Convo with my dad about SOPA... - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 01-15-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

Society has changed, you mean you support tyranny of the majority. This might come as a shock to you but you don't get to strip others of their property rights just because you want what they have and can get others rallied together who want those things too.

interesting argument

how does that apply when copyright holder is the one stripping the innocent site of his right to exist?

DWB · 01-15-2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

I agree that anyone that thinks SOPA is the endgame is delusional or at the least naive. This is the next step. It will be implemented in some form or fashion and it will make certain things more difficult for pirates. Since they are financially motivated criminals I don't expect them to all of a sudden become priests or florists so they'll do their thing to avoid paying licensing fees or *GASP* creating their own content. And then we'll be talking about the next law.

Exactly this.

Once SOPA is in place, if it is put into place, it is just another step. They will keep stepping for some time to come until a little order is restored.

I wouldn't worry so much about SOPA. Instead worry about what they are going to push through on the back of SOPA down the line.

Brent 3dSexCash · 01-15-2012, 06:41 PM

I agree with SOPA, but is the internet kill switch still part of it?

Because if so....then I'm against it solely for that purpose.

xenigo · 01-15-2012, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

interesting argument

how does that apply when copyright holder is the one stripping the innocent site of his right to exist?

There's no such thing as an innocent site who's sole purpose is to engage in piracy.

You're not innocent if you're using content you didn't create, or didn't pay for, or weren't otherwise authorized to use.

stocktrader23 · 01-15-2012, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenigo

Ever notice how the divide between people who support SOPA versus the people who don't support SOPA always hinges upon whether those people create content, or just merely consume it? People who don't create it... don't want any rules forbidding it's distribution.

Funny how people who don't create content can't be objective whatsoever.

Ever notice how you bitter has beens make all kinds of wild claims about those that don't support your ignorant ass stance even though you know nothing about them?

I put my first websites online in January 2001. My exact code, images, layouts and even pictures of my wife were on 100+ domains (I quit counting) by the middle of 2001. I have owned a design company, sold software and have even been accused of stealing my own script because someone stole it and sold it from their own website.

The problem that you and many others are running into is that images and videos of girls fucking are worth a lot less than they were several years ago. Way too much available, technological advances that don't mesh well with your dwindling business model and less people to sell your "same old shit" to for a whole host of reasons.

I don't download shit. It wouldn't matter if I downloaded 5000 copyrighted works per day. No law is going to be the magic bullet that saves you. You will be just as bitter next year as you are right now and you won't change the fact that you are talking out of your ass about those that don't back you up no matter how cool you sound to equally bitter knuckleheads.

Cheers

xenigo · 01-15-2012, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

Ever notice how you bitter has beens make all kinds of wild claims about those that don't support your ignorant ass stance even though you know nothing about them.

Doh. You're right. I'll throw in the towel now. I'll ship you all of my content via FedEx overnight, along with the transfer agreement. You'll have it Tuesday morning.

I didn't realize it before... but you've changed my mind. You've really helped me see the light. The fight is no longer worth it.

SmutHammer · 01-15-2012, 07:12 PM

Someone that files a false claim should be charged with a misdemeanor or felony. removing their copy write doesn't help anything, it only devalues other copywriters content who have done nothing wrong.

xenigo · 01-15-2012, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

Someone that files a false claim should be charged with a misdemeanor or felony. removing their copy write doesn't help anything, it only devalues other copywriters content who have done nothing wrong.

Agreed.

Joshua G · 01-15-2012, 07:53 PM

hey gallery. explain your obsession with false claims. What do you produce, who are you afraid of.

i got it. You run a torrent. you make money using other peoples creations. you convinced yourself your all encompassing definition of fair use gives you the right to do it. & you think anyone who SOPAs your sorry ass will be making a false claim. Somehow in your Wallyworld, the government will agree with you & turn over the "false" accusers copyright to you, or the public domain, whatever.

What...a...fucking...clown.

xenigo · 01-15-2012, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

hey gallery. explain your obsession with false claims. What do you produce, who are you afraid of.

i got it. You run a torrent. you make money using other peoples creations. you convinced yourself your all encompassing definition of fair use gives you the right to do it. & you think anyone who SOPAs your sorry ass will be making a false claim. Somehow in your Wallyworld, the government will agree with you & turn over the "false" accusers copyright to you, or the public domain, whatever.

What...a...fucking...clown.

Speaking my mind, brother!

gideongallery · 01-16-2012, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenigo

There's no such thing as an innocent site who's sole purpose is to engage in piracy.

exactly the only way an innocent site get fucked over, is if the copyright holder bald face lies and misrepresents something that is fair use or non infringing as infringing/

Quote:

You're not innocent if you're using content you didn't create, or didn't pay for, or weren't otherwise authorized to use.

https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

this is the kind of shit i am talking about when i say innocent

or this

http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing...gement-111223/

Quote:

In the end the Supreme Court?s ruling was in tune with similar decisions around the world. As long as products aren?t marketed for infringing uses, their creators stay within the law.

both cases the copyright holder knew (or should have known) this case would not fly.

The first was clearly fair use, the second they had zero promotion as a way to get content without paying.

gideongallery · 01-16-2012, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenigo

There's no such thing as an innocent site who's sole purpose is to engage in piracy.

You're not innocent if you're using content you didn't create, or didn't pay for, or weren't otherwise authorized to use.

oh and if you want a really recent example

http://gigaom.com/2011/12/12/universal-vs-megaupload/

not one second of universals copyrighted material existed in that song

yet they still used the youtube takedown process to get rid of the content

when asked to justify it they said that it was consent to appear issue (which is not a copyright issue and therefore outside of the scope)

They fucking admitted it wasn't a DMCA takedown.

gideongallery · 01-16-2012, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

hey gallery. explain your obsession with false claims. What do you produce, who are you afraid of.

i got it. You run a torrent. you make money using other peoples creations. you convinced yourself your all encompassing definition of fair use gives you the right to do it. & you think anyone who SOPAs your sorry ass will be making a false claim. Somehow in your Wallyworld, the government will agree with you & turn over the "false" accusers copyright to you, or the public domain, whatever.

What...a...fucking...clown.

i have three questions for you

How many copyright holders should a pirate be allowed to totally wipe out of exist before your allowed to sue them for statutory damages?

How many innocent companies should you have a right to destroy before you suffer the same damages you want to inflict on pirates ?

Why is there a difference between those two numbers?

Camguy · 01-16-2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

re read what i said you moron

Either nothing will happen to company B (because Company A backs them up) or Company B will lose their copyright (because Company A actually was ok with what was misrepresented as "piracy") and Company B screwed them over too.

in other words person bald face lied claimed he own the car to get friend in trouble even though person a lent the car to the falsely accused "thief".

Does this really happen in YOUR real world? If it does, you kick it with some pretty low caliber people and all I can do is laugh at you for being so low-rent.

Are you hysterical because in your mind everything that could happen might happen to you? If I were you, don't borrow anyone's car because your ex boy friend who hates you "might" see you in it and "might" claim to the police the car is his and have you sent to jail.

(as IF the police would not ask for proof of ownership, duh.)

Police: "You know why we pulled you over?"
Me: "Nope"
Police: "This car was reported stolen. Do you know who owns this car?"
Me: "Well I find that hardly credible, my friend Steve lent me this car. It is his car."
Police: "So Dave does not own this car is what you are saying?"
Me: "That's correct, run the registration and see if it belongs to Dave, you $12.00 an hour idiot pig. Did you eat a second bowl of stupid-flakes this morning you jackass?"

That leads me to ask, are you really fucking stupid and truly believe this type of false-accusation happens every day? Or, are you just crying like a bitch about one little ridiculous issue of what could be... Using this as a smoke screen to hide your true agenda.

Here's an idea...... if you don't own it in the first place, mind your fucking business and let the owner deal with it. Who the hell are you to be claiming anything if you yourself are not the factual owner of the IP in question?

Get off of it. Stop playing the role of "stupid kid".

MetaMan · 01-16-2012, 08:02 AM

Only absolute retards would think giving the govt more power is a good thing.

gideongallery · 01-16-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camguy

Does this really happen in YOUR real world? If it does, you kick it with some pretty low caliber people and all I can do is laugh at you for being so low-rent.

Are you hysterical because in your mind everything that could happen might happen to you? If I were you, don't borrow anyone's car because your ex boy friend who hates you "might" see you in it and "might" claim to the police the car is his and have you sent to jail.

(as IF the police would not ask for proof of ownership, duh.)

Police: "You know why we pulled you over?"
Me: "Nope"
Police: "This car was reported stolen. Do you know who owns this car?"
Me: "Well I find that hardly credible, my friend Steve lent me this car. It is his car."
Police: "So Dave does not own this car is what you are saying?"
Me: "That's correct, run the registration and see if it belongs to Dave, you $12.00 an hour idiot pig. Did you eat a second bowl of stupid-flakes this morning you jackass?"

That leads me to ask, are you really fucking stupid and truly believe this type of false-accusation happens every day? Or, are you just crying like a bitch about one little ridiculous issue of what could be... Using this as a smoke screen to hide your true agenda.

Here's an idea...... if you don't own it in the first place, mind your fucking business and let the owner deal with it. Who the hell are you to be claiming anything if you yourself are not the factual owner of the IP in question?

Get off of it. Stop playing the role of "stupid kid".

1. the car analogy was his x bullshit analogy, the fact that law doesn't allow that kind of shit is exactly the point X wants the copyright laws to let you get away scott free when you pull that shit in the copyright world

2. i am visible minority, you would be surprised the number of times i have been pulled over because i was "driving while black".

Camguy · 01-16-2012, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

1. the car analogy was his x bullshit analogy, the fact that law doesn't allow that kind of shit is exactly the point X wants the copyright laws to let you get away scott free when you pull that shit in the copyright world

2. i am visible minority, you would be surprised the number of times i have been pulled over because i was "driving while black".

I thought that was your argument. That your entire problem with SOPA would mean that people who make false claims are penalized.

I can imagine competitors do some pretty low-ball shit to each other in the name of competition, that's a fact of life. Unfortunately in particular, the adult industry is full of children and mental-midgets who fire off at the mouth without thinking. The business is infested with drama from people's idiotic mouths.

As I understand, SOPA has a built in deterrent for competitors using SOPA as a tool to shut down competitors. But that deterrent is flawed because placing ANY content in public domain diminishes value of all like products.

I really hope you do not have solid faith in any argument that says that placing anyone's copy right protected IP into public domain as penalty for a wrongful accusation will ever be good for anyone in business. Here's another analogy. A concert venue full of hot sweaty kids at a heavy metal concert are thirsty. Coke is selling at the grandstands for $5.00 for a shitty 8 ounce cup loaded up with ice. Nestea a few months earlier threw the dice and tried to use legal channels to block distribution of Coke, and they were found to be unfounded and malicious, and therefore lost their copy right protection (actually patent law but applicable in spirit) over the formula so therefore any person can now not only mass produce Nestea but they can also give it away for free under the Nestea label and a bunch of people are doing just that at this concert... now who is going to pay $5.00 for that little cup of watered down coke? No one. So of course it devalues and reduces the demand for Coke, and also Mountain Dew, and 7-Up, and whoever else is trying to sell cold drinks to that audience. Whoever came up with that stipulation is stone-cold retarded.

Porn is an impulse-buy, much like buying a cold drink is to a lot of people. The consumer is thirsty, and most will usually place his purchase with whatever catches his eye first based on impulse. But placing anyone's property in public domain is the same thing as handing out free ice cold drinks to a hot market that is thirsty and just wants a cold drink NOW. "FREE" catches the eye of any consumer a hell of a lot faster than anything else on the menu.

And I know what you mean about being a visible minority. I am white and I used to live in the US.

DamianJ · 01-16-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenigo

Overwhelming theme among anti-SOPA people are piracy advocation.

Do you *really* think the following are advocating piracy?

AOL
Boing Boing
Creative Commons
Daily Kos
Disqus
eBay
Etsy
Facebook
foursquare
Google
Grooveshark
Hype Machine
Kickstarter
Kaspersky
LinkedIn
Mozilla
MetaFilter
OpenDNS
O?Reilly Radar
Reddit
Techdirt
PayPal
Torrentfreak
Tumblr
Twitter
TechCrunch
Yahoo!
Zynga
Scribd
YCombinator
Wikipedia
Reddit
Namecheap
Petzel
ICanHasCheezburger
Quora
Embedly
MediaTemple
CloudFlare
StackExchange (Stack Overflow)
Github
Linode
Hostgator
Square
The Huffington Post
Craigslist
ESET

Sigh

porno jew · 01-16-2012, 12:45 PM

heh some of those like scribd are pretty much piracy operations ...

Half man, Half Amazing · 01-16-2012, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Do you *really* think the following are advocating piracy?

AOL
Boing Boing
Creative Commons
Daily Kos
Disqus
eBay
Etsy
Facebook
foursquare
Google
Grooveshark
Hype Machine
Kickstarter
Kaspersky
LinkedIn
Mozilla
MetaFilter
OpenDNS
O?Reilly Radar
Reddit
Techdirt
PayPal
Torrentfreak
Tumblr
Twitter
TechCrunch
Yahoo!
Zynga
Scribd
YCombinator
Wikipedia
Reddit
Namecheap
Petzel
ICanHasCheezburger
Quora
Embedly
MediaTemple
CloudFlare
StackExchange (Stack Overflow)
Github
Linode
Hostgator
Square
The Huffington Post
Craigslist
ESET

Sigh

Those companies are advocating for their best interests. If you can't understand that then dude come on, nearly every single one of those is a tech company that doesn't produce any content. You should read "Free Ride" by Robert Levine, look at how much money tech firms have spent on lobbying to castrate anything that would mean they wouldn't be able to use content without license.

Also, you included TorrentFreak. You really run the risk of looking like a complete tool including them. I like Ernesto and all but of course the site that sensationalizes every piracy story to be some free speech infringement is going to advocate against it. I'm sure most of Wjunction is against this too, should have included them while you're at it. I know the guys at The Pirate Bay are against this. So are the Vietnamese bootleggers, we need to hear their voice in the matter.

SMH

Cherry7 · 01-16-2012, 03:50 PM

Not a list of pirates, but a list of companies that have made money of other peoples creative content 100% yes.

An list of wolves being asked how sheep should be looked after.

gideongallery · 01-16-2012, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camguy

I thought that was your argument. That your entire problem with SOPA would mean that people who make false claims are penalized.

I can imagine competitors do some pretty low-ball shit to each other in the name of competition, that's a fact of life. Unfortunately in particular, the adult industry is full of children and mental-midgets who fire off at the mouth without thinking. The business is infested with drama from people's idiotic mouths.

As I understand, SOPA has a built in deterrent for competitors using SOPA as a tool to shut down competitors. But that deterrent is flawed because placing ANY content in public domain diminishes value of all like products.

I really hope you do not have solid faith in any argument that says that placing anyone's copy right protected IP into public domain as penalty for a wrongful accusation will ever be good for anyone in business. Here's another analogy. A concert venue full of hot sweaty kids at a heavy metal concert are thirsty. Coke is selling at the grandstands for $5.00 for a shitty 8 ounce cup loaded up with ice. Nestea a few months earlier threw the dice and tried to use legal channels to block distribution of Coke, and they were found to be unfounded and malicious, and therefore lost their copy right protection (actually patent law but applicable in spirit) over the formula so therefore any person can now not only mass produce Nestea but they can also give it away for free under the Nestea label and a bunch of people are doing just that at this concert... now who is going to pay $5.00 for that little cup of watered down coke? No one. So of course it devalues and reduces the demand for Coke, and also Mountain Dew, and 7-Up, and whoever else is trying to sell cold drinks to that audience. Whoever came up with that stipulation is stone-cold retarded.

Porn is an impulse-buy, much like buying a cold drink is to a lot of people. The consumer is thirsty, and most will usually place his purchase with whatever catches his eye first based on impulse. But placing anyone's property in public domain is the same thing as handing out free ice cold drinks to a hot market that is thirsty and just wants a cold drink NOW. "FREE" catches the eye of any consumer a hell of a lot faster than anything else on the menu.

And I know what you mean about being a visible minority. I am white and I used to live in the US.

seriously the green is really hard to read

the problem with your arguement is you fail to see two things

piracy creates the same effect

the penalty against infringing on coke would still exist

that means pirate sites who want to profit could

a) choose to pirate the coke and risk the liablity

B) take the Nestea give it away and make exactly the same money without any downside

c) competition exist based on non monetary conditions

I can tell the difference between nestea and brisk, if i go to a restaurant that only serves brisk i will drink water or lemonade rather then buy brisk. I would not even take a free brisk because i don't like the taste of it.

Even if 50% of the pirates decide to avoid the risk, that more business for the honest copyright holders.

L-Pink · 01-16-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

hey gallery. explain your obsession with false claims. What do you produce, who are you afraid of.

I think he was buggered by a copyright owner as a kid.

.

01-15-2012, 07:53 PM	#59
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	hey gallery. explain your obsession with false claims. What do you produce, who are you afraid of. i got it. You run a torrent. you make money using other peoples creations. you convinced yourself your all encompassing definition of fair use gives you the right to do it. & you think anyone who SOPAs your sorry ass will be making a false claim. Somehow in your Wallyworld, the government will agree with you & turn over the "false" accusers copyright to you, or the public domain, whatever. What...a...fucking...clown. Last edited by Joshua G; 01-15-2012 at 07:55 PM..

01-16-2012, 03:50 PM	#71
Cherry7 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: UK Posts: 3,564	Not a list of pirates, but a list of companies that have made money of other peoples creative content 100% yes. An list of wolves being asked how sheep should be looked after. __________________ My Neighbour Butterfly PORN-The Musical The Long Goodbye Cinema Erotique

01-15-2012, 06:41 PM	#53
Brent 3dSexCash Octopus Anime Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,064	I agree with SOPA, but is the internet kill switch still part of it? Because if so....then I'm against it solely for that purpose.

01-15-2012, 07:12 PM	#57
SmutHammer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,139	Someone that files a false claim should be charged with a misdemeanor or felony. removing their copy write doesn't help anything, it only devalues other copywriters content who have done nothing wrong.

01-16-2012, 08:02 AM	#65
MetaMan I AM WEB 2.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,682	Only absolute retards would think giving the govt more power is a good thing.

01-16-2012, 12:45 PM	#69
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	heh some of those like scribd are pretty much piracy operations ...