws, sexism laws, murder laws, rape laws, fines for littering, laws for everything we currently have laws for that still happen anyway? You'll never stop it, so don't bother making it harder, or put deterrents in place - is that the argument you're putting across with your statement?

Do speeding cameras reduce the incidences of people speeding? Oh yes! They do. Massively.

Does punishment reduce crime? Yes! Do people get rehabilitated? Yes!

Has ANY law that has been EVER passed had ANY impact on piracy? No. Has ANYTHING every had an impact on piracy? No. It is bigger than it ever ever was.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Piracy == bad.
Wasting money and time trying to stop piracy == pointless.

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nextri

Your freedom will be limited in the way that you can no longer create any sort of social or interactive website. The law is directly preventing innovation on the internet, it creates censorship in that each and every website owner will need to moderate each and every user interaction, which is in fact impossible to do, so such websites can no longer exists. There can be no blog networks like wordpress.org because just one infringing blog can get the whole network closed down. How is that not limiting your freedom?

BS WP is the tool. not the user and therefore not to blame.

Quote:

Answer this simple question:
Should facebook have to have moderators to moderate each and every status update, user comment and photo upload from their 700 million users?
Should youtube be forced to approve each and every one of the thousands of videos that gets uploaded every minute?

Libel is the crime of the libeler, not the medium the libel appears on. Disabling the ability to post any content and problem solved.

Can The New York Times post pictures they have no right to post? Will they or the advertiser be liable for submission? Will they be held responsible for posting pictures of naked children or allowing others to?

We can live without Youtube.

Quote:

If your answer is no to these questions, then you can't approve of this bill, cause that is what they will need to do in order to still operate their sites without worrying about suddenly getting shut down, without having a say in the matter.

Well my answer is yes.

Quote:

How are they suppose to be able to have enough moderators who even know if any of the content is infringing anyone's intellectual property? It is impossible, and the sites couldn't operate like today. Not to mention the websites would be useless if they couldn't have real time updates.

So they can't operate and stay legal. goodbye to criminals on the basis, they can't afford to be criminals.

Quote:

There should definitely be done things to fight piracy, but not in ways that can result in websites being taken down without due process. If they are going to make a law to target sites that are mainly distributing copyrighted material, they need to make it a lot more specific so it doesn't destroy the very basis of an open social interactive internet.

How much due process will be to establish Youtube is full of pirated content?

Of course it needs to be done with due process. But a legal site getting pulled down on a false claim. Is that your fear?

We can have a open social interactive internet. Just not one where people are allowed to post the property of others. If I break into your house and steal your computer then set up a place where anyone can use it. Is that an open social interactive operation?

Many peoples freedom is being limited now by pirates. Freedom to make money to feed their children, freedom to develop and innovate and get a ROI on that work. Freedom to work for someone who is doing this. Are their freedoms secondary to yours so you can post their hard work on Youtube or where ever you want, so you can have a open social interactive internet?

One man's freedom seems to be another man's loss of freedom.

Laws that apply offline, should apply online.

Quote:

Make me a fucking mod, and I swear some knucklehead noggins would be knocked together and rolling around gfy'ville (might try and use some AVN resources to actually conduct a real investigation or two as well, lol).

Many get away with too much because of the lack of moderation. A stricter application of the rules is long overdue.

gideongallery · 11-02-2011, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

I have concerns that the law (SOPA) could be overreaching in restricting "fair use." However, in the USA, we have a long tradition (stare decisis) concerning fair use, parody, and other legitimate uses of copyrighted content.

Personally, I think the world was just fine before some giant media companies put a legitimate and popular face on blatant piracy. And, at this point, I can't say that I think a raging, uncontrolled Internet that steals everything that has been digitized for mass distribution is a good thing. Because their business models are built on the redistribution of other people's IP content, I'm sure some of the big players are walking the halls of Congress with bags of money, teams of lobbyists, and reams of emails based of fear tactics that this legislation will kill the internet.

As webmasters, both you and I know this isn't so.

It kinda reminds me of the Wild, Wild West with bank robbers (pirates), a new sheriff in town (SOPA), and a general population that just wants to get along.

I always thought the intention was to make the internet a tool for the betterment of mankind, not a safe haven for thieves and malcontents. The days of the Wild, Wild West of the Internet are coming to an end, hopefully. The time has come for the robbers to end their reign of terror. I hope whatever replaces the current situation is respectful of peoples property rights and privacy rights; but, the current situation is unsustainable in my eyes.

Just my opinion.

so why not support the amendment to this bill that would void all copyright of the complaining companies if their complaint was against authorized actions (either fair use or authorized or other non infringing).

Jel · 11-02-2011, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Do speeding cameras reduce the incidences of people speeding? Oh yes! They do. Massively.

Does punishment reduce crime? Yes! Do people get rehabilitated? Yes!

Has ANY law that has been EVER passed had ANY impact on piracy? No. Has ANYTHING every had an impact on piracy? No. It is bigger than it ever ever was.

Hope that clarifies my position.

Piracy == bad.
Wasting money and time trying to stop piracy == pointless.

Nothing has EVER had ANY impact on piracy? Ok.

If piracy was made legal, and you could pirate movies, software, music, whatever the fuck you like, to your own content, knowing it was fully within the law to do so, would you expect piracy levels to go higher, or stay the same as they are now?

Piracy is bigger than it ever was because it's so easy to do, and is really fuck all to do with the argument as to whether stronger anti-piracy measures should be taken. More people, more content, easier distribution - of course it's bigger than it ever was. You can say the same about speeding - more people speed now than ever before. It has fuck all relevance, but by your logic speed cameras should be done away with, as even though as a deterrent they work for many, the number of speeding drivers has still increased.

DamianJ · 11-02-2011, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

Piracy is bigger than it ever was because it's so easy to do, and is really fuck all to do with the argument as to whether stronger anti-piracy measures should be taken. More people, more content, easier distribution - of course it's bigger than it ever was. You can say the same about speeding - more people speed now than ever before. It has fuck all relevance, but by your logic speed cameras should be done away with, as even though as a deterrent they work for many, the number of speeding drivers has still increased.

Speed cameras work. Anti-piracy measures do not work. The RIAA and MPAA have spent BILLIONS of dollars and piracy has increased.

Where are your links to anti-piracy laws that have had an impact on piracy? How has the French three strikes rule worked?

I'll tell you. It has failed and piracy has increased:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/P...kes-Law-107320

nextri · 11-02-2011, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

BS WP is the tool. not the user and therefore not to blame.

My bad, I mean services like wordpress.com or thumblr or other blogging networks. They couldn't operate if they had to moderate their users. Hence, limiting free speech.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Libel is the crime of the libeler, not the medium the libel appears on. Disabling the ability to post any content and problem solved.

So you're saying facebook is a medium and not a website that is responsible for the communication on it? If that's what you're saying, then you're basically saying it's the one who publishes something who should held responsible, not those who created the medium where the libel took place. Hence, facebook shouldn't be responsible for their users actions, and shouldn't need to moderate it.

And you want the ability to post any content on the internet without moderation impossible? You do know text is also content right? How is the prevention of posting any content on any website not a limitation of freedom?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Can The New York Times post pictures they have no right to post? Will they or the advertiser be liable for submission? Will they be held responsible for posting pictures of naked children or allowing others to?

Of course they can't, because they are the ones publishing it, and they are responsible for it. The same way that I should be responsible for me posting a picture that you own on facebook without your permission. Facebook created the communication platform, and shouldn't be responsible for my actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

We can live without Youtube.

Dumbest argument ever.. A small percentage of youtube's videos are copyright infringments, but there are other ways to deal with it than preventing anyone from uploading anything. They have automatic filters that detects copyrighted sound and video, and automatically removes it, or replaces it with content they make money on. This is the way to fight piracy, and such technology should be further developed and made accessible for others. Not laws that limits the actions of everyone, just to get rid of a few peoples unlawful conduct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

We can have a open social interactive internet. Just not one where people are allowed to post the property of others. If I break into your house and steal your computer then set up a place where anyone can use it. Is that an open social interactive operation?

That is the problem. You can't have an internet where you prevent people from posting other peoples property, without also limiting a lot of other forms of legit communication and free speech which isn't violating anyone's copyright. A discussion board (like gfy) couldn't work properly, if every post made by anyone would have to go through a moderation que before being published.

glamourmodels · 11-02-2011, 04:42 AM

Rob, you are a first class imbecile. You assume that since I am against this that I must support piracy. Nice tactic. I dont know what you mean about my site, it's not even a dating site. You are not even smart enough to read my banner says "escorts" and yet you think you are smart enough to read through this bill and understand it. LOL. Ok dude.

BTW, your site has pirated content. Once this law passes, maybe I will notify your ISP about it and get your site shut down.

What's that you say? Prove it? No dumbass, I dont have to, thats the point moron, this law says the impetus is on YOU to prove you dont have the offending material, not the other way around. I have to log off GFY now, I can feel my IQ dropping just by hanging around here reading you dipshits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Glamourmodels, do you advertise on sites with pirated content?

Your site looks like any other dating site.

glamourmodels · 11-02-2011, 04:52 AM

Hey asshole, if you dont like free speech move to China. Yes. The way you said it is EXACTLY how it fucking works cocksucker. The first amendment is not for popular speech, popular speech does not need to be protected you mouth breather. The whole point is to allow people you disagree with to speak their mind even if you disagree with them. For instance, a case could be made that it probably would be best if you were forcibly castrated so you could not reproduce and pass on your defective idiot DNA into the gene pool.... however unlike you I believe in free speech, even for imbeciles like you so I defend your right to be an insipid moron

And I have no idea what you are talking about with the advertising... why would I advertise on a tube or download site? Or a dating site? It's an escort site stupid. Plus I am a top SEO consultant for 10+ years. I dont need to buy any links whatsoever LOL, so yes I am against it from a first amendment point of view... but then again people like you are a prime example of why I have changed and welcome your enslavement because Americans are dumb animals that are too stupid to see they are being led to the slaughter so why waste my time protecting your rights if you are too short sighted to? Not worth it. Have fun the next couple of years, people like you deserve what is coming to you most LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

And of course that wikileaks site should be saved at OUR expense. In order for it to survive, we need to allow hordes of parasites to eat us alive.

Piracy sites should continue to thrive because such is the price of freedom. And of course your views have nothing to do with the fact that all piracy sites have those cosy little ad spots available to push crap dating directories. It's strictly about freedom and fighting oppressive gummints.

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nextri

My bad, I mean services like wordpress.com or thumblr or other blogging networks. They couldn't operate if they had to moderate their users. Hence, limiting free speech.

So you're saying facebook is a medium and not a website that is responsible for the communication on it? If that's what you're saying, then you're basically saying it's the one who publishes something who should held responsible, not those who created the medium where the libel took place. Hence, facebook shouldn't be responsible for their users actions, and shouldn't need to moderate it.

And you want the ability to post any content on the internet without moderation impossible? You do know text is also content right? How is the prevention of posting any content on any website not a limitation of freedom?

Of course they can't, because they are the ones publishing it, and they are responsible for it. The same way that I should be responsible for me posting a picture that you own on facebook without your permission. Facebook created the communication platform, and shouldn't be responsible for my actions.

Dumbest argument ever.. A small percentage of youtube's videos are copyright infringments, but there are other ways to deal with it than preventing anyone from uploading anything. They have automatic filters that detects copyrighted sound and video, and automatically removes it, or replaces it with content they make money on. This is the way to fight piracy, and such technology should be further developed and made accessible for others. Not laws that limits the actions of everyone, just to get rid of a few peoples unlawful conduct.

That is the problem. You can't have an internet where you prevent people from posting other peoples property, without also limiting a lot of other forms of legit communication and free speech which isn't violating anyone's copyright. A discussion board (like gfy) couldn't work properly, if every post made by anyone would have to go through a moderation que before being published.

I wondered how long the rope needed to be, for you to hang yourself.

So if it's on a Socially interactive site and put there for "Friends" it's not piracy.

Go think that one through to it's logical conclusion.

The rest is equally foolish. Without making youtube responsible for the content on their site, why should they filter it?

Maybe make the posted easily located and prosecuted. So Youtube has to verify the name and offline address and ID of the poster. Got anymore bright ideas?

Yes this is a hard one to crack. Thankfully for the betterment of all of us the powers that be are not willing to lie down and let crime go on. The argument "Nothing has worked so far, so give up trying." Is an argument of failures. If people adopted that attitude we would all be living in caves. It's mans ability to keep coming beck to a problem and trying to solve when previously his attempts didn't work, that got us out of the Stone Age.

It seems by the look of Nextri's sig, he doesn't work the hassle of being responsible for piracy. For a very good reason. It might stop him from making money. So when he says"You can't have an Internet." He means "I can't have a site and be responsible for it."

MaxCandy · 11-02-2011, 05:25 AM

My thinking on Pirates

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 05:34 AM

The problem is no one has a logical alternative to what the Government is doing.

Damian wants to give up trying. We can't stop it 100% so don't bother.

Nextri says it should be done by filters. With a penalty for those who don't filter or just relying on their good will?

Some say it's about Social Interaction. So it a piracy site stops having just a plain link to a download and makes a post as well, it's fine and not piracy.

So this is fine?

I just got this great new film I would like to share with all my friends on Filesonic www.link-to-a-film-I-don't-own.com

Yes that makes it all legal.

Please come up with a logical argument that makes sense.

We live in a civilised society, nearly, because we have laws that force us to be civilised. Without regulations and laws. Life would be chaos and anarchy. Reflecting what the Internet has become. The notion that a flourishing Internet can't exist with laws and regulations is foolish. It's going to happen so those against it, had best adapt.

Frank21 · 11-02-2011, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Can anyone point out how a law to stop piracy is going to effect my freedom please.

No smart Alec replies. Just point out what in the law makes them bringing down piracy a threat to my freedom to publish and read the truth or grab products that are put out by the owners of licenses that allows them to do this?

Lets just keep it realy simple with a example wich aplies to you personal, because someone who thinks that CNN, BBC, CNBC, FOX are not controlled by the real powerhouse cant be realy smart.

With this "law" any copywriteholder who ALLEGES that any copywrite MAY be violated is enough to shut down the whole website and or network where this message is posted on.
The webmaster therefore will not be checking if you use "fair use" or you actualy have written agreement of this cpoywrite, instead they will delete and bann you imediatly.
Since every webmaster has to review each and every post on his website otherwise he will certainly loose his website yuo will have to pay a fee for each message you post on a website. Lets say a tiny fee of 50 cent per forum post will make for you with 30,274 a whoppping $15,137 dollars for your GFY career.

I know this will be just ok for you to me this is NO FREEDOM.

nextri · 11-02-2011, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I wondered how long the rope needed to be, for you to hang yourself.

So if it's on a Socially interactive site and put there for "Friends" it's not piracy.

Go think that one through to it's logical conclusion.

The rest is equally foolish. Without making youtube responsible for the content on their site, why should they filter it?

Maybe make the posted easily located and prosecuted. So Youtube has to verify the name and offline address and ID of the poster. Got anymore bright ideas?

Yes this is a hard one to crack. Thankfully for the betterment of all of us the powers that be are not willing to lie down and let crime go on. The argument "Nothing has worked so far, so give up trying." Is an argument of failures. If people adopted that attitude we would all be living in caves. It's mans ability to keep coming beck to a problem and trying to solve when previously his attempts didn't work, that got us out of the Stone Age.

It seems by the look of Nextri's sig, he doesn't work the hassle of being responsible for piracy. For a very good reason. It might stop him from making money. So when he says"You can't have an Internet." He means "I can't have a site and be responsible for it."

Your twisting my words.
I'm not saying it's not piracy if I put it up for friends. It is, and I should be held responsible for it, and pay the price. But not those who created the platform I publish it on. That is actually what you said as well:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Libel is the crime of the libeler, not the medium the libel appears on.

Those who publish, should be responsible. Not those who created the technology that let me publish, not those who provide the hosting for the website, and not the isp's who allow traffic to it.

nextri · 11-02-2011, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Nextri says it should be done by filters. With a penalty for those who don't filter or just relying on their good will?

A penalty for those who don't filter could be one of the things to look into. if it's possible to implement. probably not right now, perhaps possible in the future. the technology needs to be developed further. Other things to look into and that some countries are doing, is to make it harder to do things anonymously on the internet, but that has also a lot of privacy concerns to consider. Some countries have created systems that track your activity on the internet and store it for up to 2 years. A lot of things could be done that would be better than this ridiculous bill that limits the very basis of how the internet works, and removes due process for anyone involved.

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank21

Lets just keep it realy simple with a example wich aplies to you personal, because someone who thinks that CNN, BBC, CNBC, FOX are not controlled by the real powerhouse cant be realy smart.

With this "law" any copywriteholder who ALLEGES that any copywrite MAY be violated is enough to shut down the whole website and or network where this message is posted on.
The webmaster therefore will not be checking if you use "fair use" or you actualy have written agreement of this cpoywrite, instead they will delete and bann you imediatly.
Since every webmaster has to review each and every post on his website otherwise he will certainly loose his website yuo will have to pay a fee for each message you post on a website. Lets say a tiny fee of 50 cent per forum post will make for you with 30,274 a whoppping $15,137 dollars for your GFY career.

I know this will be just ok for you to me this is NO FREEDOM.

So no penalty for those making false claims? That's wrong and needs changing if you're right.

OK the website isn't held responsible. Assuming they don't let anyone come in and post. The need to verify the identity of EVERY SINGLE POSTER, prior to them being allowed to post. Verify name, street address, age and anything else.

Of course that's better.

Paul Markham · 11-02-2011, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nextri

Your twisting my words.
I'm not saying it's not piracy if I put it up for friends. It is, and I should be held responsible for it, and pay the price. But not those who created the platform I publish it on. That is actually what you said as well:

Those who publish, should be responsible. Not those who created the technology that let me publish, not those who provide the hosting for the website, and not the isp's who allow traffic to it.

And how do you propose that will work?

Piracy is big business. How do you police a site set up to make money on your hard work and not pay you for it?

Like I said, come up with solutions that work. not ones that don't.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-02-2011, 06:15 AM

SOPA is a proposed criminal statute.

Criminal complaints are brought by the USDOJ USAG (US Attorney General). What US Attorney is going to indict for the theft of pornographer's intellectual property? Never going to happen even if this proposed statue somehow becomes law ( unlikely).

This statute is not tort law (civil code) and you cannot prosecute a criminal statute in a civil suit -- that right is the government's prerogative.

This whole debate on SOPA is a tempest in a teapot.

Nautilus · 11-02-2011, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

SOPA is a proposed criminal statute.

Criminal complaints are brought by the USDOJ USAG (US Attorney General). What US Attorney is going to indict for the theft of pornographer's intellectual property? Never going to happen even if this proposed statue somehow becomes law ( unlikely).

This statute is not tort law (civil code) and you cannot prosecute a criminal statute in a civil suit -- that right is the government's prerogative.

This whole debate on SOPA is a tempest in a teapot.

Yeah, and blocking of thepiratebay that in addition to Hollywood movies hosts tons of full adult site rip is going to achieve nothing for our industry. Blocking or bringing down filesonic and other filehosts that boast the same adult/mainstream duality is also hardly a noteworthy event. Just nothing to talk about. And also precedents and rules of conduct that will be forced upon mainstream tubes such as youtube under SOPA cannot be used by adult industry attorneys to force adult tubes to do the same. Our whole debate is pointless, nothing significant is going to happen. Thanks for letting us know.

Redrob · 11-02-2011, 08:48 AM

Redrob:

Quote:

Glamourmodels, do you advertise on sites with pirated content?

Your site looks like any other dating site.

Glamourmodels:

Quote:

Rob, you are a first class imbecile. You assume that since I am against this that I must support piracy. Nice tactic. I dont know what you mean about my site, it's not even a dating site. You are not even smart enough to read my banner says "escorts" and yet you think you are smart enough to read through this bill and understand it. LOL. Ok dude.

Glamourmodels, please excuse my ignorance as I have never used a dating site and can't imagine how stupid I could be to confuse dating with escorting. Obviously, the money exchanged creates a significant difference.

Secondly, I made no assumptions or accusations concerning your advertising practices or support of piracy. I only asked about advertising on pirate sites in order to clarify whether your arguments were financially based, ethically based or both. I am interested in your reasons for opposing SOPA.

Accusing and attacking those who ask legitimate questions will only weaken your arguments as the actions are seem as a means of deflecting direct questions when your arguments are lacking a logical basis.

signupdamnit · 11-02-2011, 09:10 AM

I think one way to fix this shit is set up a central agency to handle all DMCA takedown requests (preferably electronically) then once confirmed make the website in question hosting the content pay a $9 fee to the owner of the content and a $1 processing fee to the agency for each verified violation. After 24 hours if it isn't removed multiply the fee by ten for each passing 24 hour period (day 1- $10; day 2- $100; day3 - $1000, and so on). After 30 days of an outstanding bill the agency will go after the host and eventually will seize the domain and auction it off to pay any monies owed. Let the pirates pay the costs involved in protecting content from piracy since after all it is their sites. Right now that's the main problem. It costs the content owner money to get the content taken down while it costs the pirate nothing.

L-Pink · 11-02-2011, 09:21 AM

A thread with causalities, all-right!

.

DWB · 11-02-2011, 09:48 AM

A lot of negative and pro-piracy sounding people in this thread.

Wonder if you were alive back in the day if you would have believed the earth was flat, or that man could never fly, or go to the moon.

EVERYTHING happens with baby steps.

Robbie · 11-02-2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nextri

Answer this simple question:
Should facebook have to have moderators to moderate each and every status update, user comment and photo upload from their 700 million users?

Should youtube be forced to approve each and every one of the thousands of videos that gets uploaded every minute?
more specific so it doesn't destroy the very basis of an open social interactive internet.

LOL!

Facebook is ALL OVER people already and always has been. Matter of fact they will yank your account over what other people post on your wall. So using Facebook as some kind of example of loss of "freedom" is incorrect.

YouTube? They yank down shit all the time. All it takes is for a member to flag it as breaking their community guidelines and down it comes. Nope...nobody is going to lose their "freedom" with YouTube either.

Both those sites already DO police the shit out of their sites. And yeah, some stuff may get by...but eventually they do get it. If you don't believe me, just open a Facebook and YouTube account and start posting some topless babes video or using some of the "hate speech" that people use on GFY on a FaceBook wall. Watch how fast they yank down your "freedom"

Robbie · 11-02-2011, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank21

Since every webmaster has to review each and every post on his website otherwise he will certainly loose his website

I know this will be just ok for you to me this is NO FREEDOM.

Wow! You mean just like we did for over a decade with our TGPs?
You mean just like The Hun carefully does every day for all the submissions to his site?

You mean a webmaster would actually have to WORK ON HIS OWN DAMN SITE instead of letting a script automate everything while this so-called "webmaster" just sits back and collects money from other people's hard work?

You call that "NO FREEDOM"?

I call it lazy thieving fucks who SHOULD have to actually review EVERY damn thing that they are stupid enough to let people upload onto their site.

sicone · 11-02-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Can anyone point out how a law to stop piracy is going to effect my freedom please.

No smart Alec replies. Just point out what in the law makes them bringing down piracy a threat to my freedom to publish and read the truth or grab products that are put out by the owners of licenses that allows them to do this?

The law has a much wider range for what will be legal to take down a site, it's not just focused on piracy. It allows corporations and the government free reign over the internet including the ability to remove entire sites and domains from the internet and their owner.

This would be great if it was for stolen works and copyrighted materials only. However the 2 bills being presented (SOPA and E-Parasite) also allow for these actions to be taken against sites that the government and big business doesn't want Joe Public to read as well. Any sites with negative opinions on say the president will be removed permanently, any of the OWS sites and people posting photos, videos and whatever else they made themselves in support would be gone. If a 9/11 type of event was to occur after these bills passed we would be force fed and only allowed to view or post about what the government wanted us too. Think of the internet in China and what they are allowed or not allowed to view.

If my name was Paul Markham, I could complain that your website is harmful to my good name and business I run and your site would be gone. If you write a blog telling about a bad experience at a hotel, that hotel would be allowed to take over and remove your site with no notification to you, no hearing and no legal recourse for you.

So sure, these bills would efficiently put a end to internet piracy, but it would also put a end to the internet, the sharing of information (experiences/reviews/thoughts). The removal of any type of content that any single person may find offensive and not fit to be viewed by the public will be included and removed under these laws. I have the feeling that may just very well include nudity and porn.

You also think that sites such as you tube and facebook should have employees to moderate every post made correct? These laws also stat that ISP's must poilce themselves as well. Every keystroke you make on the internet, every email sent/received would be read, and every url visited and link clicked tracked. Not only is that a huge invasion of privacy but how much will the cost of internet services skyrocket to cover the cost of the number of employees needed to to track all that.

Jel · 11-02-2011, 03:50 PM

I think there's a bit of cross-purpose posting in this thread. As is, the bill is obviously overkill, but *something* should be done, and if it means facebook, youtube, etc have to police and moderate their own fucking sites, then like Robbie says - work for the damn revenue.

porno jew · 11-02-2011, 03:53 PM

funny how selfish people are - they would prefer to strangle the greatest invention since the printing press so they can have the sales they made with paysites in 2002. sad.

L-Pink · 11-02-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

funny how selfish people are - they would prefer to strangle the greatest invention since the printing press so they can have the sales they made with paysites in 2002. sad.

The selfish are the ones stealing not the ones creating. Thieves, bad guys and their greed are the ones to blame not copyright holders.

Because of theft problems and those that support thieves your "freedom" might be restricted. Leave the legal content owners out of this.

.

CaptainHowdy · 11-02-2011, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onedree

he wants to play the game like a hot shot ...

everyone else backed off except for this little twink punk ...
Now he and his little bro club cant handle it ...

Sopakingbanned ...

gideongallery · 11-02-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

They earn proportionally more and should be able to hire additional staff or implement relevant tech. If they do not earn enough money to do that, it's their problem how to monetize their traffic.

But how hard it actually is to police even a huge site? Not that hard actually. Here are a few simple steps:

1. Implement DFP. That will stop infringment cold for all content that is registered in the database. Does not require more staff at all, works automatically.

2. Ban repeat infringers and delete ALL of their uploads upon recieving X number of valid DMCAs from trusted copyright holders. That works very well too because there are usually relatively few uploaders that are responsible for most of the copyright infringement. Ban them and your piracy numbers will be reduced a great deal in an instant.

3. Do not encourage piracy in any form. Make sure to make it clear for surfers that you have zero tolerance policy for that kinda shit and you'll kill their account with everything that was in it no matter if some of the uploaded files might be legal. That serves as the great deterrent and makes surfers think twice before stealing shit.

4. Do not reward uploaders in any form, unless they're proven copyright holders. Since many uploaders do it for money, cutting them their income immediatly discourages them from pirating shit.

5. Use "report abuse" buttons to engage community in finding infringments. With that you get huge additional task force that is very effective and totally free for you.

6. Use stricter registration procedures, such as phone verification. That will serve as the great deterrent too.

How hard is it to implement any of the above? Not hard at all, and it all costs either peanuts or nothing at all, even for a big site. So when piracy singers bitch and moan about those impossible "burdens" they are just lieing as always. Getting rid of piracy is not the matter of any impossible burden, it is only a question of whether you really WANT to do that or not. With SOPA in effect, all UCG sites will suddenly WANT to get rid of piracy for real (because their half assed attempts that they're demonstrating today will not fly in courts anymore), and they'll surely be able to do that.

do you trust dfp enough to willing give up your copyright to all your content if it mistakenly tags fair use/ or authorized content.

if not you just proved that dfp has false positives that will destroy free speech.

Redrob · 11-02-2011, 07:07 PM

The owners of the intellectual property should give up nothing to stop piracy.

No quid pro quo for thieves......stealing is just wrong and should be eliminated.

Robbie · 11-02-2011, 08:54 PM

gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

The owners of the intellectual property should give up nothing to stop piracy.
No quid pro quo for thieves......stealing is just wrong and should be eliminated.

I have gideongallery on "ignore", but judging from your reply to him I can guess what stupid shit he is saying:

He's saying that people who actually put the work in to create things should put all their work in the public domain in some kind of stupid bet with him?

The guy is so goddamned predictable. And such a total and compete failure in life.

11-02-2011, 12:14 AM	#103
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Can anyone point out how a law to stop piracy is going to effect my freedom please. No smart Alec replies. Just point out what in the law makes them bringing down piracy a threat to my freedom to publish and read the truth or grab products that are put out by the owners of licenses that allows them to do this? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

11-02-2011, 01:11 AM	#108
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	I think you have an interest in piracy on your repeated statements on the fight to stop it. You have always ridiculed, complained and protested about any attempts to restrict or slow down piracy. You base your lies on "Someone told me." I don't have to hear what others tell me to form an opinion. I read your words. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

11-02-2011, 03:04 AM	#115
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	This sounds like a job for Winston Wolf... Ban both Paul and Damian - problem solved. Make me a fucking mod, and I swear some knucklehead noggins would be knocked together and rolling around gfy'ville (might try and use some AVN resources to actually conduct a real investigation or two as well, lol). Well, at least one good thing came from this thread, Silly Rant / ondree was (finally) banned (again). I guess AVN should still keep Tender Thighs on the payroll (the old fart should be just about due to start pulling pension one of these days, I reckon). ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

11-02-2011, 05:25 AM	#128
MaxCandy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Montreal, London, Prague, Budapest, LA and Vegas Posts: 3,750	My thinking on Pirates __________________ Need a High-End Custom Shoot? Award Winning Producer / Director / Industry Consultant. Five of my Feature Films have been given top AVN / XBIZ / VENUS awards; How I Became A Sexual Slave 2016, L’Innocente 2014, Inglorious Bitches 2013, Ritual 2011 & Sexual Adventures of Little Red 2009 SINCE 1996 - IMDB Imdb.com - SAMPLES/AWARDS MaxCandy.com Email MaxCandy at MaxCandy.com

11-02-2011, 05:34 AM	#129
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	The problem is no one has a logical alternative to what the Government is doing. Damian wants to give up trying. We can't stop it 100% so don't bother. Nextri says it should be done by filters. With a penalty for those who don't filter or just relying on their good will? Some say it's about Social Interaction. So it a piracy site stops having just a plain link to a download and makes a post as well, it's fine and not piracy. So this is fine? I just got this great new film I would like to share with all my friends on Filesonic www.link-to-a-film-I-don't-own.com Yes that makes it all legal. Please come up with a logical argument that makes sense. We live in a civilised society, nearly, because we have laws that force us to be civilised. Without regulations and laws. Life would be chaos and anarchy. Reflecting what the Internet has become. The notion that a flourishing Internet can't exist with laws and regulations is foolish. It's going to happen so those against it, had best adapt. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

11-02-2011, 06:15 AM	#135
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	SOPA is a proposed criminal statute. Criminal complaints are brought by the USDOJ USAG (US Attorney General). What US Attorney is going to indict for the theft of pornographer's intellectual property? Never going to happen even if this proposed statue somehow becomes law ( unlikely). This statute is not tort law (civil code) and you cannot prosecute a criminal statute in a civil suit -- that right is the government's prerogative. This whole debate on SOPA is a tempest in a teapot.

11-02-2011, 09:10 AM	#138
signupdamnit Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,697	I think one way to fix this shit is set up a central agency to handle all DMCA takedown requests (preferably electronically) then once confirmed make the website in question hosting the content pay a $9 fee to the owner of the content and a $1 processing fee to the agency for each verified violation. After 24 hours if it isn't removed multiply the fee by ten for each passing 24 hour period (day 1- $10; day 2- $100; day3 - $1000, and so on). After 30 days of an outstanding bill the agency will go after the host and eventually will seize the domain and auction it off to pay any monies owed. Let the pirates pay the costs involved in protecting content from piracy since after all it is their sites. Right now that's the main problem. It costs the content owner money to get the content taken down while it costs the pirate nothing. Last edited by signupdamnit; 11-02-2011 at 09:12 AM..

11-02-2011, 09:21 AM	#139
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,152	A thread with causalities, all-right! .

11-02-2011, 09:48 AM	#140
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	A lot of negative and pro-piracy sounding people in this thread. Wonder if you were alive back in the day if you would have believed the earth was flat, or that man could never fly, or go to the moon. EVERYTHING happens with baby steps.

11-02-2011, 03:50 PM	#144
Jel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,904	I think there's a bit of cross-purpose posting in this thread. As is, the bill is obviously overkill, but something should be done, and if it means facebook, youtube, etc have to police and moderate their own fucking sites, then like Robbie says - work for the damn revenue.

11-02-2011, 03:53 PM	#145
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	funny how selfish people are - they would prefer to strangle the greatest invention since the printing press so they can have the sales they made with paysites in 2002. sad.

11-02-2011, 07:07 PM	#149
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	The owners of the intellectual property should give up nothing to stop piracy. No quid pro quo for thieves......stealing is just wrong and should be eliminated.