.xxx has its first piracy sites - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

GregE · 01-02-2012, 06:25 AM

Fifty GFY pirates sweating the consequences of SOPA.

GregE · 01-02-2012, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Well so far we now know that .XXX isn't about protecting kids, and it isn't about curbing piracy. Off to a good start.

Yeah, I'm still reeling from the shock of it all myself

AdultEUhost · 01-02-2012, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Hopefully the guys at .xxx will see this and take action

right...because they care about the industry

Nydahl · 01-02-2012, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topnotch, standup guy

It's a good thing that the vast majority of jews don't think like you.

Otherwise, that former German leader with the bad haircut and the funny mustache would be remembered a bit more fondly nowadays.

.

heheheh - well said

Failed · 01-02-2012, 09:56 AM

PhatNation is now a parked page. AssLovers is still up.

Failed · 01-02-2012, 10:35 PM

PhatNation done, AssLovers pirated content gone. In just a few days .xxx took care of piracy on their extension, .com can't say that.

porno jew · 01-02-2012, 10:40 PM

wow xxx/icm did the right thing. impressed. yes, will a .com do that for you?

apologies are in order.

Half man, Half Amazing · 01-03-2012, 03:15 AM

DWB · 01-03-2012, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failed

PhatNation done, AssLovers pirated content gone. In just a few days .xxx took care of piracy on their extension, .com can't say that.

Well fuck me sideways. I honestly didn't see that coming. I'm impressed.

See how easy that was? Think of how fast piracy would die off if everyone (hosts, billing companies, registrars...) handled it like that.

porno jew · 01-03-2012, 03:42 AM

guess icm doesn't give a single fuck about time shifting backing up in a cloud fair use rights?

rowan · 01-03-2012, 03:54 AM

I don't like domain registrars playing net cop.

Barry-xlovecam · 01-03-2012, 05:28 AM

In this case there was some legitimate complaint of theft.

However, had this been a frivolous assertion of copyright infringement would have the reaction been similar? This appears to be a non judicial ex parte decision. That means a unilateral decision ( by private enterprise, in this instance). Should private enterprise be granted the right to these decisions? Expediency is one thing but "killing" of a domain (or domain execution without trial to put in in the colloquial)? Is this is the right thing to do and will the next unilateral decision be correct also?

Had there been some issue of speech involved -- possible libel or questionable content sexual text speech -- would you want someone other that a court of law censoring your 1st Amendment speech rights?

Think hard about it ...

topnotch, standup guy · 01-03-2012, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

In this case there was some legitimate complaint of theft.

However, had this been a frivolous assertion of copyright infringement would have the reaction been similar? This appears to be a non judicial ex parte decision. That means a unilateral decision ( by private enterprise, in this instance). Should private enterprise be granted the right to these decisions? Expediency is one thing but "killing" of a domain (or domain execution without trial to put in in the colloquial)? Is this is the right thing to do and will the next unilateral decision be correct also?

Had there been some issue of speech involved -- possible libel or questionable content sexual text speech -- would you want someone other that a court of law censoring your 1st Amendment speech rights?

Think hard about it ...

Three words: wac-a-mole

You know how that game works, right?

Without expediency there is no combating piracy. None, zip, nada.

That is precisely why DMCA doesn't work and we all know it.

.

DWB · 01-03-2012, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

In this case there was some legitimate complaint of theft.

However, had this been a frivolous assertion of copyright infringement would have the reaction been similar? This appears to be a non judicial ex parte decision. That means a unilateral decision ( by private enterprise, in this instance). Should private enterprise be granted the right to these decisions? Expediency is one thing but "killing" of a domain (or domain execution without trial to put in in the colloquial)? Is this is the right thing to do and will the next unilateral decision be correct also?

Had there been some issue of speech involved -- possible libel or questionable content sexual text speech -- would you want someone other that a court of law censoring your 1st Amendment speech rights?

Think hard about it ...

It should all come down to if the violation is disputed or not. If I send you a DMCA and you don't / can't dispute it, you lose. If you can dispute it, it will escalate and whoever can prove ownership should win.

I don't see this as being a difficult issue. If you own something, or have the rights to use it, you should be able to prove it.

cherrylula · 01-03-2012, 08:58 AM

well done

01-02-2012, 06:25 AM	#51
GregE Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 2,704	Fifty GFY pirates sweating the consequences of SOPA. __________________ 50/50 lifetime payout - EXCLUSIVE CONTENT - CCBill CLiCK here for your Bun Beating Dollars. Last edited by GregE; 01-02-2012 at 06:27 AM..

01-03-2012, 03:15 AM	#58
Half man, Half Amazing Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Capital Wasteland, DC Posts: 372	__________________ Is this gonna get ugly, now? Huh? I hope not. Because I thought what we were here, racial differences notwithstanding, was just a couple of old friends. You know, just both of us Californians.

01-03-2012, 05:28 AM	#62
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	In this case there was some legitimate complaint of theft. However, had this been a frivolous assertion of copyright infringement would have the reaction been similar? This appears to be a non judicial ex parte decision. That means a unilateral decision ( by private enterprise, in this instance). Should private enterprise be granted the right to these decisions? Expediency is one thing but "killing" of a domain (or domain execution without trial to put in in the colloquial)? Is this is the right thing to do and will the next unilateral decision be correct also? Had there been some issue of speech involved -- possible libel or questionable content sexual text speech -- would you want someone other that a court of law censoring your 1st Amendment speech rights? Think hard about it ...

01-02-2012, 09:56 AM	#55
Failed Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 2,301	PhatNation is now a parked page. AssLovers is still up.

01-02-2012, 10:35 PM	#56
Failed Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 2,301	PhatNation done, AssLovers pirated content gone. In just a few days .xxx took care of piracy on their extension, .com can't say that.

01-02-2012, 10:40 PM	#57
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	wow xxx/icm did the right thing. impressed. yes, will a .com do that for you? apologies are in order.

01-03-2012, 03:42 AM	#60
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	guess icm doesn't give a single fuck about time shifting backing up in a cloud fair use rights?

01-03-2012, 03:54 AM	#61
rowan Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 17,393	I don't like domain registrars playing net cop.

01-03-2012, 08:58 AM	#65
cherrylula lol Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 15,969	well done