That's not really what happened is it? You quoted the link I put and suggested I said it. I didn't. That's all.


When did I say any of that? You said as a fact that people work better in groups. That's just not true.

Wrong again.

https://img.skitch.com/20111108-phuq...kc773gnjn7.jpg

Being a drama queen?

The US never gave a fuck about offline porn, so long at it stayed withing boundaries. Porn shops were everywhere in all but a few States, even in those the porn people could buy Hustler, Penthouse or Playboy and sales on a softcore version of a porn film were great.

Does a local community have the right to vote for a statesman who says "Not in my town."? If not democracy means nothing. Agreed it didn't mean a lot before, it was something though.

what the "Government" dislikes is the uncontrolled nature of the Internet. where people can basically do as they please and the anarchy that results from that.

As for Freedom of Speech offline. Well again drama queens, more like knaves, who don't have a clue. They are stupid, blind or want to hide the simple truth.

Nixon was brought down from the highest office in the land by?
Today a Presidential hopeful is being brought down by?
Clinton was hounded by?
In the UK politicians were and still are being jailed for corruption exposed by?
A UK Government was brought down by a scandal in what media?
Cricketers are facing jail for an expose in?

Fill in the gaps and see the control exercised by Government over the Press.

The people who want no fight against piracy are those deluded fools who think that the computer program they use now to reply can be free and paid for by advertising. Like Call of Duty. Or they want others to pay so they can get it for free. Delusional or freeloaders.

If there is no fight against piracy, the costs of developing the programs they use right now will have to be born by advertising. With everyone grabbing the first copies and putting up a site giving it away, so they can pay the rent, the money for investment will shrink.

I can copy anything I like and stick a finger in the air to the world. And live off the meager earnings the ads bring, because I will be competing with 1,000s of others doing the same.

The war isn't over yet, it's not been good so far. Bringing down sites that don't have 100% control on their product they publish will not end the world as we know it. Well it might mean a few more dollars to be made by those who have skills.

I think you have wandered a little far from the point of discussion in the thread.

Whether production is up or down has no effect on the rights of the copyright holders to protect their content. Yes, films are being made; but, only half as many. Without piracy, maybe the numbers would have been significantly higher. This speaks more to the passion of the creators to continue to create new films in adverse economic conditions than any positive effects of "free distribution" models.

Don't let these piracy supporters deflect the issues at hand. Stealing content as a business model is damaging the adult entertainment industry and morally wrong. They need to be stopped. The Protect-IP Act and SOPA are big steps in restoring balance and fairness to the online distribution model for content producers.

It is time for the thieving to end.

Just my opinion.:pimp

just make sure to protect the right of copyright holders to steal from competitors by giving them a free pass when they misrepresent fair use as infringing actions

Right.

Gideongallery:
Generally, copyright holders don't steal from their competitors. Sometimes, ownership issues arise from badly written contracts and works done on a hand-shake; but, the courts and arbitrators usually work out compromises and the ownership issues.

If you use the intellectual property that belongs to someone else outside of licensing or the "fair use" provisions, you are not a competitor.....

you are a thief.

A competitor CREATES similar original content. A thief creates nothing and just steals content.

Let's keep our terminology correct.

And, content owners have every right to protect their interests and the value of their content.

Just my opinion.:pimp

The pirates are going down for sure!!! Fuck em!

From the BFI website we can see that Film Production has fallen from 2003, 93 films to

2011 - 46 films.

UK spend on feature films 2001 = 114 milllions 2011 = 38 million

Low budget movies under 500,000 pound UK

2003 - 74 films 180 million 2011 - 38 films 85million (The lowest on record !)


http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/sta...ion-Report.pdf


In a public meeting the British producer of Sherlock Holmes said that the collapse of the DVD market due to piracy was the reason he could not raise money for further film production.

Its a double edged sword really. The plus point If I put Gidiot on ignore, is that I wont have to read nearly as much garbage, the minus, id miss out links to ground breaking acts like the dude that uses his pie hole to cover stuff.

I didn't object to fair use. I was responding to another persons post and you jumped in with comments on derivative works.

If a new law passes (and depending on what it encompasses) there could indeed he an effect on how websites decide to operate. But ultimately if a new law addresses a balance between the current file sharing epidemic and whether websites are comfortable hosting material that has the potential to cause issues for them - thats a balance with which I'm personally very comfortable.



There you go comparing apples and oranges again.

Always been like that bud :thumbsup

this was your statement about covers




you clearly said that you don't have a problem with approved or sample cleared music

fair use is not approved

by definition it apply to content even if the copyright holder doesn't want you use it.
It is THE ONLY defined exclusion to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

there are no others.



then explain yourself, fair use is the only exclusion to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder

All the marketing material produced by remove your content was all protected by copyright

why does fair use allow you to use their worlds in the same way they did in their copyright protected work

but musicians don't have the same right when those words are put in a song.

seriously what exactly about the statement

we are only talking about the situation where the business is covered by fair use
and the copyright holder choose to lie and misrepresent it as infringement to take out that fair use business.

(ie fox who owns myspace, making up fake complaints against parodies, or commentaries on facebook to take them out)

that the only situation i am talking about

when a copyright holder bald face lies to take out a company which they view as a threat to their site


you said even in this situation the copyright holder should have the transactional immunity you quoted

and keep his copyright so that he can do this as often as he wants.

Your argument blaming the greedy copyright owner is false. The copyright owner only makes a complaint to the courts for perceived injuries. Anyone who is injured by someone publishing content (libel, obscenity, and copyrights violation are just a few) has the right to petition the courts for justice.

The guilt or innocence of the alleged copyright violator is in the hands of the judge and jury; not the copyright's owner or creator.

Disagreements will always occur and be settled by the courts using the principle of stare decisis, i.e. prior decisions.

The prior decisions are to be used as a guide for content users to ascertain that which is probably legal and that which is not.

If pirates don't get greedy, they probably won't be found guilty.

But then, we know pirates; and, they are all about the 'gold'.

Just my opinion.:pimp

you notice you mentioned a right to file for damages to copyright infringement, but there is no right for violating fair use

it a one side situation which you want to make worse by giving transactional immunity based on nothing more then the claim that you "believe" your being wronged. You complain about how pirates are taking advantage of the safe harbor, do you really expect me to believe absolutely no copyright holder will take advantage of that situation.

if i am so wrong and no one is actually going to do the shit i am afraid they would do
why not put a statutory damage restriction for violating fair use.

If no one is ever going to take advantage of the blanket immunity to take out competing companies why not revoke the copyright holders who do.

If that number is zero, the clause is totally useless, it like betting the sun will rise in the north
it doesn't matter how serious the penalty is , you would have no problem accepting it because you know it will not happen.

Gideon. I own my content. I paid money for it or paid to produce it.

I OWN IT.

I can do what I like with it, when I like, how I like and for the price I like. No way do you have a right to steal it.

I will close up shop soon. I might just close up and will keep selling the content, or might not. That's my decision, not yours. you own your car. Can I use it because you don't? Can I use it, because you don't use it right?

And until the law is changed to suit you, which is when hell freezes over. You cannot decide what I do with my content, because I OWN IT and not you.

Now do you understand this?

Yes. One bank robbery can get you sent to prison.

The solution will be easy. No content on the site unchecked and not owned, no more "user submits" seems easy enough to me.

Youtube will close, FB and Twitter will change. Life as we know it will end, it will be the roller coaster that will herald the apocalypse of 2012. :1orglaugh

How will life go on without FB???????

How did it go on before FB? :1orglaugh

1. We are only talking about the situation where a copyright holder bald face lies fraudulently misrepresenting fair use as infringement. That the only time the penalty would apply. If you don't want your shit in the public domain don't do that.


2. if your content is in the public domain you can still do whatever you want with your content. Forcing your shit in the public domain doesn't take any of your rights to do whatever you want with the content, it just prevents you from taking away those rights from other people.

What's "public domain"?

Is that if I put it online, print it out in a magazine, put it on a DVD. Please explain where and what is "public domain"?

So I make sure I don't do it.

Because so far I don't think any of us have, not any of the pirated content you want is in the "Public Domain."

"Public Domain." is this a good definition? Then we're all happy. Except you. :1orglaugh

Are you cunts still here? You need to get into the 40 + 40 * 0 + 1 = ? thread.

If I was not afraid to get into trouble for piracy then no fucking way would I still be
showing 30 seconds clips on my tube site.

I would sign up to pay sites and rip the entire members area so I could compete
with youporn.

So saying the law has no impact on piracy is ridiculous.

If there were no war on drugs then I would have 50 pot plants in my front yard
and 50 coca plants in the back yard.

:1orglaugh

Damian will never accept that. He thinks that no laws or regulations on piracy means no more will be doing it than do it today. He also thinks that increasing the laws will have no effect on piracy. Taking down sites that have mad a living from piracy will just carry on.

Of course he lives in a dream world. With no fight against piracy anyone can do it. Those doing it today will increase. We will all live in hope VISA won't turn a blind eye to people stealing content and creating a paysite, or charging people to download it via Paypal. Whoops that happens already.

And taking down these sites, might mean huge problems with Paypal getting loads of complaints from angry people who just saw their downloads they paid for gone. Or advertisers thinking an advert on a site that will disappear soon isn't a good way to market.

The increase of laws against piracy will have more effect, not less. It will mean less money in the pockets of pirates. And that is the freedom I think some are trying to protect. Their freedom to make money from theft.

Paul, you really need to stop totally lying about what I say or think.

Here's how it works. You quote what I say, and make a counterpoint.

Then we can discuss something. If you just post lies about things I didn't say or think it's pointless, isn't it?

Of course piracy should be illegal. It's a crime.

1. So are you saying increasing the laws and penalties for piracy of copyright content will have more, less or no effect on reducing piracy?

2. Do you think enforcing existing laws will have more, less or no effect on reducing piracy?

3. Do you think that increasing the laws and penalties, will help people who work in the industries selling copyright media to be more successful?

My answers are.

1. More effect on reducing piracy.

2. More effect on reducing piracy.

3. I think more laws will help those in the industries selling digital content to be more successful.

And before you go on with your freedom debate and don't answer the question. I will pick who I want to pick to guard my freedoms. The last person I or most here would pick for this is you.

Gideongallery:

The reason there are no damages awarded to "fair use" users for a contents owner's allegations of copyright violation is that they NEVER OWNED THE CONTENT in question.

And, since they never owned the content in question, the value of their labors are not diminished.

If you take someone else's property without their permission (licensing), you run the risk of being accused of stealing (copyright infringement) and must bear the consequences of your actions. There is no basis here to justify a penalty upon the property owner (copyright holder) as you (the alleged violator) have free choice in making your decision to take the property (content) without permission, or not. The rules of he game are pretty clear, i.e. copyright law and fair use provisions.

On the bright side, if you are sued for infringement and win your case on a fair use basis that is very obvious and legal, you might be awarded your attorney fees by the court as the courts hate frivolous lawsuits.

Just my opinion and I'm no lawyer.:pimp

Without my permisions, or going by my terms of use, using my copywritten material is theft. fair use? only if you helped me produce it, or do something that rewards me for my work!

I've not discussed increasing the laws and penalise for piracy.

Show me the method you are suggesting for doing this and I will give you an opinion. All the methods I have seen won't work for a variety of reasons you can't understand.

See above.

No one asked you. You've demonstrated a lack of comprehension of how the internet works, so anything you have to say is moot really.

Good news Paul. I'm not offering myself up as the person to guard your freedoms.

Answer this:

I think that giving the MPAA and RIAA the control to block internet sites with no due process is good because...

Answer this:

I know this blocking is just the DNS, so people could enter the pure IP this making the whole thing laughably easy to get around but this doesn't matter because:

Bonus question:

DNS works by...

So that's your idea of a debate. :1orglaugh

I asked questions and you avoid them. shows that you don't want to discuss.

IMO you're a pirate. Discuss that.

Damian.

If you don't succeed at first, do you try and try again again, until you succeed or give up?

How much does it cost you if others spend their money to fight piracy?

Do you think you would earn more or less money if piracy was reduced?

Can someone who has read this law, point me to the specific part that says "MPAA and RIAA the control to block Internet sites"?

Because I read it and didn't see this part.

Who else is given this power or is it only these two organisations?

Or just point to the process of removing a site.

Because if someone removes a legal site with false information, the consequences would be dire.

Common sense tell me Damian and others are blowing a smoke screen out of their asses. Otherwise I could say Mofos and Brazzers should be taken down because.............. with no due process. Then they could say I should be taken down. And it would be a disaster.

I don't have a problem with approved or sample cleared music.

What does that have to do with my opinion on piracy, fair use and any proposed new law.....If something like SOPA passes and people out there still want to do covers, parodys etc, whats stopping them.

If they can't find a website prepared to risk hosting what they're doing, can't they just host it themselves ?




Apples/oranges

considering the law applys to isp too no they can.



saying that they are different doesn't make them different
other then your the "no talent" copycat now what exactly is the difference.

The only way you can call copyright infringement "stealing" is if you use the insane your cost me income so therefore your stealing bullshit arguement

second if you use that bullshit arguement then stoping someone from fair use distributing content is stealing the same income potential

so the damage is exactly the same.

btw you still haven't answered the question.

that exactly what i am talking about

if you make a bogus infringement claim, for something that is really fair use
then that copyright holder should forfeit his exclusive rights.

he should never have a right to bother anyone again with his bogus complaints.

If he can falsely wipe a company off the internet, the punishment for that abuse should lose of his company too.

so under this law, the entire fair use company is wiped of the internet, all those employees are put out of work, the owners lose millions of dollars

and all they should get back is the court costs.

and the only way they can avoid that abuse, is to basically kill all free speech, that is not authorized explicitly by copyright holders.

explain how exactly will fair use survive in that situation.

It makes no difference if I'm losing income. It's still you infringing my copyright and that's a form of stealing. You use it without my consent. You steal it.

Still it's pretty clear to everyone that piracy is a loss of income to the copyright holder. Well everyone but you, Damian and other pirates.

So what is "public domain"? And what is "Fair Use"? as defined by law.

Yes someone who uses false information to shut a site or cause bother should be hit back. And this is what will happen, there are lots of cases of people getting sued and getting very heavy fines and costs for doing this.

What is "fair use"

Putting it onto a site for others to share it and writing a short description or critique of it isn't fair use. It's trying to avoid the law. you know that and you either will say it or lie.

Free speech isn't being killed. You can say what you like about my content, if it's your opinion. If you lie, then that's libel.

How ever saying "Paul Markham has some great looking teens." Then giving the viewer a link to download the site, isn't free speech or fair use. It's theft of my content. Or do you think otherwise?

what i believe is totally irrellevent it what the courts believe

if your wrong and you use the go nuclear option of blacklisting a site from the internet you deserve to lose your copyright

if your right you have nothing to worry about.

What part of thieving, fair use, and copyright infringement do you not understand?:winkwink:

I don't see why, plenty of hosts outside the US.


We share two words maybe "piracy, site"

Other than maybe "email, link, and, to, contact"

Yup, def grounds for infringement LOL

Spot on.

Now give up because even you admit you don't have a say.

I see you avoided my questions.

What is "fair use" and what is "Public domain"?