The Free Speech Coalition Tries To Back Door The Piracy Roundtable - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

seeric · 09-07-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

But are they actually receiving those monies?

Maybe it's neither here nor there since 'intent' is the only real issue in the minds of some, but I've already asked for clarification twice in this thread with no response from anyone involved.

It's kind of discouraging - and I'm pondering whether or not the issue merits it's own thread.

your wish is my command. say the werd and it shall be done.

seeric · 09-07-2007, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

IMO, FSC should stick to issues that try to hinder our Free Speach, mainly obscenity cases / porn stuff. That issue alone should be more than enough to keep them busy. While it is nice that they would like to help out with other issues it seems their involvement is problematic at best. Take for example the situation with dot xxx, as i remember the FSC was offered money for their support of dot xxx and some on their board wanted to take it and others didn't. With the Piracy stuff, how can they accept money from sites like AFF and try to help the rest of us fight piracy, it would be a conflict of interest. Much like the ASACP accepting donations from AFF which fund Torent sites that exploit children. However they just made lame bullshit excuses to try to justify it.

One thing we can all agree on is fighting obscenity and needing protection from the govt, I hope the FSC stays focused on that.

thumbs up.

seeric · 09-07-2007, 12:12 PM

boycotting any and all companies that bed down with pirates and their supporters is the first step in policing our own industry. theres no nice way to put it. you fuck us, we blacklist you. bottom line.

tony286 · 09-07-2007, 12:13 PM

if avn is doing anything with ads being served on bt's , they should never see the inside of a meeting.

crockett · 09-07-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

boycotting any and all companies that bed down with pirates and their supporters is the first step in policing our own industry. theres no nice way to put it. you fuck us, we blacklist you. bottom line.

I guess that means AFF for starters..

fuzebox · 09-07-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

i dont drink anymore. well, one or two here and there. but my ridiculous alcohol induced binges are over.

The Cacique company will be devestated

rob34 · 09-07-2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

jeffery douglas actually wasnt the moderator. we paid a professional from outside the industry 1k to do it and the guy did phenomenal.

The only thing I didnt like was the Moderator kept interrupting peoples answers to questions asked.

Other than that...He did a good job.

mikesouth · 09-07-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

boycotting any and all companies that bed down with pirates and their supporters is the first step in policing our own industry. theres no nice way to put it. you fuck us, we blacklist you. bottom line.

I think airek is right here and heres another step you guys should think of...go after their processing

RawAlex · 09-07-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Maybe the Free Speech Coalition can develop formal guidelines on piracy. That's the right way to proceed.

Yup. And then they can scare everyone into becoming a member of FSC because whatever future court action they take will only cover members. Yeah, sounds like a plan.

Chris · 09-07-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

Mark,

I believe that you fully understood before even arriving that adult content producers were the only people being admitted. You still tried. Xbiz respected our wishes and also ended up with a great story in the end. I do respect you for not pulling some shady, sideways shenanigan like donning a waiters outfit and humping sandwiches through the back door disguised as a hotel employee. Not everyone had the respect to oblige our wishes. That will not be forgotten. Sometimes people just need to understand and respect that not everything needs to involve them. It was a PRIVATE meeting. I do not understand what people don't get about that. Everyone is so afraid that they are going to miss something in this industry and get their feelings hurt so easily about the littlest things. Subsequent meetings that are OPEN to all will happen. There will also be many more CLOSED meetings of the board and such that will not be promoted and will also not allow outside members. Sadly, thats just how its going to be. Great reporting, Thank you. You're a class act.

Airek

If it was private it should of be set up in private ... producers contacted on a 1 on 1 basis .. not plastered on gfy about how great it was going to be but 99% of gfy could not come ..blahblahblah...
id love to see the list of attendee's ...willing to bet had a few non producers show up

seeric · 09-07-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

If it was private it should of be set up in private ... producers contacted on a 1 on 1 basis .. not plastered on gfy about how great it was going to be but 99% of gfy could not come ..blahblahblah...
id love to see the list of attendee's ...willing to bet had a few non producers show up

no you are wrong. i will do what i want when i want. if you don't like it, tough shit. i'm tired of you and this subject.

stop riding my dick.

EdgeXXX · 09-07-2007, 01:01 PM

Congrats on the whole thing being pulled off successfully. Nice job organizing it, A1R3K. Personally, I'm not happy (I think it's a big mistake) that the board is only being opened to content producers, but I support the movement nonetheless. Good job, guys.

Kevin Marx · 09-07-2007, 01:31 PM

Just a question, since I was unable to attend.

Has anyone brought up the fact that this is not just a torrent problem (although that is a huge part of it)? The larger picture is that this isn't just something affecting adult only. The history of it certainly goes back to warez and music (Napster anyone??) But here is my thoughts and questions.

YouTube is pretty much the same thing as YouPorn, Megarotic, RedPorn, etc. A posting site for video content. As ridiculous as the DCMA is right now, YouTube is chalk full of illegal content. Did anyone discuss that NBC, ABC, CBS and every cable network is having their content pilfered and rebroadcast nightly? Hell, if I missed Leno last night, why go to the NBC website to see it and get all those annoying commercials.. I can just go to YouTube to see the best parts (of course they are without NBC's authorization). The DCMA was a bandaid at best and serious legislation and enforcement is the only solution.

I am responsible for not putting anyone under the age of 18 on my site. Plain and clear. If I want to try to get by this law, I will get arrested, thrown in jail, all my belongings will be seized and I will be labeled a child pornographer. This is a pretty big fuckin deterrent!!! Why are we the only ones responsible for what our sites contain? Why are we not pushing more than anything else to have every site out there accessible from a United States computer beholden to the same rules. You must police your own content!!!! You cannot host or link or even allow the discussion of things that are illegal. If you are a secondary content provider, you really should check out your product (what you sell for others) before just willy-nilly selling it. It may be illegal or stolen or what not. Why do I feel like I am the only one that thinks this is the most important concept.

This is not just an adult issue. It's an internet issue. It affects mainstream media, the music industry, the software industry, adult... everyone.

P2P sites should be illegal and prohibited unless the owners can assure that they can police the files being distributed among them (knowing that the volume is waaaaayyyyy to high for anyone to ever police, I would be surprised if one could ever be created).

I know I am not 100% on my thoughts here and there are legal aspects to be addressed... but this is not just an adult problem and as such should not be just treated as such.

BTW, isn't it amazing at some of these Alexa rankings that many of the highest ranking sites in the world are traffickers of illegal content (including YouTube, MySpace (how many people are using stolen images on there???), every torrent site you can think of).... and who are the sites making much of this possible... well that would be your friendly search engines like Google, Yahoo, etc etc.

I am not advocating Gestapo tactics on the Internet, but truly, there is no effective legislation governing it, and there is really no effective policing of it. That needs to change. And it needs to happen sooner rather than later. Another band-aid or accepting the fact that theives now live in your neighborhood will never solve anything.

RawAlex · 09-07-2007, 02:15 PM

Kevin, your thoughts are correct, but they aren't matching up to the legal realities of the day.

When the DMCA act was created, it was suppose to stop copyright violation and make it easy to get stuff taken down. But because the law was poorly written and gave offenders too many ways out without penalty, it has actually become a major obstacle in the efforts to stop torrent and tube sites from stealing content. Essentially, if a site has valid contact information, and moved to remove content when they are informed of it, they are actually pretty much in the clear.

Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube / Google seeks in a sense to get the courts to create a "super offender" status for sites that remove content when notified, but allow that content to be re-added over and over again.

As for adult content, 2257 gives us some interesting potential to work with the government to shut down "user generated content" sites that have adult material (or even material that dwells on covered private parts). Sites like Youtube try to say "we are just a host", but in reality they provide services far beyond hosting, and actually do manipulate, categories, represent and republish content in ways that the submitter cannot control. It goes beyond the definition of hosting, and I am hoping that they new 2257 rules will very, very narrowly construe what is hosting. If they are not considered hosts for 2257, then potentially they could be considered not hosts for DMCA, which would put them in a much weaker position for that sort of thing.

One of the things I highly recommend to all content producers is to send DMCA notices to Google (there is a proper fax number specifically for this) which can get SERPs removed. That would go a long way to protecting your content and your affiliates, as it would make it harder for end users to find your content for free.

GregE · 09-07-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerco

I'm not shitting you, I just woke up from a nap where I had a dream that I was calling the whitehouse and actually got thought to bush to give him my complaints on 2257 record keeping and the stresses It was going to have on smaller companies. Even when I sleep I tell ya.

Well, don't keep us hanging here. After you laid it all out for him, what did the president have to say?

D · 09-07-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

Just a question, since I was unable to attend.

Has anyone brought up the fact that this is not just a torrent problem (although that is a huge part of it)?

In a word: yes.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 09-07-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Groups like FSC and ASACP are apparently taking money from companies like AFF, and that is a real issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

But are they actually receiving those monies?

Maybe it's neither here nor there since 'intent' is the only real issue in the minds of some, but I've already asked for clarification twice in this thread with no response from anyone involved.

It's kind of discouraging - and I'm pondering whether or not the issue merits it's own thread.

Sid from the FSC indicated at the anti-piracy meeting that AFF had NOT paid FSC the money that they pledged...hmmm.

Of course, that didn't stop AFF from making self-congratulatory posts and garnering some positive press, at a time when they were taking a beating for some of their less than admirable practices.

ADG

u-Bob · 09-07-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1R3K

p.s. there was no control and there is no fsc involvement in the new content producer movement. that you got my word on.

RawAlex · 09-07-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Sid from the FSC indicated at the anti-piracy meeting that AFF had NOT paid FSC the money that they pledged...hmmm.

Of course, that didn't stop AFF from making self-congratulatory posts and garnering some positive press, at a time when they were taking a beating for some of their less than admirable practices.

ADG

With all respect to Sid and the FSC, item #4 on their front page news is "Adult Friend Finder Offers FSC Matching Grant to Battle 2257 Changes". So either (a) AFF stiffed them and they haven't bothered to get around to removing the press release (b) nobody donated, so there hasn't been anything to match, or (c) the right hand and the left hand have no clue what each other are up to.

FSC could do themselves a great big favor by issuing a press release stating that they have no accepted any money from AFF, and further, until such time that AFF moves away from business practices and support of sites that are detrimental to the adult industry, that they will not accept any money from them in the future.

But I doubt that will happen.

FSC's attempt to hijack the content producer's meeting shows exactly what their intentions are.

Fletch XXX · 09-07-2007, 03:29 PM

http://white-kid-vs-black-kid.pa7dut...black-kid.html

notice anything?

tucker · 09-07-2007, 03:57 PM

This was and is not about the FSC. They were present as they do speak for the Industry on a lot of issues. I think they are getting a back wrap in this thread. This was about content producers talking to each other to work a series of steps that can bring a solution to the problems that we ALL face. Online, webmasters, affiliates and others suffer in the same vein as content producers. Offline, video store owners and others suffer in the same vein as content producers. Its our content that gets bastardized; the result of our coordinated effort will hopefully benefit the entire industry both offline and online.

09-07-2007, 01:01 PM	#62
EdgeXXX Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Secretely plotting a hostile takeover Posts: 5,816	Congrats on the whole thing being pulled off successfully. Nice job organizing it, A1R3K. Personally, I'm not happy (I think it's a big mistake) that the board is only being opened to content producers, but I support the movement nonetheless. Good job, guys. __________________ . . . . I have a sig

09-07-2007, 01:31 PM	#63
Kevin Marx Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,888	Just a question, since I was unable to attend. Has anyone brought up the fact that this is not just a torrent problem (although that is a huge part of it)? The larger picture is that this isn't just something affecting adult only. The history of it certainly goes back to warez and music (Napster anyone??) But here is my thoughts and questions. YouTube is pretty much the same thing as YouPorn, Megarotic, RedPorn, etc. A posting site for video content. As ridiculous as the DCMA is right now, YouTube is chalk full of illegal content. Did anyone discuss that NBC, ABC, CBS and every cable network is having their content pilfered and rebroadcast nightly? Hell, if I missed Leno last night, why go to the NBC website to see it and get all those annoying commercials.. I can just go to YouTube to see the best parts (of course they are without NBC's authorization). The DCMA was a bandaid at best and serious legislation and enforcement is the only solution. I am responsible for not putting anyone under the age of 18 on my site. Plain and clear. If I want to try to get by this law, I will get arrested, thrown in jail, all my belongings will be seized and I will be labeled a child pornographer. This is a pretty big fuckin deterrent!!! Why are we the only ones responsible for what our sites contain? Why are we not pushing more than anything else to have every site out there accessible from a United States computer beholden to the same rules. You must police your own content!!!! You cannot host or link or even allow the discussion of things that are illegal. If you are a secondary content provider, you really should check out your product (what you sell for others) before just willy-nilly selling it. It may be illegal or stolen or what not. Why do I feel like I am the only one that thinks this is the most important concept. This is not just an adult issue. It's an internet issue. It affects mainstream media, the music industry, the software industry, adult... everyone. P2P sites should be illegal and prohibited unless the owners can assure that they can police the files being distributed among them (knowing that the volume is waaaaayyyyy to high for anyone to ever police, I would be surprised if one could ever be created). I know I am not 100% on my thoughts here and there are legal aspects to be addressed... but this is not just an adult problem and as such should not be just treated as such. BTW, isn't it amazing at some of these Alexa rankings that many of the highest ranking sites in the world are traffickers of illegal content (including YouTube, MySpace (how many people are using stolen images on there???), every torrent site you can think of).... and who are the sites making much of this possible... well that would be your friendly search engines like Google, Yahoo, etc etc. I am not advocating Gestapo tactics on the Internet, but truly, there is no effective legislation governing it, and there is really no effective policing of it. That needs to change. And it needs to happen sooner rather than later. Another band-aid or accepting the fact that theives now live in your neighborhood will never solve anything. __________________ ICQ: 370 037 008

09-07-2007, 03:29 PM	#70
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	http://white-kid-vs-black-kid.pa7dut...black-kid.html notice anything? __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

09-07-2007, 12:12 PM	#53
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	boycotting any and all companies that bed down with pirates and their supporters is the first step in policing our own industry. theres no nice way to put it. you fuck us, we blacklist you. bottom line.

09-07-2007, 12:13 PM	#54
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	if avn is doing anything with ads being served on bt's , they should never see the inside of a meeting.

09-07-2007, 02:15 PM	#64
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Kevin, your thoughts are correct, but they aren't matching up to the legal realities of the day. When the DMCA act was created, it was suppose to stop copyright violation and make it easy to get stuff taken down. But because the law was poorly written and gave offenders too many ways out without penalty, it has actually become a major obstacle in the efforts to stop torrent and tube sites from stealing content. Essentially, if a site has valid contact information, and moved to remove content when they are informed of it, they are actually pretty much in the clear. Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube / Google seeks in a sense to get the courts to create a "super offender" status for sites that remove content when notified, but allow that content to be re-added over and over again. As for adult content, 2257 gives us some interesting potential to work with the government to shut down "user generated content" sites that have adult material (or even material that dwells on covered private parts). Sites like Youtube try to say "we are just a host", but in reality they provide services far beyond hosting, and actually do manipulate, categories, represent and republish content in ways that the submitter cannot control. It goes beyond the definition of hosting, and I am hoping that they new 2257 rules will very, very narrowly construe what is hosting. If they are not considered hosts for 2257, then potentially they could be considered not hosts for DMCA, which would put them in a much weaker position for that sort of thing. One of the things I highly recommend to all content producers is to send DMCA notices to Google (there is a proper fax number specifically for this) which can get SERPs removed. That would go a long way to protecting your content and your affiliates, as it would make it harder for end users to find your content for free.

09-07-2007, 03:57 PM	#71
tucker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: LA Posts: 584	This was and is not about the FSC. They were present as they do speak for the Industry on a lot of issues. I think they are getting a back wrap in this thread. This was about content producers talking to each other to work a series of steps that can bring a solution to the problems that we ALL face. Online, webmasters, affiliates and others suffer in the same vein as content producers. Offline, video store owners and others suffer in the same vein as content producers. Its our content that gets bastardized; the result of our coordinated effort will hopefully benefit the entire industry both offline and online.