Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 11-08-2011, 04:13 AM   #401
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
You quoted somebody to make some points, I answered them, you then deny you made them or agree with them.
That's not really what happened is it? You quoted the link I put and suggested I said it. I didn't. That's all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
If you don't believe in skills, training, professionalism and working socially in structured groups the next time you are dangerously ill
When did I say any of that? You said as a fact that people work better in groups. That's just not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherry7 View Post
the modestly budgeted film and all UK production that has stopped.
Wrong again.

DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 04:57 AM   #402
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmycooper View Post
To clarify, I'm only defending the points Damian has made in this thread and not the points he's made in other threads. I'm certainly not defending his general behaviour. I'm also not defending the 'losing our freedom' idiots as I agree that they are also a bunch of drama queens.

My only points are that it's natural for profits to drop in a more open market and that there have always been unintended consequences when governments have been given more power so it's not realistic to expect profits to ever return to what they were and it's probably not a good idea to give more power to a government which has always had a generally anti-porn sentiment.
Being a drama queen?

The US never gave a fuck about offline porn, so long at it stayed withing boundaries. Porn shops were everywhere in all but a few States, even in those the porn people could buy Hustler, Penthouse or Playboy and sales on a softcore version of a porn film were great.

Does a local community have the right to vote for a statesman who says "Not in my town."? If not democracy means nothing. Agreed it didn't mean a lot before, it was something though.

what the "Government" dislikes is the uncontrolled nature of the Internet. where people can basically do as they please and the anarchy that results from that.

As for Freedom of Speech offline. Well again drama queens, more like knaves, who don't have a clue. They are stupid, blind or want to hide the simple truth.

Nixon was brought down from the highest office in the land by?
Today a Presidential hopeful is being brought down by?
Clinton was hounded by?
In the UK politicians were and still are being jailed for corruption exposed by?
A UK Government was brought down by a scandal in what media?
Cricketers are facing jail for an expose in?

Fill in the gaps and see the control exercised by Government over the Press.

The people who want no fight against piracy are those deluded fools who think that the computer program they use now to reply can be free and paid for by advertising. Like Call of Duty. Or they want others to pay so they can get it for free. Delusional or freeloaders.

If there is no fight against piracy, the costs of developing the programs they use right now will have to be born by advertising. With everyone grabbing the first copies and putting up a site giving it away, so they can pay the rent, the money for investment will shrink.

I can copy anything I like and stick a finger in the air to the world. And live off the meager earnings the ads bring, because I will be competing with 1,000s of others doing the same.

The war isn't over yet, it's not been good so far. Bringing down sites that don't have 100% control on their product they publish will not end the world as we know it. Well it might mean a few more dollars to be made by those who have skills.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 05:05 AM   #403
Redrob
Confirmed User
 
Redrob's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks.
Posts: 4,790
I think you have wandered a little far from the point of discussion in the thread.

Whether production is up or down has no effect on the rights of the copyright holders to protect their content. Yes, films are being made; but, only half as many. Without piracy, maybe the numbers would have been significantly higher. This speaks more to the passion of the creators to continue to create new films in adverse economic conditions than any positive effects of "free distribution" models.

Don't let these piracy supporters deflect the issues at hand. Stealing content as a business model is damaging the adult entertainment industry and morally wrong. They need to be stopped. The Protect-IP Act and SOPA are big steps in restoring balance and fairness to the online distribution model for content producers.

It is time for the thieving to end.

Just my opinion.
Redrob is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 05:10 AM   #404
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrob View Post
I think you have wandered a little far from the point of discussion in the thread.

Whether production is up or down has no effect on the rights of the copyright holders to protect their content. Yes, films are being made; but, only half as many. Without piracy, maybe the numbers would have been significantly higher. This speaks more to the passion of the creators to continue to create new films in adverse economic conditions than any positive effects of "free distribution" models.

Don't let these piracy supporters deflect the issues at hand. Stealing content as a business model is damaging the adult entertainment industry and morally wrong. They need to be stopped. The Protect-IP Act and SOPA are big steps in restoring balance and fairness to the online distribution model for content producers.

It is time for the thieving to end.

Just my opinion.
just make sure to protect the right of copyright holders to steal from competitors by giving them a free pass when they misrepresent fair use as infringing actions

Right.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 05:36 AM   #405
Redrob
Confirmed User
 
Redrob's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks.
Posts: 4,790
Gideongallery:
Quote:
just make sure to protect the right of copyright holders to steal from competitors by giving them a free pass when they misrepresent fair use as infringing action
Generally, copyright holders don't steal from their competitors. Sometimes, ownership issues arise from badly written contracts and works done on a hand-shake; but, the courts and arbitrators usually work out compromises and the ownership issues.

If you use the intellectual property that belongs to someone else outside of licensing or the "fair use" provisions, you are not a competitor.....

you are a thief.

A competitor CREATES similar original content. A thief creates nothing and just steals content.

Let's keep our terminology correct.

And, content owners have every right to protect their interests and the value of their content.

Just my opinion.

Last edited by Redrob; 11-08-2011 at 05:40 AM..
Redrob is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 05:39 AM   #406
adultchatpay
Let's Make Money
 
adultchatpay's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,784
The pirates are going down for sure!!! Fuck em!
adultchatpay is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 09:07 AM   #407
Cherry7
Confirmed User
 
Cherry7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
That's not really what happened is it? You quoted the link I put and suggested I said it. I didn't. That's all.

When did I say any of that? You said as a fact that people work better in groups. That's just not true.
Wrong again.
From the BFI website we can see that Film Production has fallen from 2003, 93 films to

2011 - 46 films.

UK spend on feature films 2001 = 114 milllions 2011 = 38 million

Low budget movies under 500,000 pound UK

2003 - 74 films 180 million 2011 - 38 films 85million (The lowest on record !)


http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/sta...ion-Report.pdf


In a public meeting the British producer of Sherlock Holmes said that the collapse of the DVD market due to piracy was the reason he could not raise money for further film production.
Cherry7 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 12:06 PM   #408
PiracyPitbull
Confirmed User
 
PiracyPitbull's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie View Post
Thank God I have gideongallery on "ignore" You should do yourself a favor and put him on ignore as well.

In his mind...Verizon and ATT can't both exist because one is a "copycat" of the other.
And yet it should be perfectly fine to STEAL other people's creative work and monetize it and destroy the creators ability to do so.

Dude...he will just drive you crazy with his mind numbing double talk and horseshit. Put him on "ignore" and your life will be much better. He has nothing of any substance to add to this forum in any way.

He isn't in this business. And to listen to his theories...I have serious doubts he is in ANY business.
Its a double edged sword really. The plus point If I put Gidiot on ignore, is that I wont have to read nearly as much garbage, the minus, id miss out links to ground breaking acts like the dude that uses his pie hole to cover stuff.
__________________
http://www.piracypitbull.com
PiracyPitbull is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 12:57 PM   #409
PiracyPitbull
Confirmed User
 
PiracyPitbull's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
and that why i said your definition of control is crazy

All the text on your competitors web site is also protected by copyright

re read the act there is no special song lyric clause in the copyright act.

remember you objected to taking 3 distinct songs and remixing them together into a brand new performance



you objected to someone using nothing but the words completely changing the tone, tempo, and emotional context.



you objected to using the lyrics to prove a concept genre change in the industry



big enough to get today coverage



you arguing for a change to the context of fair use that would prevent such productions for music
I didn't object to fair use. I was responding to another persons post and you jumped in with comments on derivative works.

If a new law passes (and depending on what it encompasses) there could indeed he an effect on how websites decide to operate. But ultimately if a new law addresses a balance between the current file sharing epidemic and whether websites are comfortable hosting material that has the potential to cause issues for them - thats a balance with which I'm personally very comfortable.



Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
but for MARKETING MATERIAL equally protected by copyright you don't want anything close.

try it explain what you do without remixing any of the words and phrases of your competitors in any of the ways you objected too.
There you go comparing apples and oranges again.
__________________
http://www.piracypitbull.com
PiracyPitbull is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 01:08 PM   #410
Best-In-BC
Confirmed User
 
Best-In-BC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank21 View Post
1 song in 1 vid is enough to shut down your whole website.
Always been like that bud
__________________
Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More
Unparked domains burning a hole in your pocket? 5 Simple Ways to Make Easy $$$ from Unused Domains
Best-In-BC is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 04:33 PM   #411
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull View Post
I didn't object to fair use. I was responding to another persons post and you jumped in with comments on derivative works.
this was your statement about covers



Quote:
Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull View Post
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.

you clearly said that you don't have a problem with approved or sample cleared music

fair use is not approved

by definition it apply to content even if the copyright holder doesn't want you use it.
It is THE ONLY defined exclusion to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

there are no others.



Quote:
There you go comparing apples and oranges again.
then explain yourself, fair use is the only exclusion to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

All the marketing material produced by remove your content was all protected by copyright

why does fair use allow you to use their worlds in the same way they did in their copyright protected work

but musicians don't have the same right when those words are put in a song.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 04:52 PM   #412
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrob View Post

If you use the intellectual property that belongs to someone else outside of licensing or the "fair use" provisions, you are not a competitor.....

seriously what exactly about the statement

Quote:
just make sure to protect the right of copyright holders to steal from competitors by giving them a free pass when they misrepresent fair use as infringing action
we are only talking about the situation where the business is covered by fair use
and the copyright holder choose to lie and misrepresent it as infringement to take out that fair use business.

(ie fox who owns myspace, making up fake complaints against parodies, or commentaries on facebook to take them out)

that the only situation i am talking about

when a copyright holder bald face lies to take out a company which they view as a threat to their site


you said even in this situation the copyright holder should have the transactional immunity you quoted

and keep his copyright so that he can do this as often as he wants.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 05:45 PM   #413
Redrob
Confirmed User
 
Redrob's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks.
Posts: 4,790
Your argument blaming the greedy copyright owner is false. The copyright owner only makes a complaint to the courts for perceived injuries. Anyone who is injured by someone publishing content (libel, obscenity, and copyrights violation are just a few) has the right to petition the courts for justice.

The guilt or innocence of the alleged copyright violator is in the hands of the judge and jury; not the copyright's owner or creator.

Disagreements will always occur and be settled by the courts using the principle of stare decisis, i.e. prior decisions.

The prior decisions are to be used as a guide for content users to ascertain that which is probably legal and that which is not.

If pirates don't get greedy, they probably won't be found guilty.

But then, we know pirates; and, they are all about the 'gold'.

Just my opinion.
Redrob is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 02:05 AM   #414
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrob View Post
Your argument blaming the greedy copyright owner is false. The copyright owner only makes a complaint to the courts for perceived injuries. Anyone who is injured by someone publishing content (libel, obscenity, and copyrights violation are just a few) has the right to petition the courts for justice.

The guilt or innocence of the alleged copyright violator is in the hands of the judge and jury; not the copyright's owner or creator.

Disagreements will always occur and be settled by the courts using the principle of stare decisis, i.e. prior decisions.

The prior decisions are to be used as a guide for content users to ascertain that which is probably legal and that which is not.

If pirates don't get greedy, they probably won't be found guilty.

But then, we know pirates; and, they are all about the 'gold'.

Just my opinion.

you notice you mentioned a right to file for damages to copyright infringement, but there is no right for violating fair use

it a one side situation which you want to make worse by giving transactional immunity based on nothing more then the claim that you "believe" your being wronged. You complain about how pirates are taking advantage of the safe harbor, do you really expect me to believe absolutely no copyright holder will take advantage of that situation.

if i am so wrong and no one is actually going to do the shit i am afraid they would do
why not put a statutory damage restriction for violating fair use.

If no one is ever going to take advantage of the blanket immunity to take out competing companies why not revoke the copyright holders who do.

If that number is zero, the clause is totally useless, it like betting the sun will rise in the north
it doesn't matter how serious the penalty is , you would have no problem accepting it because you know it will not happen.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Last edited by gideongallery; 11-09-2011 at 02:09 AM..
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 03:30 AM   #415
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Gideon. I own my content. I paid money for it or paid to produce it.

I OWN IT.

I can do what I like with it, when I like, how I like and for the price I like. No way do you have a right to steal it.

I will close up shop soon. I might just close up and will keep selling the content, or might not. That's my decision, not yours. you own your car. Can I use it because you don't? Can I use it, because you don't use it right?

And until the law is changed to suit you, which is when hell freezes over. You cannot decide what I do with my content, because I OWN IT and not you.

Now do you understand this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank21
1 song in 1 vid is enough to shut down your whole website.
Yes. One bank robbery can get you sent to prison.

The solution will be easy. No content on the site unchecked and not owned, no more "user submits" seems easy enough to me.

Youtube will close, FB and Twitter will change. Life as we know it will end, it will be the roller coaster that will herald the apocalypse of 2012.

How will life go on without FB???????

How did it go on before FB?

Last edited by Paul Markham; 11-09-2011 at 03:34 AM..
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 05:05 AM   #416
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
Gideon. I own my content. I paid money for it or paid to produce it.

I OWN IT.

I can do what I like with it, when I like, how I like and for the price I like. No way do you have a right to steal it.

I will close up shop soon. I might just close up and will keep selling the content, or might not. That's my decision, not yours. you own your car. Can I use it because you don't? Can I use it, because you don't use it right?

And until the law is changed to suit you, which is when hell freezes over. You cannot decide what I do with my content, because I OWN IT and not you.

Now do you understand this?
1. We are only talking about the situation where a copyright holder bald face lies fraudulently misrepresenting fair use as infringement. That the only time the penalty would apply. If you don't want your shit in the public domain don't do that.


2. if your content is in the public domain you can still do whatever you want with your content. Forcing your shit in the public domain doesn't take any of your rights to do whatever you want with the content, it just prevents you from taking away those rights from other people.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 05:36 AM   #417
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
1. We are only talking about the situation where a copyright holder bald face lies fraudulently misrepresenting fair use as infringement. That the only time the penalty would apply. If you don't want your shit in the public domain don't do that.


2. if your content is in the public domain you can still do whatever you want with your content. Forcing your shit in the public domain doesn't take any of your rights to do whatever you want with the content, it just prevents you from taking away those rights from other people.
What's "public domain"?

Is that if I put it online, print it out in a magazine, put it on a DVD. Please explain where and what is "public domain"?

So I make sure I don't do it.

Because so far I don't think any of us have, not any of the pirated content you want is in the "Public Domain."

"Public Domain." is this a good definition? Then we're all happy. Except you.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 05:43 AM   #418
Jel
Confirmed User
 
Jel's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,904
Are you cunts still here? You need to get into the 40 + 40 * 0 + 1 = ? thread.
Jel is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 05:49 AM   #419
blackmonsters
Making PHP work
 
blackmonsters's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 🌎🌅🌈🌇
Posts: 20,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
350 people that haven't read the bill



My belief really is that people spending a monthly retainer with a piracy removal service would make no extra money from doing this. And, that if that money was spent on marketing, they would make more sales.

I've not seen any evidence from any of the removal companies to suggest otherwise.

And we all know how well the MPAA and RIAA campaigns worked out? As started, it's like the war on drugs. A total waste of money. Billions of dollars and more is pirated now than ever before.

That's all it is really.
If I was not afraid to get into trouble for piracy then no fucking way would I still be
showing 30 seconds clips on my tube site.

I would sign up to pay sites and rip the entire members area so I could compete
with youporn.

So saying the law has no impact on piracy is ridiculous.

If there were no war on drugs then I would have 50 pot plants in my front yard
and 50 coca plants in the back yard.

__________________
Make Money with Porn
blackmonsters is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 06:04 AM   #420
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmonsters View Post
If I was not afraid to get into trouble for piracy then no fucking way would I still be
showing 30 seconds clips on my tube site.

I would sign up to pay sites and rip the entire members area so I could compete
with youporn.

So saying the law has no impact on piracy is ridiculous.

If there were no war on drugs then I would have 50 pot plants in my front yard
and 50 coca plants in the back yard.

Damian will never accept that. He thinks that no laws or regulations on piracy means no more will be doing it than do it today. He also thinks that increasing the laws will have no effect on piracy. Taking down sites that have mad a living from piracy will just carry on.

Of course he lives in a dream world. With no fight against piracy anyone can do it. Those doing it today will increase. We will all live in hope VISA won't turn a blind eye to people stealing content and creating a paysite, or charging people to download it via Paypal. Whoops that happens already.

And taking down these sites, might mean huge problems with Paypal getting loads of complaints from angry people who just saw their downloads they paid for gone. Or advertisers thinking an advert on a site that will disappear soon isn't a good way to market.

The increase of laws against piracy will have more effect, not less. It will mean less money in the pockets of pirates. And that is the freedom I think some are trying to protect. Their freedom to make money from theft.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 06:14 AM   #421
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
Damian will never accept that. He thinks that no laws or regulations on piracy means no more will be doing it than do it today. .
Paul, you really need to stop totally lying about what I say or think.

Here's how it works. You quote what I say, and make a counterpoint.

Then we can discuss something. If you just post lies about things I didn't say or think it's pointless, isn't it?

Of course piracy should be illegal. It's a crime.
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 06:41 AM   #422
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
Paul, you really need to stop totally lying about what I say or think.

Here's how it works. You quote what I say, and make a counterpoint.

Then we can discuss something. If you just post lies about things I didn't say or think it's pointless, isn't it?

Of course piracy should be illegal. It's a crime.
1. So are you saying increasing the laws and penalties for piracy of copyright content will have more, less or no effect on reducing piracy?

2. Do you think enforcing existing laws will have more, less or no effect on reducing piracy?

3. Do you think that increasing the laws and penalties, will help people who work in the industries selling copyright media to be more successful?

My answers are.

1. More effect on reducing piracy.

2. More effect on reducing piracy.

3. I think more laws will help those in the industries selling digital content to be more successful.

And before you go on with your freedom debate and don't answer the question. I will pick who I want to pick to guard my freedoms. The last person I or most here would pick for this is you.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 07:18 AM   #423
Redrob
Confirmed User
 
Redrob's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks.
Posts: 4,790
Gideongallery:

Quote:
you notice you mentioned a right to file for damages to copyright infringement, but there is no right for violating fair use

it a one side situation which you want to make worse by giving transactional immunity based on nothing more then the claim that you "believe" your being wronged. You complain about how pirates are taking advantage of the safe harbor, do you really expect me to believe absolutely no copyright holder will take advantage of that situation.
The reason there are no damages awarded to "fair use" users for a contents owner's allegations of copyright violation is that they NEVER OWNED THE CONTENT in question.

And, since they never owned the content in question, the value of their labors are not diminished.

If you take someone else's property without their permission (licensing), you run the risk of being accused of stealing (copyright infringement) and must bear the consequences of your actions. There is no basis here to justify a penalty upon the property owner (copyright holder) as you (the alleged violator) have free choice in making your decision to take the property (content) without permission, or not. The rules of he game are pretty clear, i.e. copyright law and fair use provisions.

On the bright side, if you are sued for infringement and win your case on a fair use basis that is very obvious and legal, you might be awarded your attorney fees by the court as the courts hate frivolous lawsuits.

Just my opinion and I'm no lawyer.
Redrob is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 08:20 AM   #424
SmutHammer
Confirmed User
 
SmutHammer's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,840
Without my permisions, or going by my terms of use, using my copywritten material is theft. fair use? only if you helped me produce it, or do something that rewards me for my work!
SmutHammer is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 01:48 PM   #425
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
1. So are you saying increasing the laws and penalties for piracy of copyright content will have more, less or no effect on reducing piracy?
I've not discussed increasing the laws and penalise for piracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
2. Do you think enforcing existing laws will have more, less or no effect on reducing piracy?
Show me the method you are suggesting for doing this and I will give you an opinion. All the methods I have seen won't work for a variety of reasons you can't understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
3. Do you think that increasing the laws and penalties, will help people who work in the industries selling copyright media to be more successful?
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
My answers are.
No one asked you. You've demonstrated a lack of comprehension of how the internet works, so anything you have to say is moot really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
The last person I or most here would pick for this is you.
Good news Paul. I'm not offering myself up as the person to guard your freedoms.

Answer this:

I think that giving the MPAA and RIAA the control to block internet sites with no due process is good because...

Answer this:

I know this blocking is just the DNS, so people could enter the pure IP this making the whole thing laughably easy to get around but this doesn't matter because:

Bonus question:

DNS works by...

Last edited by DamianJ; 11-09-2011 at 01:50 PM..
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 02:30 PM   #426
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
I've not discussed increasing the laws and penalise for piracy.

Show me the method you are suggesting for doing this and I will give you an opinion. All the methods I have seen won't work for a variety of reasons you can't understand.

See above.

No one asked you. You've demonstrated a lack of comprehension of how the internet works, so anything you have to say is moot really.

Good news Paul. I'm not offering myself up as the person to guard your freedoms.

Answer this:

I think that giving the MPAA and RIAA the control to block internet sites with no due process is good because...

Answer this:

I know this blocking is just the DNS, so people could enter the pure IP this making the whole thing laughably easy to get around but this doesn't matter because:

Bonus question:

DNS works by...
So that's your idea of a debate.

I asked questions and you avoid them. shows that you don't want to discuss.

IMO you're a pirate. Discuss that.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 02:33 PM   #427
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Damian.

If you don't succeed at first, do you try and try again again, until you succeed or give up?

How much does it cost you if others spend their money to fight piracy?

Do you think you would earn more or less money if piracy was reduced?

Last edited by Paul Markham; 11-09-2011 at 02:35 PM..
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 02:52 PM   #428
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
I think that giving the MPAA and RIAA the control to block internet sites with no due process is good because...
Can someone who has read this law, point me to the specific part that says "MPAA and RIAA the control to block Internet sites"?

Because I read it and didn't see this part.

Who else is given this power or is it only these two organisations?

Or just point to the process of removing a site.

Because if someone removes a legal site with false information, the consequences would be dire.

Common sense tell me Damian and others are blowing a smoke screen out of their asses. Otherwise I could say Mofos and Brazzers should be taken down because.............. with no due process. Then they could say I should be taken down. And it would be a disaster.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 03:04 PM   #429
PiracyPitbull
Confirmed User
 
PiracyPitbull's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
this was your statement about covers


you clearly said that you don't have a problem with approved or sample cleared music

fair use is not approved

by definition it apply to content even if the copyright holder doesn't want you use it.
It is THE ONLY defined exclusion to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

there are no others.
I don't have a problem with approved or sample cleared music.

What does that have to do with my opinion on piracy, fair use and any proposed new law.....If something like SOPA passes and people out there still want to do covers, parodys etc, whats stopping them.

If they can't find a website prepared to risk hosting what they're doing, can't they just host it themselves ?




Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
then explain yourself, fair use is the only exclusion to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

All the marketing material produced by remove your content was all protected by copyright

why does fair use allow you to use their worlds in the same way they did in their copyright protected work

but musicians don't have the same right when those words are put in a song.
Apples/oranges
__________________
http://www.piracypitbull.com
PiracyPitbull is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 03:13 PM   #430
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull View Post
I don't have a problem with approved or sample cleared music.

What does that have to do with my opinion on piracy, fair use and any proposed new law.....If something like SOPA passes and people out there still want to do covers, parodys etc, whats stopping them.

If they can't find a website prepared to risk hosting what they're doing, can't they just host it themselves ?
considering the law applys to isp too no they can.



Quote:
Apples/oranges
saying that they are different doesn't make them different
other then your the "no talent" copycat now what exactly is the difference.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 03:17 PM   #431
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrob View Post
Gideongallery:



The reason there are no damages awarded to "fair use" users for a contents owner's allegations of copyright violation is that they NEVER OWNED THE CONTENT in question.

And, since they never owned the content in question, the value of their labors are not diminished.

If you take someone else's property without their permission (licensing), you run the risk of being accused of stealing (copyright infringement) and must bear the consequences of your actions. There is no basis here to justify a penalty upon the property owner (copyright holder) as you (the alleged violator) have free choice in making your decision to take the property (content) without permission, or not. The rules of he game are pretty clear, i.e. copyright law and fair use provisions.

On the bright side, if you are sued for infringement and win your case on a fair use basis that is very obvious and legal, you might be awarded your attorney fees by the court as the courts hate frivolous lawsuits.

Just my opinion and I'm no lawyer.
The only way you can call copyright infringement "stealing" is if you use the insane your cost me income so therefore your stealing bullshit arguement

second if you use that bullshit arguement then stoping someone from fair use distributing content is stealing the same income potential

so the damage is exactly the same.

btw you still haven't answered the question.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 03:22 PM   #432
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
What's "public domain"?

Is that if I put it online, print it out in a magazine, put it on a DVD. Please explain where and what is "public domain"?

So I make sure I don't do it.

Because so far I don't think any of us have, not any of the pirated content you want is in the "Public Domain."

"Public Domain." is this a good definition? Then we're all happy. Except you.
that exactly what i am talking about

if you make a bogus infringement claim, for something that is really fair use
then that copyright holder should forfeit his exclusive rights.

he should never have a right to bother anyone again with his bogus complaints.

If he can falsely wipe a company off the internet, the punishment for that abuse should lose of his company too.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 03:25 PM   #433
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrob View Post
Gideongallery:



The reason there are no damages awarded to "fair use" users for a contents owner's allegations of copyright violation is that they NEVER OWNED THE CONTENT in question.

And, since they never owned the content in question, the value of their labors are not diminished.

If you take someone else's property without their permission (licensing), you run the risk of being accused of stealing (copyright infringement) and must bear the consequences of your actions. There is no basis here to justify a penalty upon the property owner (copyright holder) as you (the alleged violator) have free choice in making your decision to take the property (content) without permission, or not. The rules of he game are pretty clear, i.e. copyright law and fair use provisions.

On the bright side, if you are sued for infringement and win your case on a fair use basis that is very obvious and legal, you might be awarded your attorney fees by the court as the courts hate frivolous lawsuits.

Just my opinion and I'm no lawyer.
so under this law, the entire fair use company is wiped of the internet, all those employees are put out of work, the owners lose millions of dollars

and all they should get back is the court costs.

and the only way they can avoid that abuse, is to basically kill all free speech, that is not authorized explicitly by copyright holders.

explain how exactly will fair use survive in that situation.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 03:26 PM   #434
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
The only way you can call copyright infringement "stealing" is if you use the insane your cost me income so therefore your stealing bullshit arguement

second if you use that bullshit arguement then stoping someone from fair use distributing content is stealing the same income potential

so the damage is exactly the same.

btw you still haven't answered the question.
It makes no difference if I'm losing income. It's still you infringing my copyright and that's a form of stealing. You use it without my consent. You steal it.

Still it's pretty clear to everyone that piracy is a loss of income to the copyright holder. Well everyone but you, Damian and other pirates.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 03:30 PM   #435
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
that exactly what i am talking about

if you make a bogus infringement claim, for something that is really fair use
then that copyright holder should forfeit his exclusive rights.

he should never have a right to bother anyone again with his bogus complaints.

If he can falsely wipe a company off the internet, the punishment for that abuse should lose of his company too.
So what is "public domain"? And what is "Fair Use"? as defined by law.

Yes someone who uses false information to shut a site or cause bother should be hit back. And this is what will happen, there are lots of cases of people getting sued and getting very heavy fines and costs for doing this.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 03:35 PM   #436
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
so under this law, the entire fair use company is wiped of the internet, all those employees are put out of work, the owners lose millions of dollars

and all they should get back is the court costs.

and the only way they can avoid that abuse, is to basically kill all free speech, that is not authorized explicitly by copyright holders.

explain how exactly will fair use survive in that situation.
What is "fair use"

Putting it onto a site for others to share it and writing a short description or critique of it isn't fair use. It's trying to avoid the law. you know that and you either will say it or lie.

Free speech isn't being killed. You can say what you like about my content, if it's your opinion. If you lie, then that's libel.

How ever saying "Paul Markham has some great looking teens." Then giving the viewer a link to download the site, isn't free speech or fair use. It's theft of my content. Or do you think otherwise?
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 04:59 PM   #437
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
What is "fair use"

Putting it onto a site for others to share it and writing a short description or critique of it isn't fair use. It's trying to avoid the law. you know that and you either will say it or lie.

Free speech isn't being killed. You can say what you like about my content, if it's your opinion. If you lie, then that's libel.

How ever saying "Paul Markham has some great looking teens." Then giving the viewer a link to download the site, isn't free speech or fair use. It's theft of my content. Or do you think otherwise?
what i believe is totally irrellevent it what the courts believe

if your wrong and you use the go nuclear option of blacklisting a site from the internet you deserve to lose your copyright

if your right you have nothing to worry about.
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 05:18 PM   #438
Redrob
Confirmed User
 
Redrob's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks.
Posts: 4,790
What part of thieving, fair use, and copyright infringement do you not understand?
Redrob is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 05:49 PM   #439
PiracyPitbull
Confirmed User
 
PiracyPitbull's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
considering the law applys to isp too no they can.
I don't see why, plenty of hosts outside the US.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
saying that they are different doesn't make them different
other then your the "no talent" copycat now what exactly is the difference.
We share two words maybe "piracy, site"

Other than maybe "email, link, and, to, contact"

Yup, def grounds for infringement LOL
__________________
http://www.piracypitbull.com
PiracyPitbull is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 12:55 AM   #440
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery View Post
what i believe is totally irrellevent it what the courts believe.
Spot on.

Now give up because even you admit you don't have a say.

I see you avoided my questions.

What is "fair use" and what is "Public domain"?
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 01:08 AM   #441
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
In the alternative universe Damian lives in, the laws have had no or limited effect on stopping piracy. So putting up stronger laws is pointless.

In the real world where the rest of us live we can see the fear from pirates of these laws coming into being. So are they scared of laws that will have more effect, less effect or make no difference?

Common sense answers only.

In the real world we see many companies going after the pirates in a big way. And winning time and time again.

Internet piracy cases. Just one 2 minute look at Google shows a few of the successes. Increasing laws and penalties will have more effects on pirates. Which is why Damian, GG and others are worried.

The pirates like the ability to share others work for free or even to profit from it. And clearly hate the idea of anything to stop them. They lie to make their cases sound sensible.

A clear lie, proven to be a lie.

Quote:
Show me the method you are suggesting for doing this and I will give you an opinion. All the methods I have seen won't work for a variety of reasons you can't understand.
They haven't worked well enough. Does not mean they haven't worked. Well not in the real world.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 01:10 AM   #442
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post

you're a pirate. Discuss that.
Post proof old man. Before you were insinuating. Now you've come out and accused me of a crime.

Last edited by DamianJ; 11-10-2011 at 01:19 AM..
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 01:17 AM   #443
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
In the alternative universe Damian lives in, the laws have had no or limited effect on stopping piracy. So putting up stronger laws is pointless.
Where have I ever said that?

Paul, love, I know you are old, stupid and fantasise about things that most of us think are disgustingly wrong (teacher), please stop lying about me.

Your nuisance calls might stop if you do. LOL!
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 01:20 AM   #444
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post

I asked questions and you avoid them. shows that you don't want to discuss.
.

I asked for clarification about how you were proposing the things you suggested got done. Obviously there has to be a technical solution. Explain that to me, and then we can carry on.

LOL at you failing to explain DNS though. Funny little fucker. :D
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 01:31 AM   #445
jimmycooper
Confirmed User
 
jimmycooper's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrob View Post
Let's keep our terminology correct.
Fair enough. Seeing as there has not been a single post here in this thread by an actual piracy supporter (maybe Frank21, but fuck him) but only by those who see the current market climate for what it is, I'd like to suggest 'realist' as the preferred nomenclature.

__________________


Last edited by jimmycooper; 11-10-2011 at 01:35 AM..
jimmycooper is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 02:02 AM   #446
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
Post proof old man. Before you were insinuating. Now you've come out and accused me of a crime.
In my opinion you are a pirate. Do you understand English?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
Where have I ever said that?

Paul, love, I know you are old, stupid and fantasise about things that most of us think are disgustingly wrong (teacher), please stop lying about me.

Your nuisance calls might stop if you do. LOL!
So you think the existing laws have had an effect or no effect or not enough?

It's hard to discuss anything with you. your thinking seems to wander. Prove I'm lying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
I asked for clarification about how you were proposing the things you suggested got done. Obviously there has to be a technical solution. Explain that to me, and then we can carry on.

LOL at you failing to explain DNS though. Funny little fucker. :D
Laws need to be tighter, so those that serial pirates lose access to the Internet, sites that link pirates, make a living off piracy get removed. The Internet isn't a right to steal. Well it shouldn't be.

The technical I leave to others.

DNS explained

The Domain Name System (DNS) is a hierarchical distributed naming system for computers, services, or any resource connected to the Internet or a private network. It associates various information with domain names assigned to each of the participating entities. Most importantly, it translates domain names meaningful to humans into the numerical identifiers associated with networking equipment for the purpose of locating and addressing these devices worldwide.

An often-used analogy to explain the Domain Name System is that it serves as the phone book for the Internet by translating human-friendly computer hostnames into IP addresses. For example, the domain name www.example.com translates to the addresses 192.0.32.10 (IPv4) and 2620:0:2d0:200::10 (IPv6).

The Domain Name System makes it possible to assign domain names to groups of Internet resources and users in a meaningful way, independent of each entity's physical location. Because of this, World Wide Web (WWW) hyperlinks and Internet contact information can remain consistent and constant even if the current Internet routing arrangements change or the participant uses a mobile device. Internet domain names are easier to remember than IP addresses such as 208.77.188.166 (IPv4) or 2001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e8 (IPv6). Users take advantage of this when they recite meaningful Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) and e-mail addresses without having to know how the computer actually locates them.

The Domain Name System distributes the responsibility of assigning domain names and mapping those names to IP addresses by designating authoritative name servers for each domain. Authoritative name servers are assigned to be responsible for their particular domains, and in turn can assign other authoritative name servers for their sub-domains. This mechanism has made the DNS distributed and fault tolerant and has helped avoid the need for a single central register to be continually consulted and updated.

In general, the Domain Name System also stores other types of information, such as the list of mail servers that accept email for a given Internet domain. By providing a worldwide, distributed keyword-based redirection service, the Domain Name System is an essential component of the functionality of the Internet.

Other identifiers such as RFID tags, UPCs, International characters in email addresses and host names, and a variety of other identifiers could all potentially use DNS.[1][2]

The Domain Name System also specifies the technical functionality of this database service. It defines the DNS protocol, a detailed specification of the data structures and communication exchanges used in DNS, as part of the Internet Protocol Suite.

What don't you understand?

I can see debating means you squirming away from any debate. Keep wriggling worm.
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 02:13 AM   #447
Johny Traffic
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,461
__________________


hosted flv's, hosted galleries, morphing rss feeds, free content, free sites, hosted blog
Johny Traffic is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 02:17 AM   #448
DamianJ
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
DamianJ's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land
Posts: 15,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
In my opinion you are a pirate.
Yeah, pesky thing is Paul, you have to provide proof when you accuse someone of illegal activity. So I would if I were you, or else you'll be banned. Then wtf would you do all day.

I will also accept a formal apology.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
So you think the existing laws have had an effect or no effect or not enough?
Piracy increases year on year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
It's hard to discuss anything with you. your thinking seems to wander. Prove I'm lying.
You do nothing BUT lie, as has been proven here MANY times over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
Laws need to be tighter, so those that serial pirates lose access to the Internet, sites that link pirates, make a living off piracy get removed. The Internet isn't a right to steal. Well it shouldn't be.

The technical I leave to others.
Yes, but no one would disagree with your points. THE PROBLEM is the technical applications of it. As none work. If you understood anything at all about the internet you would see that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
DNS explained
Fuck you're so easy to troll. Well done for going to wikipedia.

Now you know what DNS is, can you explain how the bill will work? They are blocking DNS, not IPs.
DamianJ is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 03:52 AM   #449
nextri
Confirmed User
 
nextri's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham View Post
Yes someone who uses false information to shut a site or cause bother should be hit back. And this is what will happen, there are lots of cases of people getting sued and getting very heavy fines and costs for doing this.
This law gives anyone who uses false information to get a site shut down immunity from getting sued or held responsible for their false accusation. Read the bill, it's in there. Can you really support that? Seriously?
__________________
DivaTraffic - Traffic for Models

Last edited by nextri; 11-10-2011 at 03:54 AM..
nextri is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 04:08 AM   #450
Paul Markham
Too old to care
 
Paul Markham's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ View Post
Yeah, pesky thing is Paul, you have to provide proof when you accuse someone of illegal activity. So I would if I were you, or else you'll be banned. Then wtf would you do all day.
I think you don't understand the difference between an opinion and fact.

It's my opinion you are a broke loser who earns money from piracy.

Quote:
I will also accept a formal apology.
You might have to wait a while.

Quote:
Piracy increases year on year.
At a faster or slower or slower rate than it would with less laws. Would more and better laws on online piracy have any effect on your income?

Quote:
You do nothing BUT lie, as has been proven here MANY times over.
Hi Kettle, this is pot.

Quote:
Yes, but no one would disagree with your points. THE PROBLEM is the technical applications of it. As none work. If you understood anything at all about the internet you would see that.
So they will have to do more to stop piracy. Why are you such a quitter?

Quote:
Fuck you're so easy to troll. Well done for going to wikipedia.
I understand Google.

Quote:
Now you know what DNS is, can you explain how the bill will work? They are blocking DNS, not IPs.
They will find out what works, if it does they will make sure it's enforced. If not they will find another way. Unlike you they're not quitting. I'm sure the people at the top of the Government have a better grasp on this than you.

Why are you so worried. What is it that scares you about this law. Will it have any effect on you or your income? You see I get the impression that this law has you and others like Frank and GG, running scared. And the over whelming majority of legal and law abiding companies and workers in the fields suffering from piracy don't have this fear. So I draw from this the conclusion that you in some way fear for your income. Your "freedom" won't be effected if you're law abiding.

Piracy is costing billions if not trillions world wide. If you're law abiding and a tax payer, it's costing you money. Because the lost revenue of companies in the digital media field are losing turn over. This puts companies at a loss, a loss many cover by reducing staff, putting people out of work and onto the dole. Your standard of living is effected by this.


This has nothing to do with less piracy meaning better ratios on porn sites. It's simple economics. Just one example with a fictional company.

Mocrosift employ 1,000s of people worldwide in their offices and production. There are also retail companies selling the product and delivery people. The over all effect is the $billions of turn over employs people, produces a profit, funnels money into the economy. By allowing piracy to flourish part of that turn over leaks out. Often producing less revenue, employing less people and funneling less money into the economy. Often that money goes to countries like Russia and China.

This costs you money in your taxes and sales. Every time you pay taxes, you pay part of it to keep people on the dole. Some who might have a job in a better economy. Also when your emails hit the computer of someone unemployed, he won't be signing up and buying a membership.

And that's why the pirates days are numbered. If this law doesn't work, they will come out with another one and another one and .....................

Because the Western Economies will not allow money to fall out of the holes of piracy.

Pirates will suffer. And only pirates will cry. Are you going to cry?
Paul Markham is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.