Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has the internet pirates squirming and sweating! - Page 7 - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

I don't have a problem with "approved or sample cleared" music.

And there's nothing in the proposed Act which says that you cannot apply for the required clearances from the copyright owner if you wish to use their creation for cover or sample purposes.

non commercial covers are fair use authorized not artist authorized

you just destroyed legitimate fair use with that statement

tell me what happens under this law if the artist is a dick who doesn't give permission.

you got it the free speech is censored.

kane · 11-06-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

ah i see so your fudging the number to include music video production in the total cost of producing the RECORD.

the scum bag is strong in you my friend

all the kickstarter campaigns are just for the RECORD deal.

WTF are you talking about? I don't say anything about music videos anywhere in what I wrote. Are you off your meds again?

BTW music video production is almost always a cost recouped by the artist as part of the promotion costs of the album and they don't see a dime of royalties until that money is paid back. They don't just pay back their advance and and record production costs and then suddenly get to start pocketing money from tour.

If that is the critera then I have 2 more examples.

1. Aerosmith. I mentioned them above. They signed a deal that gave them $10 million in advance money per album. They spent a ton of money producing those albums because they would live big, stay in nice places, record in exotic locals and bill it all to the label as production costs. The sales of their royalty share of the record sales never covered those costs yet they toured the world in stadiums and made millions.

2. No Doubt. When they were at the height of their fame the got a deal similar to the Aerosmith deal. They would do things like go to Jamaica for a month to record and bill it all to production. Their royalties never covered that amount, but they sold out stadiums world wide and banked tens of millions of dollars from it.

Again, I'm sure their are others.

PiracyPitbull · 11-06-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

non commercial covers are fair use authorized not artist authorized

you just destroyed legitimate fair use with that statement

Your version of "fair use" is a bit warped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

tell me what happens under this law if the artist is a dick who doesn't give permission.

you got it the free speech is censored.

Why is the original artist a dick ?

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

1. Aerosmith. I mentioned them above. They signed a deal that gave them $10 million in advance money per album. They spent a ton of money producing those albums because they would live big, stay in nice places, record in exotic locals and bill it all to the label as production costs. The sales of their royalty share of the record sales never covered those costs yet they toured the world in stadiums and made millions.

2. No Doubt. When they were at the height of their fame the got a deal similar to the Aerosmith deal. They would do things like go to Jamaica for a month to record and bill it all to production. Their royalties never covered that amount, but they sold out stadiums world wide and banked tens of millions of dollars from it.

Again, I'm sure their are others.

wow so your using an example of an ESTABLISH artist who is already playing 25k venues squeezing the record company for a fair deal

or a band trying to get their record company to release them by artificially inflating the cost obligations as a justification for your bogus story

look at it again

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Major Label Artists ends up having $2million dollars worth of production and promotion put behind their album. They sell 2 million copies of that album, but still don't make enough to pay back the studio. However, they score a top 10 hit single so they are making some great money off of performance royalties from radio stations. They might license the music (if they own the publishing) and make more. Where they will score big is touring. A record that sells like that will have them playing a summer festival circuit followed by a ton of holiday large scale shows where they play radio station concerts, music festivals etc. By the spring they will have likely opened for a larger act and are now headlining their own tour and playing in front of 1,000 -2,000 people every night.

1. record company invest 2 million dollars
2. they sell 2 million copies
3. they don't pay back the record company
4. however because of all that promotion they pull gigs on the summer festival circuit
5. followed by radio station concerts, music festivals etc.

I have been looking for an example of that for years

i have never seen it

no record company has ever plowed money into the promotion of an unknown band

every band had to go thru years of paying back all advances BEFORE they ever got the push that would allow them play major stadiums and ONLY then did they ever get an advance so big they couldn't pay it back.

In all the years i have been looking into this, with all my friends in the music industry, not one person has shown me the chain of events you described in your little story.

vsex · 11-06-2011, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

non commercial covers are fair use authorized not artist authorized

you just destroyed legitimate fair use with that statement

tell me what happens under this law if the artist is a dick who doesn't give permission.

you got it the free speech is censored.

that makes no sense, as usual.

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

Your version of "fair use" is a bit warped.

care to actually explain yourself there

which one of the for conditions of fair use does a "non commercial cover that is different enough that it would not cost the original artist a single lost sale" did i break

Quote:

Why is the original artist a dick ?

so you want to live in a world were people have the right to say "you can say that because i strung those words together in that way before you"

you really believe that the copyright act is so unconstitutionally flawed it legitimately allows that level of control.

that exactly what fair use is designed to prevent

SmutHammer · 11-06-2011, 02:14 PM

ummm, this is a webmaster board for people in the industry right? Just don't understand why all these trolls are here spamming, if they have nothing to do with the industry, and not only support piracy but admit to doing it daily.... gfy is another company losing in profits because of piracy, why not ban these people?

jimmycooper · 11-06-2011, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

You total and utter cunt

lol. I actually feel sorry for him if he thinks that he's not allowed to watch porn with anyone. Given that he's a truck driver with noticeably poor grammar skills, it's also reasonable to assume that he lacks a proper education and more than likely has not had much exposure to the finer things in life. He's probably not part of the primary demographic for something produced by someone like Marc Dorcel or the fictional character of ambiguous sexuality known as Cherry Chapman. He probably did his valuations based on Bang Bros. type content which, let's face it, has been so devalued to the point that his $0.50 valuation wasn't too far off the mark. I actually think it's kind of neat to read about how he views the world and whatnot.

BTW - Got my copy of Inglorious Bitches in the mail earlier this week. Haven't watched it yet but am hoping to at some point this week with a girl I hooked up with a month or so ago. May give it a test run beforehand to make sure I know the exact time the anal scenes start. lol

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vsex

that makes no sense, as usual.

he said the only way you should be allowed to cover a song is if you got authorization from the original singer

the only way you could sample their song is if you got permission

it doesn't matter that the new law doesn't hinder authorized covers

it the unauthorized ones that NEED to be protected for free speech and fair market competition purposes.

SmutHammer · 11-06-2011, 02:21 PM

Thats right, Protect the thieves who live by thier own rules!

kane · 11-06-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

wow so your using an example of an ESTABLISH artist who is already playing 25k venues squeezing the record company for a fair deal

or a band trying to get their record company to release them by artificially inflating the cost obligations as a justification for your bogus story

look at it again

1. record company invest 2 million dollars
2. they sell 2 million copies
3. they don't pay back the record company
4. then pull the summer festival circuit
5. followed by radio station concerts, music festivals etc.

I have been looking for an example of that for years

i have never seen it

no record company has ever plowed money into the promotion of an unknown band

every band had to go thru years of paying back all advances BEFORE they ever got the push that would allow them play major stadiums and ONLY then did they ever get an advance so big they couldn't pay it back.

In all the years i have been looking into this, with all my friends in the music industry, not one person has shown me the chain of events you described in your little story.

Please tell me you really aren't this dumb.

You have never heard of a record label plowing money into an unknown act? Again, read a book called "So You Want to be a Rock N Roll Star." The book is about the rise of Semisonic. It explains how the label had more than a million dollars invested in them by the time their debut record was on the shelf.

Here are a few others.

Britney Spears - a HUGE promotional push right from the start.
Christina Aguilera - See Britney Spears
Candlebox - this band had only played a handful of live shows and signed for an $800K advance and had at least another million dollars in them before they ever released a record.
Everclear - the band I mentioned before went through this exact stage.

There are many others like Ashanti, Taylor Swift, Avril Lavigne, Justin Beiber, while I don't know how much they had invested in them, it was A LOT. There are many cases where record labels put a ton of money into unknown acts because they think they have the ability to be huge right out the gate.

Let's just agree to be done with this topic. It doesn't matter how I answer the question you won't be happy that you are wrong so you will just change the question again. So this is my last answer to you in this thread.

PiracyPitbull · 11-06-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

care to actually explain yourself there

which one of the for conditions of fair use does a "non commercial cover that is different enough that it would not cost the original artist a single lost sale" did i break

We've gone through this before - I can't be bothered to do it again, you aren't going to change

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so you want to live in a world were people have the right to say "you can say that because i strung those words together in that way before you"

you really believe that the copyright act is so unconstitutionally flawed it legitimately allows that level of control.

that exactly what fair use is designed to prevent

When people sample or cover, they aren't just using the same words in the same order - they are also using the melody and musical phrasing.

So to be honest, yeah, I have no issues living in a world where that person has more of a say with what happens to their creation.......and "if" someone wants to use it, they get clearance and if need be, pay for the right.

Otherwise.......we have an explosion of untalented and uncreative people using the works of others......great, I can get tons of music for free but at the cost of real creativity.

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Please tell me you really aren't this dumb.

You have never heard of a record label plowing money into an unknown act? Again, read a book called "So You Want to be a Rock N Roll Star." The book is about the rise of Semisonic. It explains how the label had more than a million dollars invested in them by the time their debut record was on the shelf.

Here are a few others.

Britney Spears - a HUGE promotional push right from the start.
Christina Aguilera - See Britney Spears
Candlebox - this band had only played a handful of live shows and signed for an $800K advance and had at least another million dollars in them before they ever released a record.
Everclear - the band I mentioned before went through this exact stage.

There are many others like Ashanti, Taylor Swift, Avril Lavigne, Justin Beiber, while I don't know how much they had invested in them, it was A LOT. There are many cases where record labels put a ton of money into unknown acts because they think they have the ability to be huge right out the gate.

Let's just agree to be done with this topic. It doesn't matter how I answer the question you won't be happy that you are wrong so you will just change the question again. So this is my last answer to you in this thread.

and exactly which one of those failed to pay back the advance.

every single case you referenced made investment in stages

while they might have ultimately put did not invest in advance

justin beiber made back the entire production cost of entire album on the first single

his advance was tiny at first.

your using examples of establish bands who already were doing 25k stadiums and only got the not covering the advance at the tail end of their deals.

and now your using examples of people who paid back the advance hand over fist and got their push after they prove themselves at the smaller scale level.

to make your bogus claim

again order is important

1. money
2. not paying back
3. however getting concerts
4. 25 k stadium

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

We've gone through this before - I can't be bothered to do it again, you aren't going to change

so like the last time you cant, it your same bullshit copyright monopoly should be absolute because that the way i want it to be.

Quote:

When people sample or cover, they aren't just using the same words in the same order - they are also using the melody and musical phrasing.

So to be honest, yeah, I have no issues living in a world where that person has more of a say with what happens to their creation.......and "if" someone wants to use it, they get clearance and if need be, pay for the right.

Otherwise.......we have an explosion of untalented and uncreative people using the works of others......great, I can get tons of music for free but at the cost of real creativity.

thank god the first amendment makes sure your insane level of control can't happen

songs /speeches are all protected equally

imagine if we lived in a world where the only way you could use a politicians speech to make fun of him was if you got his permission.

kane · 11-06-2011, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and exactly which one of those failed to pay back the advance.

every single case you referenced made investment in stages

while they might have ultimately put did not invest in advance

justin beiber made back the entire production cost of entire album on the first single

his advance was tiny at first.

your using examples of establish bands who already were doing 25k stadiums and only got the not covering the advance at the tail end of their deals.

and now your using examples of people who paid back the advance hand over fist and got their push after they prove themselves at the smaller scale level.

to make your bogus claim

again order is important

1. money
2. not paying back
3. however getting concerts
4. 25 k stadium

OK, I lied. One more response. You keep changing your question. now we are back to your first question.

My last post was in response to this statement by you :"no record company has ever plowed money into the promotion of an unknown band"

I have a list there that clearly makes that statement false.

You don't need to respond. I don't really care what your response is, it will likely be you once again changing the question.

PiracyPitbull · 11-06-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so like the last time you cant, it your same bullshit copyright monopoly should be absolute because that the way i want it to be.

lol, thats not what happened last time

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

thank god the first amendment makes sure your insane level of control can't happen

songs /speeches are all protected equally

imagine if we lived in a world where the only way you could use a politicians speech to make fun of him was if you got his permission.

Insane level of control LOL......seriously, go and create something for once.

CrkMStanz · 11-06-2011, 03:13 PM

One more step towards a piracy free internet - not that I think it will ever be free of pirates/thieves - I just rejoice at every milestone

http://torrentfreak.com/major-usenet...-order-111106/

there is room on the internet for people to give THEIR OWN work away for free

and there is room for people to SELL their work and be protected from those who steal

the consumer will decide which methodology will prevail

the consumer has NO RIGHT to decide what is free and what is not - that is up to the producers of content

don't want to pay for it? then don't.

you are not entitled to just take what you want.

and you certainly are not entitled to profit from your thievery - directly OR indirectly

.

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

lol, thats not what happened last time

really why don't you post the link then

PiracyPitbull · 11-06-2011, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

One more step towards a piracy free internet - not that I think it will ever be free of pirates/thieves - I just rejoice at every milestone

http://torrentfreak.com/major-usenet...-order-111106/

there is room on the internet for people to give THEIR OWN work away for free

and there is room for people to SELL their work and be protected from those who steal

the consumer will decide which methodology will prevail

the consumer has NO RIGHT to decide what is free and what is not - that is up to the producers of content

don't want to pay for it? then don't.

you are not entitled to just take what you want.

and you certainly are not entitled to profit from your thievery - directly OR indirectly

.

Read that earlier and couldn't help but be a little happier today

Of course, the pirates are blaming everyone BUT themselves for current course of events.

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

and you certainly are not entitled to profit from your thievery - directly OR indirectly

.

well everything on the internet indirectly profits from piracy at some time or another

so say good bye to the internet.

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

OK, I lied. One more response. You keep changing your question. now we are back to your first question.

My last post was in response to this statement by you :"no record company has ever plowed money into the promotion of an unknown band"

I have a list there that clearly makes that statement false.

You don't need to respond. I don't really care what your response is, it will likely be you once again changing the question.

so the only way you respond is to deliberately cut my sentance in half

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no record company has ever plowed money into the promotion of an unknown band

every band had to go thru years of paying back all advances BEFORE they ever got the push that would allow them play major stadiums and ONLY then did they ever get an advance so big they couldn't pay it back.

there no period there buddy boy it all one sentence

even so your still misrepresenting again, by definition if they became a smash success after the limited money push on the single

they are no longer UNKNOWN

at that point that is investment in an established success.

Artist-fill-in-name-here your first single sold so well your now a major success we could pay 2 million in royalties but we are going to spend half that money on the rest of your album is not nor will it ever be investing in an unknown band/artist.

Robbie · 11-06-2011, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

ummm, this is a webmaster board for people in the industry right? Just don't understand why all these trolls are here spamming, if they have nothing to do with the industry, and not only support piracy but admit to doing it daily.... gfy is another company losing in profits because of piracy, why not ban these people?

gideongallery should have been banned from here a long time ago.

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

gideongallery should have been banned from here a long time ago.

if really wasn't making sales you could got me out of hear by simply taking the pussycash bet.

The fact that backpeddle like a little bitch means you know i more than qualify.

gideongallery · 11-06-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

OK, I lied. One more response. You keep changing your question. now we are back to your first question.

good to see you admitting you a scum bag who never answered the first question that resulted from me catching you in a lie.

to bad you had to cut my statement in half to misrepresent same question as "changing your question"

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 11-06-2011, 05:53 PM

ADG

Nautilus · 11-06-2011, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

One more step towards a piracy free internet - not that I think it will ever be free of pirates/thieves - I just rejoice at every milestone

http://torrentfreak.com/major-usenet...-order-111106/

there is room on the internet for people to give THEIR OWN work away for free

and there is room for people to SELL their work and be protected from those who steal

the consumer will decide which methodology will prevail

the consumer has NO RIGHT to decide what is free and what is not - that is up to the producers of content

don't want to pay for it? then don't.

you are not entitled to just take what you want.

and you certainly are not entitled to profit from your thievery - directly OR indirectly

.

That pretty much sums it all up.

It is sick when crowd is making decisions on what's going to happen with a product that YOU created, and it has to stop. Content creators should be given back the ability to control all venues of distribution of their products, which as we all hope this new bill is going to achieve. If content creators see value in giving their products away for free, they can do that anytime, internet is still there for them to explore whatever opportunity they deem interesting and promising. Free, paid, or some mix of both, whatever. Crowd has no say in such matters, it is completely up to copyright holder to decide. Especially since as we all know that in practice those "decisions" made by crowds never boast huge variety and they're pretty much always FREE FREE FREE.

SOPA is not going to shut down the internet as some of the doomsday sayers in this thread are trying to convince us. Internet will still be there, SOPA or not, and it is still a free media that can be explored by creative people to promote their work using whatever option they see fit. Piracy is not necessary to pave way for new bands/artists whoever to make themselves known, there are tons of legit ways to promote yourself without resorting to high traffic piracy sites that make their living by cannibalizing creative works of other people.

Internet WAS a free media awhile back in pre-piracy times that allowed tons of creative people to thrive by selling their original works, it allowed many companies like ours for example to start from scratch and to grow without limitations of physical world. But now it is quickly coming to the point where internet is no longer free media, I mean it is not free anymore for us the people who actually create content that millions of other people download and enjoy. It is only free for thieves cheered up by hordes of freeloaders, but not for us content creators anymore. Internet is on it's way to becoming a BURDENING SLAVERY for anyone who's capable of actually creating something original, not just "posting" or "commenting". Anything that can be digitized WILL BE STOLEN and posted to download for free at thepiratebay and the likes. There are no other options. That's a fact that we're facing every day. Creative people are becoming SLAVES to parasites who feed themselves by posting links to stolen shit whithout any reward or royalties to the original producer.

That couldn't go on much longer. As the world is becoming increasingly digital, internet couldn't be just a buttom feeder media that lives off of whatever is left from the traditional media industries that are still producing something original that can be stolen and posted to download free. In such a shape and form internet is threating entire world's creativity because traditional channels of distribution will stop working soon while new digital channels are not viable solution because they're completely controlled by pirates. Something has to be done to stop it.

Nautilus · 11-06-2011, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

Read that earlier and couldn't help but be a little happier today

Yep that's actually HUGE news because news-service.com is (was) a backbone usenet provider that has (had) alot of scamming resellers such as usenext who were sponsoring lots of other piracy sites.

So shutting them down will not simply decrease the availability of pirated materials, but will also cut ad dollars that went to support lots of smaller piracy sites.

Paul Markham · 11-07-2011, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

ummm, this is a webmaster board for people in the industry right? Just don't understand why all these trolls are here spamming, if they have nothing to do with the industry, and not only support piracy but admit to doing it daily.... gfy is another company losing in profits because of piracy, why not ban these people?

Because pirates and supporters of pirates or piracy buy adverts. Also idiots like GG boost the post count.

he should be outed for his real involvement in this business, so we can choose to or not, do business with him. Or if he's not in the business kicked out.

Damian who from his history of posts hates any attempt to bring down piracy is harming himself. His marketing of himself is an indication of his marketing skills.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 11-07-2011, 01:14 AM

ADG

DamianJ · 11-07-2011, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

I am depressed though that you don't seem to understand the investment, time, people and expertise that go into making mainstream culture.

How does my thinking this bill is shit translate to me not understanding mainstream culture?

DamianJ · 11-07-2011, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Damian who from his history of posts hates any attempt to bring down piracy is harming himself. His marketing of himself is an indication of his marketing skills.

I think you posting that you think teachers have a will of iron to resist fucking 15 years olds is much more dangerous Paul.

So yes, I do oppose wasting money in a futile manner.

But you, you posted saying your friends think it would be a bad idea for you to be a teacher, that you are happy to take topless photos of a 15 year old and that you think teachers have an iron will to avoid fucking the children in their care.

No idea what you are trying to market yourself as by posting that.

I am marketing myself as someone who opposes stupid, untenable bills that will stifle creativity, start-ups and cripple the internet. You support them because you've not read them, you don't understand the internet and you think it will stop piracy.

You do the math, girlfriend.

Still nice you stopped ignoring me again. I knew it wouldn't last long.

V_RocKs · 11-07-2011, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank21

No they start with your website. If you do it again you loose your "privilage" to access the internet.

Contrary to what you believe this bill will not be used to catch only the big guys who actualy make money with stealing stuff. But will be used against people like you and me.
I dont think it is stealing music if they force it dwn your throath on radio comercials and stuff like that.
And yes i did throw away my tv and radio cause i do not even want to listen their music.
But i do not think their crap can be a reason to shut down websites and youtube accounts.

snoooooooozzzzzeeee....

gideongallery · 11-07-2011, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

So to be honest, yeah, I have no issues living in a world where that person has more of a say with what happens to their creation.......and "if" someone wants to use it, they get clearance and if need be, pay for the right.

Otherwise.......we have an explosion of untalented and uncreative people using the works of others......great, I can get tons of music for free but at the cost of real creativity.

says the guy who entire business model is a copy of another DMCA outsourcing service

so did you get permission for your copying
how much do you pay in royalties for "stealing" their business model

Paul Markham · 11-07-2011, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank21

No they start with MY website. If I do it again I loose MY "privilage" to access the internet.

Contrary to what you believe this bill will not be used to catch only the big guys who actualy make money with stealing stuff. But will be used against people like ME.
I dont think it is stealing music if they force it dwn MY throath on radio comercials and stuff like that.
And yes i did throw away my tv and radio cause i do not even want to listen their music.
But i do not think their crap can be a reason to shut down MY websites and youtube accounts.

REWORDED TO MAKE IT ACCURATE. Reworded to make it accurate.

They won't shut down law abiding sites or people, unless they want to get the whole law over turned in the Supreme Court. They will shut down the scum who steal because they can and then find stupid reasons to justify their theft.

Also try using spell check your English is worse than mine.

Paul Markham · 11-07-2011, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

How does my thinking this bill is shit translate to me not understanding ANYTHING?

REWORDED TO MAKE IT TRUE.

[QUOTE=DamianJ;18541527]I think you posting that you think teachers have a will of iron to resist fucking 15 years olds is much more dangerous Paul. LET ME SEE IF i CAN SIDE TRACK PAUL AWAY FROM THE DEBATE.

Quote:

So yes, I do oppose SPENDING money in a ANY ATTEMPT TO REDUCE PIRACY.

Quote:

But you, you posted saying your friends think it would be a bad idea for you to be a teacher, that you are happy to take topless photos of a 15 year old and that you think teachers have an iron will to avoid fucking the children in their care.LET ME SEE IF i CAN SIDE TRACK PAUL AWAY FROM THE DEBATE.

Quote:

No idea what I'M trying to market MYself as SOMEONE WHO OPPOSES MEASURE TO LIMIT PIRACY BY posting THIS. ON A BOARD OF PEOPLE WHO ARE LOSING MONEY TO PIRATES. WELL MAYBE THEY ARE. .

I am marketing myself as someone who opposes ANY MEASURES TO LIMIT PIRACY, bills that will stifle PIRACY. You support them because you've not read them, you DO understand the internet and you WANT THIS TO STOP piracy.

You do the math, girlfriend. OF WHAT THIS MIGHT COST THOSE MAKING A LIVING FROM PIRACY.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND GFY AND THE "VIEW POST" BUTTON AND WHY PEOPLE WON'T LET ME HANG MYSELF BY MY BALLS.

Reworded to make it accurate.

Damian you're either stupid to the limit of stupidity, or the worse marketing man in online porn or a pirate. Pick anyone or all 3. this is a board of potential customers for you. These guys are, so you say, your only income. Unlike me you don't have it as your second income stream. So posting that you're opposed to any measures to limit piracy is business suicide.

And you've done this since the very beginning. You have always been opposed to limits on piracy, and attempts to limit piracy and think it should be made legal or ignored. I remember your posts on P2P and measures to stop it.

Maybe this bill isn't a 100% slam dunk, bills never are and never intended to be. But it's a way to limit the effect piracy has on huge businesses way beyond your comprehension. your posts about how much Microsoft and the music industry make and therefore justifying piracy of their product. Show your thinking. You don't think of the 10,000s of people doing an ordinary job off that money. you think it goes into the pockets of a few at the top. It doesn't. Like online porn the money is spread around.

Some goes to affiliates, some to shooters, some to designers, some to hosting, some to broke little marketing men so they can pay the rent. The $30 is spread thin. Like the $Billions Microsoft makes.

Now if you think you or any other piracy supporter has a snow balls chance in hell of stopping this bill, you're not stupid. You're stark raving mad.

The Navy has the pirates in it's sights and it will take a few cannon balls to sink their ships. but they will get sunk or at least reduced. Live with that fact and tailor your online activities. Adapt or get taken down.

That was fun, more fun than teasing Rajah with his toys. Mind you it was easier. Rajah bites back with real teeth.

DamianJ · 11-07-2011, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So posting that you're opposed to any measures to limit piracy is business suicide.

Well, let's have a think about it, shall we? Has ANYTHING had any impact on piracy? No. Have millions of dollars been wasted? Yes. Do I think if that money was spent on making a better product more revenue would have been generated? Yes.

I think posting you are in favour of government censorship as a pornographer is more stupid that posting saying you are against paying snake oil salesmen money to fail to stop piracy. But whatever.

I know you are really really fucking stupid and all, but you need to learn that because I am against wasting money pointlessly doesn't mean for a split second I agree with piracy. I just don't agree with wasting money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

And you've done this since the very beginning. You have always been opposed to limits on piracy, and attempts to limit piracy and think it should be made legal or ignored.

I've never once said it should be made legal.

You are your lies Paulie!

Shall I start telling lies about you too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Maybe this bill isn't a 100% slam dunk, bills never are and never intended to be.
But it's a way to limit the effect piracy has on huge businesses way beyond your comprehension. your posts about how much Microsoft and the music industry make and therefore justifying piracy of their product.

No, the posts about how much the music industry makes was a reply to Cherry saying the music industry is fucked. It clearly isn't. And piracy is clearly not really stopping Microsoft making billions of dollars. There is no justification whatsoever for piracy. It is illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Some goes to affiliates, some to shooters, some to designers, some to hosting, some to broke little marketing men so they can pay the rent. The $30 is spread thin. Like the $Billions Microsoft makes.

No, that was PROFIT. Do you know what PROFIT means?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Now if you think you or any other piracy supporter has a snow balls chance in hell of stopping this bill, you're not stupid. You're stark raving mad.

Again, do you want to bet on that? Any money you like. Tell you what. If the bill goes through I will leave GFY for ever and eric permabans me. If it doesn't go through, you leave. Put your money where your mouth is, old man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The Navy has the pirates in it's sights and it will take a few cannon balls to sink their ships. but they will get sunk or at least reduced. Live with that fact and tailor your online activities. Adapt or get taken down.

It's so sweet you actually seem to think piracy is stoppable. So sweet.

Paul Markham · 11-07-2011, 04:24 AM

You have to wonder why Damian is so against others wasting their time passing laws to stop piracy online.

It's not his time that's being wasted. It's not even the UK Government wasting time. So the effect on him, if he's legal and above board s not a lot. The possibility eventually these measures will limit piracy of the product in the industry he says he makes his living is there.

So no cost to him, if he is legal and above board. And the possibility of a benefit.

Something isn't quite right here.

He was vehemently opposed to sending out letter to pirates. With the threat of going to court or settling out of court.

Did anyone here his voiced raised when Acacia were sending out similar letters to law abiding firms? I don't remember his posts, maybe he would like to show them to us. Seems strange one form of blackmail he has little to say on and the other a lot. Whats the difference?

As he doesn't own a site, Acacia won't come after hi. As he's not a pirate and clever enough to stop others leeching off his Wi Fi, he's not going to get a letter from a lawyer accusing him wrongly of being a pirate.

Something isn't quite right here.

If it smells fishy, it's a good chance it is fishy.

Jel · 11-07-2011, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

LET ME SEE IF i CAN SIDE TRACK PAUL AWAY FROM THE DEBATE.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Fucking priceless

Jel · 11-07-2011, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Well, let's have a think about it, shall we? Has ANYTHING had any impact on piracy? No.

You can't make that statement as fact.

Are you involved in piracy (I'm not saying you are btw, I think the opposite). If not, why not? I asked before, but don't think you answered - if piracy was completely unpunishable, and there were zero comebacks whatsoever, and it wasn't seen as unethical, would you be involved in piracy? I know I would, but as there ARE comebacks and punishments, I'm not.

So there you go, an example of comebacks having an impact on piracy.

Jel · 11-07-2011, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You have to wonder why Damian is so against others wasting their time passing laws to stop piracy online.

It's not his time that's being wasted. It's not even the UK Government wasting time. So the effect on him, if he's legal and above board s not a lot. The possibility eventually these measures will limit piracy of the product in the industry he says he makes his living is there.

So no cost to him, if he is legal and above board. And the possibility of a benefit.

Something isn't quite right here.

He was vehemently opposed to sending out letter to pirates. With the threat of going to court or settling out of court.

Did anyone here his voiced raised when Acacia were sending out similar letters to law abiding firms? I don't remember his posts, maybe he would like to show them to us. Seems strange one form of blackmail he has little to say on and the other a lot. Whats the difference?

As he doesn't own a site, Acacia won't come after hi. As he's not a pirate and clever enough to stop others leeching off his Wi Fi, he's not going to get a letter from a lawyer accusing him wrongly of being a pirate.

Something isn't quite right here.

If it smells fishy, it's a good chance it is fishy.

Shut up you fucking tool, you're an embarrassment to the thread.

DamianJ · 11-07-2011, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

You can't make that statement as fact.

Are you involved in piracy (I'm not saying you are btw, I think the opposite). If not, why not? I asked before, but don't think you answered - if piracy was completely unpunishable, and there were zero comebacks whatsoever, and it wasn't seen as unethical, would you be involved in piracy? I know I would, but as there ARE comebacks and punishments, I'm not.

So there you go, an example of comebacks having an impact on piracy.

It's illegal. So of course I am not involved in it. I am not, as I have said many times, in favour of legalising piracy. What I am against is spending money on things to try and stop it. And I am not in favour of giving control to the MPAA and RIAA to close sites as they see fit.

So OK, making piracy illegal discourages some people from being pirates. So yes, some things do discourage piracy. However, what I meant, and I know you know this, is that spending millions of dollars on measures above and beyond the law haven't demonstrated any efficacy that I have seen.

kane · 11-07-2011, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

You can't make that statement as fact.

Are you involved in piracy (I'm not saying you are btw, I think the opposite). If not, why not? I asked before, but don't think you answered - if piracy was completely unpunishable, and there were zero comebacks whatsoever, and it wasn't seen as unethical, would you be involved in piracy? I know I would, but as there ARE comebacks and punishments, I'm not.

So there you go, an example of comebacks having an impact on piracy.

I think his point isn't that there is no potential danger in being involved in piracy, but that the battle against piracy has failed to yield positive results. It is kind of like the war on drugs. We have spent billions, maybe trillions in the war on drugs yet they are just as easy to get today as they every have been, the purity of them is at an all time high and after all that money little has changed because about the same number of people (percentage of the population wise) still use drugs.

The same can be said with Piracy. They sometimes get a win against people. They spend a lot of money and they make a lot of noise, but it doesn't seem to have curbed the amount of piracy online.

Anyway, I think that is what he meant, but I'm just guessing.

NewNick · 11-07-2011, 04:43 AM

Locking up thieves discourages theft.

I think thats a good idea.

DamianJ · 11-07-2011, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You have to wonder why Damian is so against others wasting their time passing laws to stop piracy online.

I've explained it many times. The money thrown down the drain could be spent on making a better product, thus making the business more money. It's very simple. I now have to wonder why you don't understand that and feel the need to keep making posts insinuating I am financially involved in piracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

It's not his time that's being wasted. It's not even the UK Government wasting time. So the effect on him, if he's legal and above board s not a lot.

Some people, Paul, are interested in what goes on in other countries in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The possibility eventually these measures will limit piracy of the product in the industry he says he makes his living is there.

They won't limit piracy. The bill will not even pass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

He was vehemently opposed to sending out letter to pirates. With the threat of going to court or settling out of court.

Indeed I am against that. And the people doing it in the UK have been disbarred. This is because what they were doing was wrong. Do you see how that works?

Why do you think it is good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Something isn't quite right here.

Yes, it's you constantly posting lies about me.

Cherry7 · 11-07-2011, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

How does my thinking this bill is shit translate to me not understanding mainstream culture?

Sales and rentals of DVDs and Blu-ray discs fell by 7% to $10.9bn in the first nine months of this year compared with last year, according to the industry body The Digital Entertainment Group; and the British Video Association says DVD sales fell 5.6% last year. The fall was most severe in new-release titles, which account for 25% of the market, with sales crashing 15% in 2009.

I was just talking to a friend of mine, we were talking about he lack of funding for his new film and the fact that his last film had been pirated and download thousands of times but no income....

When you post A Miracle Guitar man as evidence of the new creativity it makes me feel you don't understand the work that goes into making films.

And if this is the best youtube has given culture.... oh dear !

What is at risk, losing thousands of films and music like this...

As a 100 million dollar film would spend 100 million on advertising and marketing these are matters that effect your profession as much as content producers.

Putting aside this bill.

What measures do you think should be taken to stop piracy ?

gideongallery · 11-07-2011, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Sales and rentals of DVDs and Blu-ray discs fell by 7% to $10.9bn in the first nine months of this year compared with last year, according to the industry body The Digital Entertainment Group; and the British Video Association says DVD sales fell 5.6% last year. The fall was most severe in new-release titles, which account for 25% of the market, with sales crashing 15% in 2009.

I was just talking to a friend of mine, we were talking about he lack of funding for his new film and the fact that his last film had been pirated and download thousands of times but no income....

it not like the independent film producers haven't produced quality work

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352852/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1687247/

i would put el mariachi up against any of the over produced hollywood crap that your afraid we will lose.

Quote:

As a 100 million dollar film would spend 100 million on advertising and marketing these are matters that effect your profession as much as content producers.

Putting aside this bill.

What measures do you think should be taken to stop piracy ?

how about embrace and support the medium as a channel

fund your project with kickstarter

develop open source based development principles ( a day in the life style)
establish social causes that actually improve the world as the foundation of your documentary (yes men save the world)
or 113 other solutions that don't take away anyone elses rights.

DamianJ · 11-07-2011, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Sales and rentals of DVDs and Blu-ray discs fell by 7% to $10.9bn in the first nine months of this year compared with last year, according to the industry body The Digital Entertainment Group; and the British Video Association says DVD sales fell 5.6% last year. The fall was most severe in new-release titles, which account for 25% of the market, with sales crashing 15% in 2009.

So in the middle of a recession in 2009 people didn't buy as many new DVDs? What's your point?

You are citing 2009, when the movie industry made 20.65 billion USD, compared to 1995 when it made 5.29 million. http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

I was just talking to a friend of mine, we were talking about he lack of funding for his new film and the fact that his last film had been pirated and download thousands of times but no income....

Can you try and find some evidence that isn't you talking to friends or relatives to back up your tenuous points?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

When you post A Miracle Guitar man as evidence of the new creativity it makes me feel you don't understand the work that goes into making films.

When you post saying you don't understand Mystery Guitar Man is makes me feel you don't understand what makes films popular, modern culture or how to use the internet. Look how many views he has. Look how many subscribe to his channel. Why do you think that is? People like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Putting aside this bill.

The thread is ABOUT the bill. You've still not said why you think it is good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

What measures do you think should be taken to stop piracy ?

None. What steps do you think should be taken and why? I think we should make better products. Look at iTunes. Huge piracy of music. iTunes launched a legal, simple and good way to buy music and it worked. We should do more of that.

Jel · 11-07-2011, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I think his point isn't that there is no potential danger in being involved in piracy, but that the battle against piracy has failed to yield positive results. It is kind of like the war on drugs. We have spent billions, maybe trillions in the war on drugs yet they are just as easy to get today as they every have been, the purity of them is at an all time high and after all that money little has changed because about the same number of people (percentage of the population wise) still use drugs.

The same can be said with Piracy. They sometimes get a win against people. They spend a lot of money and they make a lot of noise, but it doesn't seem to have curbed the amount of piracy online.

Anyway, I think that is what he meant, but I'm just guessing.

That's pretty much it really, I'm against doing nothing, because it's my belief that it'd be far more widespread if nothing had been done/gets done.

Damian - I know you're against piracy mate, only thick cunt markham tries to portray you as pro-piracy, so you've nothing to worry about there. What I can't grasp is your apathy towards anti-piracy measures - no doubt you can't grasp my 'doing something is better than doing nothing' stance, and no-one is going to change their view based on what someone on a message board says, but it kills the boredom during break-times :D

Jel · 11-07-2011, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

I've explained it many times. The money thrown down the drain could be spent on making a better product, thus making the business more money.

Ok this. Tell me how money not spent on fighting piracy, but on 'making a better product' helps me, directly, as an affiliate marketer.

DamianJ · 11-07-2011, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

Ok this. Tell me how money not spent on fighting piracy, but on 'making a better product' helps me, directly, as an affiliate marketer.

I can't remember claiming it would?

However, if someone makes a better product, more people want to buy it and therefore you make more money.

HTH

11-06-2011, 03:13 PM	#317
CrkMStanz Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 517	One more step towards a piracy free internet - not that I think it will ever be free of pirates/thieves - I just rejoice at every milestone http://torrentfreak.com/major-usenet...-order-111106/ there is room on the internet for people to give THEIR OWN work away for free and there is room for people to SELL their work and be protected from those who steal the consumer will decide which methodology will prevail the consumer has NO RIGHT to decide what is free and what is not - that is up to the producers of content don't want to pay for it? then don't. you are not entitled to just take what you want. and you certainly are not entitled to profit from your thievery - directly OR indirectly . __________________ believe me - without free porn, just as many people will seek porn out on the Internet, and many more will pay if there is no free alternative, its not like sex is a fad - it can be milked much like any renewable resource - long term i wasn't born with enough middle fingers - Marilyn Manson

11-06-2011, 05:53 PM	#325
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

11-07-2011, 01:14 AM	#329
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

11-07-2011, 04:24 AM	#337
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	You have to wonder why Damian is so against others wasting their time passing laws to stop piracy online. It's not his time that's being wasted. It's not even the UK Government wasting time. So the effect on him, if he's legal and above board s not a lot. The possibility eventually these measures will limit piracy of the product in the industry he says he makes his living is there. So no cost to him, if he is legal and above board. And the possibility of a benefit. Something isn't quite right here. He was vehemently opposed to sending out letter to pirates. With the threat of going to court or settling out of court. Did anyone here his voiced raised when Acacia were sending out similar letters to law abiding firms? I don't remember his posts, maybe he would like to show them to us. Seems strange one form of blackmail he has little to say on and the other a lot. Whats the difference? As he doesn't own a site, Acacia won't come after hi. As he's not a pirate and clever enough to stop others leeching off his Wi Fi, he's not going to get a letter from a lawyer accusing him wrongly of being a pirate. Something isn't quite right here. If it smells fishy, it's a good chance it is fishy. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

11-07-2011, 04:43 AM	#343
NewNick Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 7,033	Locking up thieves discourages theft. I think thats a good idea. __________________ "Americas Hitler" JD Vance. “There isn’t really an upside to Trump.” Tucker Carlson. “a convicted felon rapist is now your president” OneHungLow, gfy.com

11-06-2011, 02:14 PM	#307
SmutHammer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,840	ummm, this is a webmaster board for people in the industry right? Just don't understand why all these trolls are here spamming, if they have nothing to do with the industry, and not only support piracy but admit to doing it daily.... gfy is another company losing in profits because of piracy, why not ban these people?

11-06-2011, 02:21 PM	#310
SmutHammer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,840	Thats right, Protect the thieves who live by thier own rules!