I now fully support SOPA: hang the pirates by their balls - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Paul Markham · 12-20-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

I'm not in favor of SOPA, but this idea that one pic or doing could get GFY or any other site shut down is the opposite of what SOPA says. SOPA says the complaintant has to prove that the site is dedicated to nothing but theft.

Stop taking apart the fear mongers case. It leaves them with less to be scared about.

Cherry7 · 12-20-2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Yeah, Die Hard has helped so many people. Lives been saved, essential communication from censored countries, political revolution, journalism, free speech etc, all thanks to die hard.

Ah, Thatcher's Dream. I'm alright Jack, fuck you.

And are you 100% sure your designer paid for every font on your site? And has that documented? You've seen his license for whatever editing software your editor uses? And the guy that does your music, you are totally sure he paid for his copy of Logic, and all the plug ins?

Even if all that is totally legal, all it takes, and I struggle to see why people don't get this, is for someone you've pissed off to report you and then with no judicial process, 5 days later your site has its billing and hosting removed.

You think this is a good solution?

Really?

No one is saying piracy is good. But this bill is not a tenable solution.

Sorry to disappoint but the answer is yes, our editing program is paid for, and the programs our designer uses, and our musicians....

It is not Thatcher "I am all Right" that we commission music and pay for it, quite the opposite.

That is not selfish, there is a whole community of film makers who make films for Broadcast, as part of the contract with the TV companies they have to declare all the clearances and copy write material used. Every TV program has to be cleared in this way. If I saw a piece of my footage on a TV program without my consent I can have that program stopped.

One of my site was hacked and banned by Google yesterday, how nice it would be if they had given me 5 days notice to have it cleared.

Cherry7 · 12-20-2011, 10:23 AM

Yes I used "Die Hard" as an example because film can be a messenger for change, for spreading ideas, but just think of how much enjoyment those films bring to the world.

Check out Sulliavan's Travels by Preston Sturges for an in depth explanation of enjoymant and scial change.

I am not convinced that the new technologies produce social change....

Shotsie · 12-20-2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzo

Just a sidenote porn isn't covered by SOPA... "By a vote of 9 to 18, the House Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), which would have barred the Department of Justice from using the new tactics envisioned by an anti-piracy bill to protect "obscene and pornographic works."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1158466.html

Yeah, you'd have to be pretty delusional to think the government is gonna go to bat for porn peddlers. They'll freeze out your sites before they go after the ones sharing your content for free.

porno jew · 12-20-2011, 10:33 AM

good to see the so-called communists and libertarians show their true colors when it comes to sopa.

hypocritical scum who think the government can legislate people to buy their crappy content and archaic business models.

Failed · 12-20-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

good to see the so-called communists and libertarians show their true colors when it comes to sopa.

hypocritical scum who think the government can legislate people to buy their crappy content and archaic business models.

gideongallery · 12-20-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

I'm not in favor of SOPA, but this idea that one pic or doing could get GFY or any other site shut down is the opposite of what SOPA says. SOPA says the complaintant has to prove that the site is dedicated to nothing but theft.

cut off the host
cut off the credit card processor
cut off the advertisers
cut off the search engine links

and you would kill a site

and you can do all of those without any judicial review.

porno jew · 12-20-2011, 11:14 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...pitalist_views

http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~...lproperty.html

SmutHammer · 12-20-2011, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

good idea to break the internet entirely in order to try and stop piracy.

DamianJ · 12-20-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Sorry to disappoint but the answer is yes, our editing program is paid for, and the programs our designer uses, and our musicians....

And you are sure every font he has has a license? Really sure?

Ever outsourced any development or design? Sure they all are paid for fonts too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

It is not Thatcher "I am all Right" that we commission music and pay for it, quite the opposite.

No. The thatcher reference was to you saying that because YOU don't have any infringing stuff on your site you think SOPA is good.

It just amuses me SO much on SO many levels that pornographers want to let the US government censor the internet.

DamianJ · 12-20-2011, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Yes I used "Die Hard" as an example because film can be a messenger for change, for spreading ideas, but just think of how much enjoyment those films bring to the world.

And I mocked you for using that example because it is pathetic for a left wing politically active person to think that an action film is better than twitter. Offensively pathetic. In fact, you are an intelligent man, so I can only assume you are doing a Markham and just trolling me now!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

I am not convinced that the new technologies produce social change....

Read the news occasionally.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?clien...FZGB8gOOwciqAQ

DamianJ · 12-20-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotsie

Yeah, you'd have to be pretty delusional to think the government is gonna go to bat for porn peddlers. They'll freeze out your sites before they go after the ones sharing your content for free.

No way, you mean the government doesn't care about Robbie's finances?

PiracyPitbull · 12-20-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzo

Just a sidenote porn isn't covered by SOPA... "By a vote of 9 to 18, the House Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), which would have barred the Department of Justice from using the new tactics envisioned by an anti-piracy bill to protect "obscene and pornographic works."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1158466.html

It was an amendment bought forward by Polis, to not include Porn. It didn't pass.

"By a vote of 9 to 18, the House Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), which would have barred the Department of Justice from using the new tactics envisioned by an anti-piracy bill to protect "obscene and pornographic works."

Members of both parties came together to defeat the anti-pornography initiative, with Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.), and even hardcore social conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) all against Polis' amendment, and in effect, standing up to protect the porn industry."

Why · 12-20-2011, 02:42 PM

people that think SOPA will work, make me laugh.

My mom told me its mean to laugh at people that don't know any better, but do you people really think SOPA will work? Are you naive enough to think that these people wont find another way to share content?

epitome · 12-20-2011, 03:34 PM

Again, we have the people that pay to create content arguing for it...

And those that want to consume and share it for free arguing against it.

If the thieves didn't think content was an all you can eat free buffet we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If it passes, the only people to blame are those that created the problem.

gideongallery · 12-20-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Again, we have the people that pay to create content arguing for it...

And those that want to consume and share it for free arguing against it.

If the thieves didn't think content was an all you can eat free buffet we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If it passes, the only people to blame are those that created the problem.

yeah dam that writer guild

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...to-crack.shtml

they never create anything

dam the Business Software Alliance

coders don't create anything either.

dam the 20,000 independent musicians, writers they don't create anything either

SmutHammer · 12-20-2011, 03:48 PM

wow... some people are idiots.... no matter who is against it or for it, the cause of sopa comes from the people stealing/sharing content.

DamianJ · 12-20-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Why

people that think SOPA will work, make me laugh.

My mom told me its mean to laugh at people that don't know any better, but do you people really think SOPA will work? Are you naive enough to think that these people wont find another way to share content?

That's the hilarious part. I really think they honestly believe it will work. It's as if they don't know that the great firewall of china is as easy to get around as stepping over a cat on the sidewalk.

DamianJ · 12-20-2011, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Again, we have the people that don't understand how DNS and the internet works and wish it was 10 years ago arguing for it...

And those that think that letting the government of one country try and censor the internet and fuck up DNS is a bad idea arguing against it.

Typos corrected.

You're welcome.

Paul Markham · 12-20-2011, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotsie

Yeah, you'd have to be pretty delusional to think the government is gonna go to bat for porn peddlers. They'll freeze out your sites before they go after the ones sharing your content for free.

SOPA will make little difference to the porn industry. We're too fond of giving it away for free for SOPA to have a real effect. Those downloading pirated movies, will move to Tubes who will make sure they don't lose their traffic because of a lack of full scenes.

The extra cost might be covered by those advertising on piracy sites, having to buy space on legal sites.

SOPA will not break the Internet either, the Internet is far too powerful for that and the scare mongers pushing that myth know it.

Yes Youtube will have to clean up it's act. Google will no longer give porn piracy sites top ranking, because they will fall away if the act works. It might give legal Tubes top ranking, but that's legal. Adapt or die.

And that's the nub of it. all you adapt or die clowns and the ones who tell me I never adapted to the new Internet. Will have to adapt to a new Internet yourself. And it scares you.

No more free pirated music, games, films, etc. And what ever else you used to enjoy for free. If SOPA works. If it doesn't they will take a bigger sledge hammer to crack the problem. Because the US loses too much money to allow it to continue. Not individual companies, the US and EU. Countries where the creative work is created, lose out to pirates based in other countries.

Yes big companies are pushing for it and you are pawns in their game. You can bitch till your blue in the face, like 2257, .xxx, the 1% CB ceiling, etc. Adapt or fuck off. Because nothing you say here will change.

You guys are worse than me bitching about how it used to be. Get on with working out how to make use of the changes and being ahead of the game and not bitching here and losing valuable time. Because nothing you say, post or do will have any effect when the law passes.

Paul Markham · 12-20-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

That's the hilarious part. I really think they honestly believe it will work. It's as if they don't know that the great firewall of china is as easy to get around as stepping over a cat on the sidewalk.

So why do you sound so scared?

Diomed · 12-20-2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakingItPay

People do have the freedom to look at what they want. But they used to have to pay the person that created it. Now they have the freedom to steal from the owner of the content without much fear of reprisal. If I say you can't see my content unless you are over 18, and pay for the right, is that censorship?

It's a double edged sword.

And sure, if it was kept specifically to a certain copyright use it would be fine. But you would have to be extremely naive to believe it would be kept to that strict use.

Once you start censoring even a small gap in the market, it only grows from there.

It's a trojan horse, and if anyone who is familiar with the US GOV tactics, you ought to damn well know they are already planning other tactical uses.

stocktrader23 · 12-20-2011, 06:56 PM

I love how if you don't support a bullshit law you just MUST run illegal tubes, steal music and not produce anything that falls under copyright.

Jamie Gardner · 12-20-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by signupdamnit

For those of you talking about how GFY is going to get shut down because someone posts a single picture of Mickey Mouse, get real. That's just a bunch of hyperbole.

The entire movie of Disney's Toy Story was on xvideos until it was removed. In addition, xvideos has had TV series such as Game of Thrones. There are many sex scenes, from mainstream movies, on tube sites. There are torrent sites, that specialize in porn, that also have mainstream movies on them.

Pornographers could send link lists of mainstream movies, that are being pirated, to mainstream companies. If mainstream companies go after the porn piracy sites, it helps the pornographers as well. If SOPA passes, think what the mainstream film industry could do to these sites.

MakingItPay · 12-20-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diomed

It's a double edged sword.

And sure, if it was kept specifically to a certain copyright use it would be fine. But you would have to be extremely naive to believe it would be kept to that strict use.

Once you start censoring even a small gap in the market, it only grows from there.

It's a trojan horse, and if anyone who is familiar with the US GOV tactics, you ought to damn well know they are already planning other tactical uses.

I agree that censoring is bad. But this is not about censorship, it is about enforcing the copyright laws to protect producers, not thieves. I am sure it would make the internet less fun for people that enjoy receiving stolen goods, and the people making good money on theft. Pay to produce some content, create a site, then launch it. A week or two later if it is good, you can google it and see it show up all over the net. See how that feels and you will know who the law is for. It is these people that like the idea of a law with some teeth. Everyone else has nothing to lose and maybe even money to gain by stealing being a valid way to generate traffic and income. No way this is gonna pass, but a content producer can dream.

Diomed · 12-20-2011, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakingItPay

I agree that censoring is bad. But this is not about censorship, it is about enforcing the copyright laws to protect producers, not thieves. I am sure it would make the internet less fun for people that enjoy receiving stolen goods, and the people making good money on theft. Pay to produce some content, create a site, then launch it. A week or two later if it is good, you can google it and see it show up all over the net. See how that feels and you will know who the law is for. It is these people that like the idea of a law with some teeth. Everyone else has nothing to lose and maybe even money to gain by stealing being a valid way to generate traffic and income. No way this is gonna pass, but a content producer can dream.

If it weren't guaranteed that the government will use this bill for other "less desirable" purposes, then I would agree with it completely. The devil is in the details, and you had better believe there will be a couple of minute loophole angles that will be exploited for uses outside of those which are listed as the main theme of the bill.

If for nothing else, it will set a very uncomfortable precedent. Sometimes just having a "process" that can delay people is enough leverage to use as a hefty tool against others who's content is deemed "un-desirable" by the government.

Just look at the court system, some parties can legally kill innocent campaigners by taking them to court year after year on bogus charges and effectively eliminate them from running again. It's all legal.

MakingItPay · 12-20-2011, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diomed

If it weren't guaranteed that the government will use this bill for other "less desirable" purposes, then I would agree with it completely. The devil is in the details, and you had better believe there will be a couple of minute loophole angles that will be exploited for uses outside of those which are listed as the main theme of the bill.

If for nothing else, it will set a very uncomfortable precedent. Sometimes just having a "process" that can delay people is enough leverage to use as a hefty tool against others who's content is deemed "un-desirable" by the government.

Just look at the court system, some parties can legally kill innocent campaigners by taking them to court year after year on bogus charges and effectively eliminate them from running again. It's all legal.

This bill may be over reaching. I'm not sure. I think the risk of legitimate sites being shut down by liars is slim. But I don't trust the government. I have seen what happens without a strong law, so I am ready to see what happens when they have one that has teeth. Like I said, there is no way this will pass. Hopefully a better one will follow and will put pressure on the paypals, filesonics, bit torrents, and illegal tubes to stop stealing until they are caught. This method adds the burden of playing whack a mole constantly with content thieves.

Nathan · 12-20-2011, 11:56 PM

Seriously, all of you are driving me insane... sorry, I have to post, I can not stand this anymore...

There is so much misunderstanding on this board about SOPA it is INSANE...

SOPA misunderstanding 1: The market-driven system (103) does NOT PROVIDE FOR NOTICE TO HOSTS!!! It _ONLY_ allows notices sent to _AD NETWORKS_ and _BILLING PROVIDERS_.

SOPA misunderstanding 2: SOPA does not apply to sites that offer one link to some copyrighted product!! It has to be DEDICATED TO THE FACT.

SOPA misunderstanding 3: Market-Driven SOPA notices to ad networks or billing providers will most likely result in a counter-notice from the site, which will result in it going to COURT!!! If anyone here thinks that ad networks or billing providers will just voluntarily shut down sites they are insane... if they thought that would make sense they would friggin do it already now.

SOPA misunderstanding 4: SOPAs _2nd_ paragraph -- Section 1 - SEC 2 - (a) (2) -- is there to LIMIT anything following in the law, and it clearly states that anywhere it talks about a breach of Title 17, ALL LIMITATIONS OF TITLE 17 APPLY.. Guess what guys, TITLE 17 SECTION 512 is _DMCA_.

SOPA misunderstanding 5: SOPA was made for sites like pornbb.org or similar, in order to shutdown sites which CAN NOT BE TOUCHED from the US. It is so that although the SITE can not be taken down, it can be blacklisted all over in the US. The ISP provision in 102 is not to send a notice to the HOST OF THE SITE.. It's to send a notice to ALL ISPS IN THE US TO BLOCK THE DNS!

Small hint also regarding our sites and 103 -- 1) We run our own Ad Network, a SOPA notice sent to that one will definitely result in a counter-notice and a lawsuit following; 2) We do not use any billing providers on our tube sites.

In general, 103 will be used by copyright owners without really understanding it, and will likely harm a bunch of them when they have to go to court and pay penalties for false claims. Make _SURE_ you understand 103 (a) (1) perfectly... especially (B) (i) (I)... "primarily" and "only limited purpose or use other than" and "violation of Section 501 of title 17" in connection with 1 SEC 2 (a) (2) are quite detailed as in what they mean and apply to... BTW, (B) (ii) is there for sites like the pirate bay I guess...

BTW, since a comment to that effect was made here, DMCA has nothing to do with not wanting to police a site, but instead that a site taking submissions by ANY THIRD PARTY, even a verified source, needs DMCA to protect itself against someone that posts content she does not own.

Paul Markham · 12-21-2011, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diomed

If it weren't guaranteed that the government will use this bill for other "less desirable" purposes, then I would agree with it completely. The devil is in the details, and you had better believe there will be a couple of minute loophole angles that will be exploited for uses outside of those which are listed as the main theme of the bill.

If for nothing else, it will set a very uncomfortable precedent. Sometimes just having a "process" that can delay people is enough leverage to use as a hefty tool against others who's content is deemed "un-desirable" by the government.

Just look at the court system, some parties can legally kill innocent campaigners by taking them to court year after year on bogus charges and effectively eliminate them from running again. It's all legal.

What experience do you have working in the media or entertainment industry, adult or mainstream, that is censored?

I had 3 decades of experience and I can tell you categorically it never hurt my business or my ability to get the information I wanted.

Nathan has just pointed out what the law means. Now why don't you go see your lawyer, get a written rebuttal from him or her and come back with the truth.

What ever you say, it makes no difference. The law will be passed, or one like it, if it does not work another will be passed. Crying over spilled milk won't make it leap back into the glass.

And this goes for all the other anti people.

My advice is to assume it will pass and to assume it will affect the way your business or life is run and adapt or die. You're all young enough.

NetHorse · 12-21-2011, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 19teenporn

It's not hard to realize the fact that all of gfyers that are constantly opposing to and making fun of SOPA have illegal tubes or forums.

Dude....

That is a pretty stupid assumption.

I fight piracy on-behalf of programs I promote, (for content I don't even fucking own) but I don't support SOPA.

It's like killing an ant with a nuclear bomb. Handing this type of control over to the government is NEVER a good idea. Name one government agency / run service that operates fairly or efficiently?

Giving the government the power to control what sites ISPs can allow access to is a VERY bad idea, period.

Imagine a wrongful complaint against your site by a competitor and the government blocks it, without due process. Imagine spending the next 3 years in court trying to get it back online. Imagine if you lived in another country and all of sudden in an instant you lose all U.S. traffic, imagine the process involved of trying to get that traffic back.

This bill scares the shit out of me, it has the potential to kill this industry twice as fast as tubes and forums.

Today, it's for piracy, tomorrow it's for lewdness or free speech that creates fear and panic, etc. Once you hand this type of control over to the government there is no telling what they will use it for.

Cherry7 · 12-21-2011, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

And I mocked you for using that example because it is pathetic for a left wing politically active person to think that an action film is better than twitter. Offensively pathetic. In fact, you are an intelligent man, so I can only assume you are doing a Markham and just trolling me now!

Read the news occasionally.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?clien...FZGB8gOOwciqAQ

I used a popular action film exactly because its main function is entertainment. That is not a bad thing. It is a very well made film, I think the editing, mis en scen and sound in the attack on the flat should go down in film history together with the Odessa Steps sequence of Battleship Potemkin.

The fact you misunderstood this shows the weakness of this form of discourse, a simple phone conversation would have made everything plain. Old technology .

The printing press, twitter etc are important tools, but what changes the world are ideas not the means of delivering them. The failure of the people in the most advanced countries to make any political change shows that it is not the technology. Egypt has had change because its pro western government was unpopular, the small educated elite now find that twitter will not help them with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood with its organization based on a party and books reaches all the population.

As I said if you look at "Sullivan Travels " it will show you the relationship between political movies and entertainment. After making musicals Sullivan wants the studio to let him make a movie about real people based on his script "Brother Where Art Thou?" I will not spoil the ending.....

I don't think I troll as I don't really know what it means.

Happy Christmas

DamianJ · 12-21-2011, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Egypt has had change because its pro western government was unpopular, the small educated elite now find that twitter will not help them with the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://smedio.com/2011/02/04/how-twi...an-revolution/

Joshua G · 12-21-2011, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetHorse

That is a pretty stupid assumption.

I fight piracy on-behalf of programs I promote, (for content I don't even fucking own) but I don't support SOPA.

It's like killing an ant with a nuclear bomb. Handing this type of control over to the government is NEVER a good idea. Name one government agency / run service that operates fairly or efficiently?

Giving the government the power to control what sites ISPs can allow access to is a VERY bad idea, period.

Imagine a wrongful complaint against your site by a competitor and the government blocks it, without due process. Imagine spending the next 3 years in court trying to get it back online. Imagine if you lived in another country and all of sudden in an instant you lose all U.S. traffic, imagine the process involved of trying to get that traffic back.

This bill scares the shit out of me, it has the potential to kill this industry twice as fast as tubes and forums.

Today, it's for piracy, tomorrow it's for lewdness or free speech that creates fear and panic, etc. Once you hand this type of control over to the government there is no telling what they will use it for.

you don't know that any of that will happen. Your guessing.

fact is, the government can do every fear you outlined RIGHT NOW. If they want to take down your site, they will find some law to take you down. maybe you werent available for 20 hours/week for 2257 inspections. or they stick the IRS on you. They have all kinds of gimics.

at some point people have to stop fearing abuse of power by the government to justify having no laws at all. The US government is not China, nor is it going to turn into one while there is a independent judiciary.

DamianJ · 12-21-2011, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

fact is, the government can do every fear you outlined RIGHT NOW.

Point is, with this new bill the government aren't involved at all. Anyone can report you, and your site will be closed in 5 days. No government intervention. No due process.

Oh, and it will break the internet.

signupdamnit · 12-21-2011, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

SOPA misunderstanding 2: SOPA does not apply to sites that offer one link to some copyrighted product!! It has to be DEDICATED TO THE FACT.

On the front page of pornhub.com, right now, what percentage of movies do you either:

a) Own the rights or a license to show on your sites
b) Have permission from the owners to show said movies

What about a year ago? Three years ago?

Fabian, in your expert opinion please summarize in 100 words or less what exactly it is about your tube properties which have made them so popular with users. In other words what do you think it is that brings people to Pornhub versus the other thousands of porn tubes out there?

topnotch, standup guy · 12-21-2011, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Point is, with this new bill the government aren't involved at all. Anyone can report you, and your site will be closed in 5 days. No government intervention. No due process.

That is precisely what makes this bill work for people in this industry.

Think about it. The government will never lift a finger to help anyone in this industry.

Never.

But this bill will empower industry producers and honest webmasters alike to help themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Oh, and it will break the internet.

Yeah right.

The only sites that need worry are those whose primary purpose is the dissemination of pirated content.

.

signupdamnit · 12-21-2011, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topnotch, standup guy

But this bill will empower industry producers and honest webmasters alike to help themselves.

If it passes I know I plan on spending a couple hours a day going through the tubes, forums and file sharing hosts looking for my sponsor's content. Then I plan on contacting them and suggesting things they can do under SOPA to put them out of business. I'll do it for free just to help my own conversions and for the pleasure of seeing some of these scumbags lose their sites.

SmutHammer · 12-21-2011, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by signupdamnit

If it passes I know I plan on spending a couple hours a day going through the tubes, forums and file sharing hosts looking for my sponsor's content. Then I plan on contacting them and suggesting things they can do under SOPA to put them out of business. I'll do it for free just to help my own conversions and for the pleasure of seeing some of these scumbags lose their sites.

let us know what you find

topnotch, standup guy · 12-21-2011, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetHorse

That is a pretty stupid assumption.

I fight piracy on-behalf of programs I promote, (for content I don't even fucking own) but I don't support SOPA.

It's like killing an ant with a nuclear bomb.

Thing is that ant, as you call it, has proved pretty resilient to everything that has been thrown at it thus far.

Perhaps nothing short of a virtual nuke can kill it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetHorse

Handing this type of control over to the government is NEVER a good idea. Name one government agency / run service that operates fairly or efficiently?

Giving the government the power to control what sites ISPs can allow access to is a VERY bad idea, period.

I don't trust the government either but imperfect solutions are oftentimes better than no solutions at all.

The enemy of my enemy can sometimes function as my friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetHorse

Imagine a wrongful complaint against your site by a competitor and the government blocks it, without due process. Imagine spending the next 3 years in court trying to get it back online. Imagine if you lived in another country and all of sudden in an instant you lose all U.S. traffic, imagine the process involved of trying to get that traffic back.

As I understand it, only sites who's primary purpose is piracy would be vulnerable.

A monkey sitting in front of a computer monitor can differentiate between a file sharing forum and/or tube and that of a legitimate site with the occasional unauthorized image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetHorse

This bill scares the shit out of me, it has the potential to kill this industry twice as fast as tubes and forums.

If piracy isn't brought under control, they'll soon be no (legitimate) industry left to kill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetHorse

Today, it's for piracy, tomorrow it's for lewdness or free speech that creates fear and panic, etc. Once you hand this type of control over to the government there is no telling what they will use it for.

Your concerns are valid.

But remember, those who spend all of their hours worrying about tomorrow sometimes fail to survive the perils of today.

.

marlboroack · 12-21-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewNick

Google is the biggest pirate of them all.

WTF is that thing in your avatar?

Paul Markham · 12-21-2011, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cherry7

Egypt has had change because its pro western government was unpopular, the small educated elite now find that twitter will not help them with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The same people who were in charge under Hosni Mubarak's rule are still in charge. The Army ran the country and still run it. Twitter is what a little bird does and it had the same effect in Egypt. the Eagles and Hawks still rule. Nice illusion that Twitter can change the world, but seriously, wait and see.

Ten months after Egypt's revolution ended Hosni Mubarak's 30-year dictatorship, there is no sign of stable government arriving any time soon. After two days of pitch battles with the military in downtown Cairo, 10 protesters have been killed and over 300 injured.

This will help you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Oh, and it will break the internet.

If it's that easy to break, best we break it and start again. Got your tin foil hat?

Seriously Damian, it makes no difference what you post here. The law will get passed, then we will see if it breaks the Internet. If I can close you down or you can close me down or Fabian can shut all the rest of us down.

If you're right, what are your future plans? Have you been getting your CV ready, searching the situation vacant ads or registered at the job centre? Not having a go and this is what all the fear mongers should be doing, because according to them, it's all over.

Real world, none of you have thought about alternative employment. Because you don't really believe the fears you're spreading.

Not just Damian, all the fear mongers who think it's the end of online porn or the strangling of it. What actions have you taken to to safeguard your future incomes?

That calls for a poll.

Zester · 12-21-2011, 12:01 PM

is it over yet?

gideongallery · 12-21-2011, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Seriously, all of you are driving me insane... sorry, I have to post, I can not stand this anymore...

There is so much misunderstanding on this board about SOPA it is INSANE...

SOPA misunderstanding 1: The market-driven system (103) does NOT PROVIDE FOR NOTICE TO HOSTS!!! It _ONLY_ allows notices sent to _AD NETWORKS_ and _BILLING PROVIDERS_.

SOPA misunderstanding 2: SOPA does not apply to sites that offer one link to some copyrighted product!! It has to be DEDICATED TO THE FACT.

SOPA misunderstanding 3: Market-Driven SOPA notices to ad networks or billing providers will most likely result in a counter-notice from the site, which will result in it going to COURT!!! If anyone here thinks that ad networks or billing providers will just voluntarily shut down sites they are insane... if they thought that would make sense they would friggin do it already now.

SOPA misunderstanding 4: SOPAs _2nd_ paragraph -- Section 1 - SEC 2 - (a) (2) -- is there to LIMIT anything following in the law, and it clearly states that anywhere it talks about a breach of Title 17, ALL LIMITATIONS OF TITLE 17 APPLY.. Guess what guys, TITLE 17 SECTION 512 is _DMCA_.

SOPA misunderstanding 5: SOPA was made for sites like pornbb.org or similar, in order to shutdown sites which CAN NOT BE TOUCHED from the US. It is so that although the SITE can not be taken down, it can be blacklisted all over in the US. The ISP provision in 102 is not to send a notice to the HOST OF THE SITE.. It's to send a notice to ALL ISPS IN THE US TO BLOCK THE DNS!

Small hint also regarding our sites and 103 -- 1) We run our own Ad Network, a SOPA notice sent to that one will definitely result in a counter-notice and a lawsuit following; 2) We do not use any billing providers on our tube sites.

In general, 103 will be used by copyright owners without really understanding it, and will likely harm a bunch of them when they have to go to court and pay penalties for false claims. Make _SURE_ you understand 103 (a) (1) perfectly... especially (B) (i) (I)... "primarily" and "only limited purpose or use other than" and "violation of Section 501 of title 17" in connection with 1 SEC 2 (a) (2) are quite detailed as in what they mean and apply to... BTW, (B) (ii) is there for sites like the pirate bay I guess...

BTW, since a comment to that effect was made here, DMCA has nothing to do with not wanting to police a site, but instead that a site taking submissions by ANY THIRD PARTY, even a verified source, needs DMCA to protect itself against someone that posts content she does not own.

the DMCA takedown notice is only supposed to be used to takedown content you own

yet universal took down mega uploads song even though they knew it didn't contain a single second of their copyright material.

The issue is not what will happen if the law if followed as intended it when grey areas are abused.

Abusers of these laws should be punished just as much as companies who infringe.

Paul Markham · 12-22-2011, 12:47 AM

All the anti SOPA guys who think it will change their businesses, need to get over here https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1050810 and vote.

Then post on how they are planning to make money in the future, seeing as SOPA wil change so much for them. Well that's what they say will happen.

In truth they're doing fuck all because they don't believe what they're saying.

NewNick · 12-22-2011, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

again, we have the people that pay to create content arguing for it...

And those that want to consume and share it for free arguing against it.

If the thieves didn't think content was an all you can eat free buffet we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If it passes, the only people to blame are those that created the problem.

qft.........

NewNick · 12-22-2011, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

That's the hilarious part. I really think they honestly believe it will work.

What do you mean by "honestly believe it will work."

It does not have "to work" if you are insinuating that you should not legislate unless you can be 100% certain that the crime will be eradicated.

Laws are not passed in the belief that the crime will be eradicated, and it is a really pathetic internet hippy argument that says content should be free because "its the internet".

Jesus, you will be telling us that "property is theft" next.

Paul Markham · 12-22-2011, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

the DMCA takedown notice is only supposed to be used to takedown content you own

yet universal took down mega uploads song even though they knew it didn't contain a single second of their copyright material.

The issue is not what will happen if the law if followed as intended it when grey areas are abused.

Abusers of these laws should be punished just as much as companies who infringe.

Can you explain this better please.

Universal took down one song that wasn't theirs?

Took down many songs, some of which weren't theirs?

Took down many songs, none of which weren't theirs?

Took down the whole site?

Link to the news story, from a neutral and reliable source so not a post on Pirate Bay.

Can you quote me what the penalties are for bringing down a site wrongly today and the penalties for bringing down a site falsely under the new SOPA law please. Not a post somewhere, the actual law as it's written.

Otherwise people will think you're full of BS.

Also can you post here what your future plans are for employment. As you think SOPA s so bad. https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1050810

Cherry7 · 12-22-2011, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

good to see the so-called communists and libertarians show their true colors when it comes to sopa.

hypocritical scum who think the government can legislate people to buy their crappy content and archaic business models.

That is because you do not understand the way the world really is for the powerless.

Take the UK Coal miners, they were doing a terrible job, they did not control the industry.

They had radical beliefs of controlling the industry for the benefit of all.

When the government wanted to destroy the Coal Mining Industry they struck to defend it.

SOPA

There could be a radical solution where society /Internet take over the full funding and employment of the industries being destroyed by the free distribution of content. Like the BBC in the UK everyone pays a hundred or so dollars a year and for that you get TV channels, news, music and news free at the point of consumption.

but if the Internet is not going to pay up but just steal, then workers will defend their jobs, and will support their bosses in defending their industries.

Communists see a great possibility of free information and culture for all, but the workers who produce it have to be paid. That is why if the Goggles of this world don't like SOPA, the ball is in their court on how the creative industries should be funded.

Not such an idealistic wonderful technology if it is destroying your job and art.

Why have the Internet companies come up with a better plan?

Because they want to continue to make money on other people content and work?

Robber Barons.

12-20-2011, 10:23 AM	#53
Cherry7 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: UK Posts: 3,564	Yes I used "Die Hard" as an example because film can be a messenger for change, for spreading ideas, but just think of how much enjoyment those films bring to the world. Check out Sulliavan's Travels by Preston Sturges for an in depth explanation of enjoymant and scial change. I am not convinced that the new technologies produce social change.... __________________ My Neighbour Butterfly PORN-The Musical The Long Goodbye Cinema Erotique

12-20-2011, 06:56 PM	#73
stocktrader23 Let's do some business. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The dirty south. Posts: 18,781	I love how if you don't support a bullshit law you just MUST run illegal tubes, steal music and not produce anything that falls under copyright. __________________ Hands Free Adult - Join Once, Earn For Life "I try to make a habit of bouncing my eyes up to the face of a beautiful woman, and often repeat “not mine” in my head or even verbally. She’s not mine. God has her set aside. She’s not mine. She’s His little girl, and she needs me to fight for her by keeping my eyes where they should be."

12-20-2011, 11:56 PM	#78
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Seriously, all of you are driving me insane... sorry, I have to post, I can not stand this anymore... There is so much misunderstanding on this board about SOPA it is INSANE... SOPA misunderstanding 1: The market-driven system (103) does NOT PROVIDE FOR NOTICE TO HOSTS!!! It _ONLY_ allows notices sent to _AD NETWORKS_ and _BILLING PROVIDERS_. SOPA misunderstanding 2: SOPA does not apply to sites that offer one link to some copyrighted product!! It has to be DEDICATED TO THE FACT. SOPA misunderstanding 3: Market-Driven SOPA notices to ad networks or billing providers will most likely result in a counter-notice from the site, which will result in it going to COURT!!! If anyone here thinks that ad networks or billing providers will just voluntarily shut down sites they are insane... if they thought that would make sense they would friggin do it already now. SOPA misunderstanding 4: SOPAs _2nd_ paragraph -- Section 1 - SEC 2 - (a) (2) -- is there to LIMIT anything following in the law, and it clearly states that anywhere it talks about a breach of Title 17, ALL LIMITATIONS OF TITLE 17 APPLY.. Guess what guys, TITLE 17 SECTION 512 is _DMCA_. SOPA misunderstanding 5: SOPA was made for sites like pornbb.org or similar, in order to shutdown sites which CAN NOT BE TOUCHED from the US. It is so that although the SITE can not be taken down, it can be blacklisted all over in the US. The ISP provision in 102 is not to send a notice to the HOST OF THE SITE.. It's to send a notice to ALL ISPS IN THE US TO BLOCK THE DNS! Small hint also regarding our sites and 103 -- 1) We run our own Ad Network, a SOPA notice sent to that one will definitely result in a counter-notice and a lawsuit following; 2) We do not use any billing providers on our tube sites. In general, 103 will be used by copyright owners without really understanding it, and will likely harm a bunch of them when they have to go to court and pay penalties for false claims. Make _SURE_ you understand 103 (a) (1) perfectly... especially (B) (i) (I)... "primarily" and "only limited purpose or use other than" and "violation of Section 501 of title 17" in connection with 1 SEC 2 (a) (2) are quite detailed as in what they mean and apply to... BTW, (B) (ii) is there for sites like the pirate bay I guess... BTW, since a comment to that effect was made here, DMCA has nothing to do with not wanting to police a site, but instead that a site taking submissions by ANY THIRD PARTY, even a verified source, needs DMCA to protect itself against someone that posts content she does not own. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger Last edited by Nathan; 12-20-2011 at 11:58 PM..

12-21-2011, 12:01 PM	#92
Zester Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,344	is it over yet? __________________ * Mainstream ? $65 per sale * new male contraception

12-22-2011, 12:47 AM	#94
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	All the anti SOPA guys who think it will change their businesses, need to get over here https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1050810 and vote. Then post on how they are planning to make money in the future, seeing as SOPA wil change so much for them. Well that's what they say will happen. In truth they're doing fuck all because they don't believe what they're saying. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

12-20-2011, 10:33 AM	#55
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	good to see the so-called communists and libertarians show their true colors when it comes to sopa. hypocritical scum who think the government can legislate people to buy their crappy content and archaic business models.

12-20-2011, 11:14 AM	#58
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...pitalist_views http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~...lproperty.html

12-20-2011, 02:42 PM	#64
Why MFBA Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: PNW Posts: 7,230	people that think SOPA will work, make me laugh. My mom told me its mean to laugh at people that don't know any better, but do you people really think SOPA will work? Are you naive enough to think that these people wont find another way to share content?

12-20-2011, 03:34 PM	#65
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,158	Again, we have the people that pay to create content arguing for it... And those that want to consume and share it for free arguing against it. If the thieves didn't think content was an all you can eat free buffet we wouldn't be having this discussion. If it passes, the only people to blame are those that created the problem.

12-20-2011, 03:48 PM	#67
SmutHammer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,844	wow... some people are idiots.... no matter who is against it or for it, the cause of sopa comes from the people stealing/sharing content.