This industry has turned into a bunch of parisitic, mooching, thieving, ratbastards - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

Davy · 11-04-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

This industry has turned into a bunch of parisitic, mooching, thieving, ratbastards.

What did you expect?

Barriers to entry are virtually non-existent in this industry.
Everybody can learn a little html and get cheap virtual hosting.
It had to attract a whole bunch of scumbags...

_andy_ · 11-04-2009, 02:48 PM

Anyone see that 60 Minutes piece last weekend on hollywood movie piracy? They basically arrived at the conclusion that they had no idea what to do about it, aside from somehow making it illegal to use bit torrent, which would never happen.

Barefootsies · 11-04-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shap

I agree 100%. The only difference now is no matter what your money maker is it requires a lot of effort and work to actually make money. A lot of people really don't like that part.

True fucking dat.

Barefootsies · 11-04-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okok

So Barefootsies

Thoughts?

Don't hate the player, hate the game. This is a business.

Fabien · 11-04-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Will you damn newbies and or people who started in 2002-2006 or latter stop saying shit like it always was this way etc.

There was a period of time that if you even took 1 picture that was not yours and got caught, even on a gallery. You would get fucked on the boards, ripped a new asshole, and sometimes even black listed from places. Hell even programs would kill your account with a email or board posting. Fuck you could get driven out of the industry or forced to change your name if you used improper meta tags. Screw the idea of actually stealing shit.

There were some that did not know better and rarely did anything out of greed. They just did not understand and wanted to get into the industry so they would collect some celebrity shit or something from chat rooms or alt and make a site, often with no upsells to any paying sites. Again they did not know better.

Just do not coat it with a layer of shit because you want to justify today. It was not always this way.

FUCKING A !
Now you're talking

Fabien · 11-04-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

do you mean the time of circle jerks, dialers and xpics? as far as i know it was also very common to "collect" pics and put them up as your own paysite. i think you live in a dream world when you think it has been better in the past. it was just not as much by numbers since there were simply less people and less websites.

Circle jerks, dialers, Xpics PINCH ME

For real, mate, the signup ratios was better as you couldn't get what you want PERIOD. Now, surfers will settle for less to blow their load. If it's free, bahhhhh it's not what i wanted but it's better than paying !

okok · 11-04-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Don't hate the player, hate the game. This is a business.

I couldn't tell what you were replying to because you deleted what you were replying to.

This, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by okok

So Barefootsies, I brought up that example to compare it to tube owners who are abusing the DMCA.

They are taking advantage of a loophole to build huge brands. Not to mention to get their foot in the door on licensing deals.

If they don't, they are leaving that opportunity on the table for someone else to grab.

Eventually, the DMCA will be amended somehow, but even when that happens and they "lose," they will STILL win, because they've already created huge brands.

Thoughts?

Can you elaborate on your hip hip lingo? What do you mean by "don't hate the player, hate the game?"

I ask because it feels like you are using that in an imperative sense, as though there is some player or game that I, personally, am to stop hating. I'm just getting into an ethics discussion, not hating games or players or whatever.

Help me understand what you mean by that. Is it just a comforting aphorism for you? Or are you hinting at something deeper?

LickMyBalls · 11-04-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okok

I couldn't tell what you were replying to because you deleted what you were replying to.

This, right?

Can you elaborate on your hip hip lingo? What do you mean by "don't hate the player, hate the game?"

I ask because it feels like you are using that in an imperative sense, as though there is some player or game that I, personally, am to stop hating. I'm just getting into an ethics discussion, not hating games or players or whatever.

Help me understand what you mean by that. Is it just a comforting aphorism for you? Or are you hinting at something deeper?

Dude, who are you? I'm in man-love with you.

Barefootsies · 11-04-2009, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okok

.....

I mean the laws/DMCA are set up the way they are now (game) and there are many (players) who are taking advantage of that loophole for financial gain.

Same as big coal, banks, oil and credit card companies, and other industries do the exact same thing even when they know it is fucking the planet, the consumer, the economy.

That said, most of the people doing this are idiots who do not have a proper LLC in place, business bank account, separation of business and person or legal counsel to C.Y.A.. So they are playing a dangerous game, and should someone actually enforce their copyrights AND go the distance. They are royally fucking fucked.

Which is on par for most of this industry. Invest nothing in your business, spend it all trying to impress a bunch of fry cooks on an industry message board, or drinking and partying it all away. Or not investing in the future, and think you are going to get away with it forever.

The point being, this is a business like any other and some are taking advantage of the rules as they exist today. Whether unethical, immoral or whatever you would like to call it. It is the rules of the game that exist right now in 2009 for the online industry.

So they are gaming that system for financial gain. So hating, metaphorically, for being intelligent enough, ruthless enough, uncaring enough to make money doing shit like pre-checked cross sales, and driving a mack truck through the loop holes of DMCA is just business.

AmeliaG · 11-04-2009, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherrylula

scanned magazines

Yup. One of my big motivators for starting our first paysite was how many times I saw my magazine pages scanned in and posted online without attribution.

BVF · 11-04-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

That said, most of the people doing this are idiots who do not have a proper LLC in place, business bank account, separation of business and person or legal counsel to C.Y.A..

What's the name of YOUR LLC?.....Where is YOUR business account and who is the name of your legal counsel?

okok · 11-04-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

I mean the laws/DMCA are set up the way they are now (game) and there are many (players) who are taking advantage of that loophole for financial gain.

Same as big coal, banks, oil and credit card companies, and other industries do the exact same thing even when they know it is fucking the planet, the consumer, the economy.

That said, most of the people doing this are idiots who do not have a proper LLC in place, business bank account, separation of business and person or legal counsel to C.Y.A.. So they are playing a dangerous game, and should someone actually enforce their copyrights AND go the distance. They are royally fucking fucked.

Which is on par for most of this industry. Invest nothing in your business, spend it all trying to impress a bunch of fry cooks on an industry message board, or drinking and partying it all away. Or not investing in the future, and think you are going to get away with it forever.

The point being, this is a business like any other and some are taking advantage of the rules as they exist today. Whether unethical, immoral or whatever you would like to call it. It is the rules of the game that exist right now in 2009 for the online industry.

So they are gaming that system for financial gain. So hating, metaphorically, for being intelligent enough, ruthless enough, uncaring enough to make money doing shit like pre-checked cross sales, and driving a mack truck through the loop holes of DMCA is just business.

Thanks for humoring me.

Mainstream -- or perhaps better put, "much larger, much more mature industries" -- certainly has its share of loophole leapers, but it's not a prerequisite to survival and success. Furthermore there's always a concern to appear ethical (not necessarily to be ethical.) For example, you'll never hear Boone Pickens wave off a detractor by saying "don't hate the player, hate the game" (I would love to see it though :D). You would not see a "mainstream" entity so obviously pushing a loophole at a supplier or competitor's expense because the deniability is hardly plausible.

My gut feeling is that abuse continue simply because the licensors whose IP is being leveraged without consent are so small that they are unable, individually, to defend their rights. Meanwhile the RIAA zaps $100k from an individual with a lot of MP3s.

While there are certainly people who feel a visceral disgust -- "hate" -- for those whom you describe as "ruthless enough, uncaring enough to make money doing shit," I think there's a higher plane with a more interesting conversation to be had.

Would one be a "hater" for acting to correct a broken system, in other words, to change the game?

Or is a "hater" anyone who is NOT taking advantage of the loopholes?

ORRR does this whole mess highlight that it's just IMPOSSIBLE to protect IP in the information age? That DELIVERY is what people are paying for, not the CONTENT itself?

Barefootsies · 11-04-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF

What's the name of YOUR LLC?.....Where is YOUR business account and who is the name of your legal counsel?

Location is well known. I have more than one. Do I have your content? No. So cool the fuck out black man.

If you are shooting content in the first place, like both you and I, and do not have a LLC you are a fucking idiot. You are just begging to be sued by your models and lose your ass. It is common fucking sense to be an LLC to protect yourself.

Just like paying models. You think I pay them out of my personal checking? Cash maybe?

Snake Doctor · 11-04-2009, 06:19 PM

Something I would like to correct here, there is no loophole in the DMCA.

The DMCA itself is a loophole.

Of course the alternative is probably worse. That would be that you could sue someone for damages if they violated your copyrights, and there would be no safe harbor to hide behind.
BUT, your stuff wouldn't be taken down until a judge ordered it, and that would take at least 6 months, and if the pirate had half competent counsel, more like 18 months....at which point you'd be suing out of principle because your "new release" is now in the bargain bin.....also if it was found that the defendant had a fair use right, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and costs etc.

Barefootsies · 11-04-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okok

.....

Semantics.

None of that changes the facts of the matter. Business is business.

No matter how technical you want to get on the legal, the moral, or choice of language in my example it's legal. The fact remains that in current form, those loopholes exist just like in other industries, or the tax code. People take advantage of them, and that is the plain and simple fact of the matter.

Whether you approve or not matters none. They do not pay their bills with your opinion or endorsement, and despite what is said on message boards. Most do not care.

Barefootsies · 11-04-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Something I would like to correct here, there is no loophole in the DMCA.

The DMCA itself is a loophole.

Of course the alternative is probably worse. That would be that you could sue someone for damages if they violated your copyrights, and there would be no safe harbor to hide behind.
BUT, your stuff wouldn't be taken down until a judge ordered it, and that would take at least 6 months, and if the pirate had half competent counsel, more like 18 months....at which point you'd be suing out of principle because your "new release" is now in the bargain bin.....also if it was found that the defendant had a fair use right, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and costs etc.

That is just as entertaining as all the cases you read about every month in the trades. Nothing by a lot of sabre rattling that almost never goes to trial. In last month there were a good half dozen cases dropped, thrown out, or settled. Never going to trial.

So get a pair of good cowboy boots and do the cabbage patch, or greasy chicken. You are going to be dancing awhile, and as well proven over and over again. Few people have the balls to do anything, and those that do make a half hearted effort in the end still fold.

xxxjay · 11-04-2009, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Something I would like to correct here, there is no loophole in the DMCA.

The DMCA itself is a loophole.

Of course the alternative is probably worse. That would be that you could sue someone for damages if they violated your copyrights, and there would be no safe harbor to hide behind.
BUT, your stuff wouldn't be taken down until a judge ordered it, and that would take at least 6 months, and if the pirate had half competent counsel, more like 18 months....at which point you'd be suing out of principle because your "new release" is now in the bargain bin.....also if it was found that the defendant had a fair use right, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and costs etc.

Yeah, but let's call a spade a spade. Under the law, you are not an ISP if:

1. You upload your own content.
2. You run your site for a profit.
3. Moderate uploads.
4. Don't allow uploads at all.

The ISP provision just says states, "We leave the flood gates open and wharever comes through comes through, if you find something copy-written we will remove it."

Even BUYING your own content takes you out of ISP land.

NetHorse · 11-04-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davy

What did you expect?

Barriers to entry are virtually non-existent in this industry.
.

okok · 11-04-2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Semantics.

None of that changes the facts of the matter. Business is business.

No matter how technical you want to get on the legal, the moral, or choice of language in my example it's legal. The fact remains that in current form, those loopholes exist just like in other industries, or the tax code. People take advantage of them, and that is the plain and simple fact of the matter.

Whether you approve or not matters none. They do not pay their bills with your opinion or endorsement, and despite what is said on message boards. Most do not care.

Not really sure what you're responding to.

What does your response have anything to do with the value of content versus delivery? Or whether it's contemptible to seek change?

It's like I said "2+2 is 4" and you said "but the lunchbox is yellow!"

Barefootsies · 11-04-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okok

Not really sure what you're responding to.

What does your response have anything to do with the value of content versus delivery? Or whether it's contemptible to seek change?

It's like I said "2+2 is 4" and you said "but the lunchbox is yellow!"

Responding to you last post. Which again would be common sense. You post, I responded. Guess that is too complicated.

I'll leave you to your shadow boxing or devil's advocate arguments that have no conclusion to the current situation. The spicy language, or legal technicalities you like to cite do not change anything professor. As I said, get some good shoes so you can tap dance around the turd in the punch bowl.

Your approval, ethics, morals do not change the DMCA loophole, nor the fact people will use it as a strategic advantage. Period.

Carry on.

okok · 11-04-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Responding to you last post. Which again would be common sense. You post, I responded. Guess that is too complicated.

I'll leave you to your shadow boxing or devil's advocate arguments that have no conclusion to the current situation. The spicy language, or legal technicalities you like to cite do not change anything professor. As I said, get some good shoes so you can tap dance around the turd in the punch bowl.

Your approval, ethics, morals do not change the DMCA loophole, nor the fact people will use it as a strategic advantage. Period.

Carry on.

Wow you have completely failed to comprehend any of this.

Barefootsies · 11-04-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okok

Wow you have completely failed to comprehend any of this.

Actually, no.

I responded directly to your original question and explained it in detail. You wanted to get off on some tangent about use of language, and jive turkey or your lack of understanding and compare it to Madoff, and all this other nonsense.

The fact remains as described a number of posts ago. DMCA is a loophole and business is business. Some will use it as an advantage, and others will not. In the end, none require your endorsement.

gleem · 11-04-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Yeah, but let's call a spade a spade. Under the law, you are not an ISP if:

1. You upload your own content.
2. You run your site for a profit.
3. Moderate uploads.
4. Don't allow uploads at all.

The ISP provision just says states, "We leave the flood gates open and wharever comes through comes through, if you find something copy-written we will remove it."

Even BUYING your own content takes you out of ISP land.

well put your money where your mouth is and lets see ya hire some lawyers and sure, make some legal precedence for the rest of us to make it cheaper and easier for the smaller fish to sue.

okok · 11-04-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Actually, no.

I responded directly to your original question and explained it in detail. You wanted to get off on some tangent about use of language, and jive turkey or your lack of understanding and compare it to Madoff, and all this other nonsense.

The fact remains as described a number of posts ago. DMCA is a loophole and business is business. Some will use it as an advantage, and others will not. In the end, none require your endorsement.

Dude, I BELIEVE that you are ruthless and intelligent, and that you REALLY feel strongly! And that you're proud of that! Way to go, Gecko, I am CONVINCED it's not an act! Really! STOP! I believe you!

Here's a hint: NOTHING I am talking about has anything to do with my approval, or any of that whiny bullshit you're SO eager to destroy even when that's not what you're hearing.

I'm saying, with what is happening, who is winning, who is losing, WHY? If they are winning today, are they winning in five years? What is driving this movement? How can I figure out a way to profit in the long-term?

You know, shooting the shit on a messageboard.

Chill with the Rand-Hammer man, that was nail was pounded in long ago.

(you can keep calling me professor, that's cool)

Barefootsies · 11-04-2009, 07:16 PM

Frankly I do not care what anyone believes. That should be more than apparent by now I would think. But that's me. None of it effects my business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by okok

I'm saying, with what is happening, who is winning, who is losing, WHY? If they are winning today, are they winning in five years? What is driving this movement? How can I figure out a way to profit in the long-term?

I do not think anyone can answer the two year question much less 5 years. But you see many of the BROgrams and old timers are selling out, or retiring. So your best guess is as good as anyone else's.

gideongallery · 11-04-2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Yeah, but let's call a spade a spade. Under the law, you are not an ISP if:

1. You upload your own content.
2. You run your site for a profit.
3. Moderate uploads.
4. Don't allow uploads at all.

The ISP provision just says states, "We leave the flood gates open and wharever comes through comes through, if you find something copy-written we will remove it."

Even BUYING your own content takes you out of ISP land.

that the stupidest thing you have ever said and you have said a lot of stupid things.

i suggest you re read snake doctors post, and go back and try and remember what a pain it was to get your content dropped before the takedown notices
safe harbor is the balance to that new power period.
no loophole it does exactly what it was designed to, to prevent that takedown request from turning into a censorship tool.

xxxjay · 11-04-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gleem

well put your money where your mouth is and lets see ya hire some lawyers and sure, make some legal precedence for the rest of us to make it cheaper and easier for the smaller fish to sue.

Doing shit isn't all about making things easier for everyone else. If you are going to get legal it has to make sense to YOU. Fuck this hippie shit.

2012 · 11-04-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by okok

I'm saying, with what is happening, who is winning, who is losing, WHY? If they are winning today, are they winning in five years? What is driving this movement? How can I figure out a way to profit in the long-term?

You know, shooting the shit on a messageboard.

i found this really cool place to download free shit ... napster.com

gleem · 11-04-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Doing shit isn't all about making things easier for everyone else. If you are going to get legal it has to make sense to YOU. Fuck this hippie shit.

that makes no sense. If someone is stealing from you and you just got a big payout, and this is all really bothering you, sue em. The more people that do, the more legal precedent there is and eventually people will think twice before ripping your members area and posting it all on tubes like stile did.

xxxjay · 11-04-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gleem

that makes no sense. If someone is stealing from you and you just got a big payout, and this is all really bothering you, sue em. The more people that do, the more legal precedent there is and eventually people will think twice before ripping your members area and posting it all on tubes like stile did.

If I find a situation that would I will do it. Just haven't seen one yet.

Iron Fist · 11-04-2009, 10:40 PM

I'll just blame tubes... mmkay? kthxbye...

Snake Doctor · 11-05-2009, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Yeah, but let's call a spade a spade. Under the law, you are not an ISP if:

1. You upload your own content.
2. You run your site for a profit.
3. Moderate uploads.
4. Don't allow uploads at all.

The ISP provision just says states, "We leave the flood gates open and wharever comes through comes through, if you find something copy-written we will remove it."

Even BUYING your own content takes you out of ISP land.

Wow, I don't know who gave you all of that advice, but you should fire them.

Last time I checked all of the hosts I know make a profit and they're still ISPs. Same thing goes for Charter who provides me with internet access locally.

Alot of this other stuff will (hopefully) be resolved by the Viacom v Google case.

My point still is still the same and still valid though. If you wanted to throw out DMCA completely so you could sue the bastards violating your copyrights, you'd have to wait 6-18 months to have your content taken down, AND if the defendant somehow won the case, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and other expenses.

LoveSandra · 11-05-2009, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killswitch

Always has been...

Nautilus · 11-05-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

My point still is still the same and still valid though. If you wanted to throw out DMCA completely so you could sue the bastards violating your copyrights, you'd have to wait 6-18 months to have your content taken down, AND if the defendant somehow won the case, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and other expenses.

18 months so fucking what? With DMCA we'll have to wait FOREVER until our content is removed - although they have to comply with your TDR the next day your clip will be there again.

If you have a solid ground for a lawsuit it is worth waiting, maybe your compensation for damages will be higher than what your site's going to make in it's entire lifetime. But even if it's not doesn't matter - 99,9999% of those motherfuckers who steal nowadays all day long would not do that knowing there's a good chance they'll get sued and they have NOTHING to show in court. Now with the damnable DMCA around all they have to do is to show their upload button to a judge and that's it, rock solid proof they're clean.

I'll go back into the pre-DMCA era any day of the week. It isn't a big deal to sue, the big deal is when your content is all around and you cannot even sue, only to send piles of worthless DMCA notices which do nothing in the grand scheme of things - the next day your content will be all over the place again.

CaptainHowdy · 11-05-2009, 09:33 AM

Thread deleted...

kong · 11-05-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

eh? dogfart? certainly not. they have their shit service marked, can't be stolen. and they were around waaaaaay before the parasitic, mooching, thieving, ratbastards, so they're cool.

Actually, yes they did. They used to rip unlicensed studio content. When they first started way back.

AaronM · 11-05-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

If you are shooting content in the first place, like both you and I, and do not have a LLC you are a fucking idiot. You are just begging to be sued by your models and lose your ass. It is common fucking sense to be an LLC to protect yourself.

Just like paying models. You think I pay them out of my personal checking? Cash maybe?

You are absolutely right.

It amazes me how many shooters pay by personal check and/or cash. Even some of the "bigger companies."

Barefootsies · 11-05-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

You are absolutely right.

It amazes me how many shooters pay by personal check and/or cash. Even some of the "bigger companies."

Exactly. Scary fucking shit anyone would do this, but there are a TON who shoot content, and do not have an LLC and pay by check or cash. That is just BEGGING for trouble.

11-04-2009, 06:19 PM	#164
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Something I would like to correct here, there is no loophole in the DMCA. The DMCA itself is a loophole. Of course the alternative is probably worse. That would be that you could sue someone for damages if they violated your copyrights, and there would be no safe harbor to hide behind. BUT, your stuff wouldn't be taken down until a judge ordered it, and that would take at least 6 months, and if the pirate had half competent counsel, more like 18 months....at which point you'd be suing out of principle because your "new release" is now in the bargain bin.....also if it was found that the defendant had a fair use right, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and costs etc. __________________ sig too big

11-04-2009, 10:40 PM	#181
Iron Fist Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 23,400	I'll just blame tubes... mmkay? kthxbye... __________________ i like waffles

11-05-2009, 09:33 AM	#185
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,129	Thread deleted... __________________ FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network 1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!

11-04-2009, 02:48 PM	#152
_andy_ Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 487	Anyone see that 60 Minutes piece last weekend on hollywood movie piracy? They basically arrived at the conclusion that they had no idea what to do about it, aside from somehow making it illegal to use bit torrent, which would never happen.