|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Can anyone point out how a law to stop piracy is going to effect my freedom please.
No smart Alec replies. Just point out what in the law makes them bringing down piracy a threat to my freedom to publish and read the truth or grab products that are put out by the owners of licenses that allows them to do this? |
Quote:
Is that true? Someone else said you raped your make up assistant. Is that true? How long do you want to play this game Markham? You are just lying. I am posting things people said to me at trade shows, and you know it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I was once accused by a girl of raping her, she dropped the charges immediately when the police told her I filmed everything that went on in my studio. I have posted that here and told the story many times. So the lies about me raping a make up artist is just that a lie. One of my make up artists was Vida Garman, good luck trying anything with Vida. The other one did Eva's make up for our wedding. So she wasn't raped. Her husband was a soldier and he would of killed me. So you post other peoples lies. I guess that condemns you to a rest from GFY. Want to name the people who told you this so they can come here and defend you? If all it takes to break rules is to say "Someone told me" then the rules are for nothing. Quote:
|
Quote:
So anyway, back to your friends advising you not to get a teaching job in case you couldn't control your urges to fuck a child. How do they feel about your new venture of teaching children? Quote:
Funny thing is, you are just maliciously lying trying to hurt my reputation and business, whereas I am just posting things you have posted here yourself. It must be so embarrassing to shot yourself in the foot. Repeatedly. I guess you are old... |
I think you have an interest in piracy on your repeated statements on the fight to stop it. You have always ridiculed, complained and protested about any attempts to restrict or slow down piracy.
You base your lies on "Someone told me." I don't have to hear what others tell me to form an opinion. I read your words. |
Quote:
Whereas you actually did post saying your friends said it would be a bad idea for you to be in charge of a room of 15 year olds, and you did post saying teachers need a will of iron to resist fucking 15 year olds. Can you see the difference? Quote:
That's because history has PROVEN it is a total waste of time and money. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your reputation and business are not something I can do a lot of harm to. you do that yourself by posting videos of yourself in your home. You have constantly criticised my work and my business. Accusing me of shooting scared girls, of dry pussies and more. And now you twist something I've said here and twisted it into a lie. Ad added your own lies. Post proof. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
To what level, do you think, the minimum should be to warrant it being controlled? Your thinking is beyond stupid. If it was applied to everything the police would disappear. You would get mugged, robbed, burgled and no one would stop them. Because it couldn't be controlled. In a modern civilised society we do what we can to minimise the law breakers. No one expects all crime to disappear over night and only the foolish think that passing a law means the crime will disappear. To make a crime disappear. you just make it legal. Is that your argument? Reading this thread it's obvious that those with something to protect are in favors of protecting what they have. Those with little to protect or profiting from the crime are saying, that any control is wrong. for what ever reason they can think of. Well change is coming. Too many big companies and countries lose too much revenue to piracy for it to continue. The West leads the world in "Digital media" from porn to programs. This is a huge revenue generating business. To allow sites in countries or owned that don't have a hand in creating and profiting from their work isn't going to carry on. It costs them too much money. Apple will need to rethink iTunes, Youtube, Twitter, etc will need to rethink itself. Sites that advertise on piracy sites will have to look at their strategy as the piracy sites get closed. Adapt or die. Whether this law or the next one goes through is just a matter of time. Change is coming. I thought you guys loved change? So far no one has illustrated how laws to stop piracy will effect my freedom. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Answer this simple question: Should facebook have to have moderators to moderate each and every status update, user comment and photo upload from their 700 million users? Should youtube be forced to approve each and every one of the thousands of videos that gets uploaded every minute? If your answer is no to these questions, then you can't approve of this bill, cause that is what they will need to do in order to still operate their sites without worrying about suddenly getting shut down, without having a say in the matter. How are they suppose to be able to have enough moderators who even know if any of the content is infringing anyone's intellectual property? It is impossible, and the sites couldn't operate like today. Not to mention the websites would be useless if they couldn't have real time updates. There should definitely be done things to fight piracy, but not in ways that can result in websites being taken down without due process. If they are going to make a law to target sites that are mainly distributing copyrighted material, they need to make it a lot more specific so it doesn't destroy the very basis of an open social interactive internet. |
This sounds like a job for Winston Wolf... :pimp Ban both Paul and Damian - problem solved. :thumbsup Make me a fucking mod, and I swear some knucklehead noggins would be knocked together and rolling around gfy'ville (might try and use some AVN resources to actually conduct a real investigation or two as well, lol). :angrysoap Well, at least one good thing came from this thread, Silly Rant / ondree was (finally) banned (again). http://mozlo.com/gfy/cry-baby2.gif I guess AVN should still keep Tender Thighs on the payroll (the old fart should be just about due to start pulling pension one of these days, I reckon). :party-smi ADG |
Quote:
Thanks to my unfaltering work in trolling the cunt until he finally went too far. I think it was repeatedly posting that picture of him that was doing his head in. If I was banned, Marion would still be here. Think about what you wish for, my friend. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Does punishment reduce crime? Yes! Do people get rehabilitated? Yes! Has ANY law that has been EVER passed had ANY impact on piracy? No. Has ANYTHING every had an impact on piracy? No. It is bigger than it ever ever was. Hope that clarifies my position. Piracy == bad. Wasting money and time trying to stop piracy == pointless. |
Quote:
Quote:
Can The New York Times post pictures they have no right to post? Will they or the advertiser be liable for submission? Will they be held responsible for posting pictures of naked children or allowing others to? We can live without Youtube. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course it needs to be done with due process. But a legal site getting pulled down on a false claim. Is that your fear? We can have a open social interactive internet. Just not one where people are allowed to post the property of others. If I break into your house and steal your computer then set up a place where anyone can use it. Is that an open social interactive operation? Many peoples freedom is being limited now by pirates. Freedom to make money to feed their children, freedom to develop and innovate and get a ROI on that work. Freedom to work for someone who is doing this. Are their freedoms secondary to yours so you can post their hard work on Youtube or where ever you want, so you can have a open social interactive internet? One man's freedom seems to be another man's loss of freedom. Laws that apply offline, should apply online. Quote:
Many get away with too much because of the lack of moderation. A stricter application of the rules is long overdue. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If piracy was made legal, and you could pirate movies, software, music, whatever the fuck you like, to your own content, knowing it was fully within the law to do so, would you expect piracy levels to go higher, or stay the same as they are now? Piracy is bigger than it ever was because it's so easy to do, and is really fuck all to do with the argument as to whether stronger anti-piracy measures should be taken. More people, more content, easier distribution - of course it's bigger than it ever was. You can say the same about speeding - more people speed now than ever before. It has fuck all relevance, but by your logic speed cameras should be done away with, as even though as a deterrent they work for many, the number of speeding drivers has still increased. |
Quote:
Where are your links to anti-piracy laws that have had an impact on piracy? How has the French three strikes rule worked? I'll tell you. It has failed and piracy has increased: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/P...kes-Law-107320 |
Quote:
Quote:
And you want the ability to post any content on the internet without moderation impossible? You do know text is also content right? How is the prevention of posting any content on any website not a limitation of freedom? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Rob, you are a first class imbecile. You assume that since I am against this that I must support piracy. Nice tactic. I dont know what you mean about my site, it's not even a dating site. You are not even smart enough to read my banner says "escorts" and yet you think you are smart enough to read through this bill and understand it. LOL. Ok dude.
BTW, your site has pirated content. Once this law passes, maybe I will notify your ISP about it and get your site shut down. What's that you say? Prove it? No dumbass, I dont have to, thats the point moron, this law says the impetus is on YOU to prove you dont have the offending material, not the other way around. I have to log off GFY now, I can feel my IQ dropping just by hanging around here reading you dipshits. Quote:
|
Hey asshole, if you dont like free speech move to China. Yes. The way you said it is EXACTLY how it fucking works cocksucker. The first amendment is not for popular speech, popular speech does not need to be protected you mouth breather. The whole point is to allow people you disagree with to speak their mind even if you disagree with them. For instance, a case could be made that it probably would be best if you were forcibly castrated so you could not reproduce and pass on your defective idiot DNA into the gene pool.... however unlike you I believe in free speech, even for imbeciles like you so I defend your right to be an insipid moron
And I have no idea what you are talking about with the advertising... why would I advertise on a tube or download site? Or a dating site? It's an escort site stupid. Plus I am a top SEO consultant for 10+ years. I dont need to buy any links whatsoever LOL, so yes I am against it from a first amendment point of view... but then again people like you are a prime example of why I have changed and welcome your enslavement because Americans are dumb animals that are too stupid to see they are being led to the slaughter so why waste my time protecting your rights if you are too short sighted to? Not worth it. Have fun the next couple of years, people like you deserve what is coming to you most LOL Quote:
|
Quote:
So if it's on a Socially interactive site and put there for "Friends" it's not piracy. Go think that one through to it's logical conclusion. The rest is equally foolish. Without making youtube responsible for the content on their site, why should they filter it? Maybe make the posted easily located and prosecuted. So Youtube has to verify the name and offline address and ID of the poster. Got anymore bright ideas? Yes this is a hard one to crack. Thankfully for the betterment of all of us the powers that be are not willing to lie down and let crime go on. The argument "Nothing has worked so far, so give up trying." Is an argument of failures. If people adopted that attitude we would all be living in caves. It's mans ability to keep coming beck to a problem and trying to solve when previously his attempts didn't work, that got us out of the Stone Age. It seems by the look of Nextri's sig, he doesn't work the hassle of being responsible for piracy. For a very good reason. It might stop him from making money. So when he says"You can't have an Internet." He means "I can't have a site and be responsible for it." |
My thinking on Pirates |
The problem is no one has a logical alternative to what the Government is doing.
Damian wants to give up trying. We can't stop it 100% so don't bother. :upsidedow Nextri says it should be done by filters. With a penalty for those who don't filter or just relying on their good will? :upsidedow Some say it's about Social Interaction. So it a piracy site stops having just a plain link to a download and makes a post as well, it's fine and not piracy. So this is fine? I just got this great new film I would like to share with all my friends on Filesonic www.link-to-a-film-I-don't-own.com Yes that makes it all legal. :upsidedow Please come up with a logical argument that makes sense. We live in a civilised society, nearly, because we have laws that force us to be civilised. Without regulations and laws. Life would be chaos and anarchy. Reflecting what the Internet has become. The notion that a flourishing Internet can't exist with laws and regulations is foolish. It's going to happen so those against it, had best adapt. |
Quote:
With this "law" any copywriteholder who ALLEGES that any copywrite MAY be violated is enough to shut down the whole website and or network where this message is posted on. The webmaster therefore will not be checking if you use "fair use" or you actualy have written agreement of this cpoywrite, instead they will delete and bann you imediatly. Since every webmaster has to review each and every post on his website otherwise he will certainly loose his website yuo will have to pay a fee for each message you post on a website. Lets say a tiny fee of 50 cent per forum post will make for you with 30,274 a whoppping $15,137 dollars for your GFY career. I know this will be just ok for you to me this is NO FREEDOM. |
Quote:
I'm not saying it's not piracy if I put it up for friends. It is, and I should be held responsible for it, and pay the price. But not those who created the platform I publish it on. That is actually what you said as well: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
OK the website isn't held responsible. Assuming they don't let anyone come in and post. The need to verify the identity of EVERY SINGLE POSTER, prior to them being allowed to post. Verify name, street address, age and anything else. Of course that's better. :upsidedow |
Quote:
Piracy is big business. How do you police a site set up to make money on your hard work and not pay you for it? Like I said, come up with solutions that work. not ones that don't. |
SOPA is a proposed criminal statute.
|
Quote:
|
Redrob:
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, I made no assumptions or accusations concerning your advertising practices or support of piracy. I only asked about advertising on pirate sites in order to clarify whether your arguments were financially based, ethically based or both. I am interested in your reasons for opposing SOPA. Accusing and attacking those who ask legitimate questions will only weaken your arguments as the actions are seem as a means of deflecting direct questions when your arguments are lacking a logical basis.:2 cents: |
I think one way to fix this shit is set up a central agency to handle all DMCA takedown requests (preferably electronically) then once confirmed make the website in question hosting the content pay a $9 fee to the owner of the content and a $1 processing fee to the agency for each verified violation. After 24 hours if it isn't removed multiply the fee by ten for each passing 24 hour period (day 1- $10; day 2- $100; day3 - $1000, and so on). After 30 days of an outstanding bill the agency will go after the host and eventually will seize the domain and auction it off to pay any monies owed. Let the pirates pay the costs involved in protecting content from piracy since after all it is their sites. Right now that's the main problem. It costs the content owner money to get the content taken down while it costs the pirate nothing.
|
A thread with causalities, all-right!
. |
A lot of negative and pro-piracy sounding people in this thread.
Wonder if you were alive back in the day if you would have believed the earth was flat, or that man could never fly, or go to the moon. EVERYTHING happens with baby steps. |
Quote:
Facebook is ALL OVER people already and always has been. Matter of fact they will yank your account over what other people post on your wall. So using Facebook as some kind of example of loss of "freedom" is incorrect. YouTube? They yank down shit all the time. All it takes is for a member to flag it as breaking their community guidelines and down it comes. Nope...nobody is going to lose their "freedom" with YouTube either. Both those sites already DO police the shit out of their sites. And yeah, some stuff may get by...but eventually they do get it. If you don't believe me, just open a Facebook and YouTube account and start posting some topless babes video or using some of the "hate speech" that people use on GFY on a FaceBook wall. Watch how fast they yank down your "freedom" |
Quote:
You mean just like The Hun carefully does every day for all the submissions to his site? You mean a webmaster would actually have to WORK ON HIS OWN DAMN SITE instead of letting a script automate everything while this so-called "webmaster" just sits back and collects money from other people's hard work? You call that "NO FREEDOM"? I call it lazy thieving fucks who SHOULD have to actually review EVERY damn thing that they are stupid enough to let people upload onto their site. |
Quote:
This would be great if it was for stolen works and copyrighted materials only. However the 2 bills being presented (SOPA and E-Parasite) also allow for these actions to be taken against sites that the government and big business doesn't want Joe Public to read as well. Any sites with negative opinions on say the president will be removed permanently, any of the OWS sites and people posting photos, videos and whatever else they made themselves in support would be gone. If a 9/11 type of event was to occur after these bills passed we would be force fed and only allowed to view or post about what the government wanted us too. Think of the internet in China and what they are allowed or not allowed to view. If my name was Paul Markham, I could complain that your website is harmful to my good name and business I run and your site would be gone. If you write a blog telling about a bad experience at a hotel, that hotel would be allowed to take over and remove your site with no notification to you, no hearing and no legal recourse for you. So sure, these bills would efficiently put a end to internet piracy, but it would also put a end to the internet, the sharing of information (experiences/reviews/thoughts). The removal of any type of content that any single person may find offensive and not fit to be viewed by the public will be included and removed under these laws. I have the feeling that may just very well include nudity and porn. You also think that sites such as you tube and facebook should have employees to moderate every post made correct? These laws also stat that ISP's must poilce themselves as well. Every keystroke you make on the internet, every email sent/received would be read, and every url visited and link clicked tracked. Not only is that a huge invasion of privacy but how much will the cost of internet services skyrocket to cover the cost of the number of employees needed to to track all that. |
I think there's a bit of cross-purpose posting in this thread. As is, the bill is obviously overkill, but *something* should be done, and if it means facebook, youtube, etc have to police and moderate their own fucking sites, then like Robbie says - work for the damn revenue.
|
funny how selfish people are - they would prefer to strangle the greatest invention since the printing press so they can have the sales they made with paysites in 2002. sad.
|
Quote:
Because of theft problems and those that support thieves your "freedom" might be restricted. Leave the legal content owners out of this. . |
Quote:
|
Quote:
if not you just proved that dfp has false positives that will destroy free speech. |
The owners of the intellectual property should give up nothing to stop piracy.
No quid pro quo for thieves......stealing is just wrong and should be eliminated. |
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list. Quote:
He's saying that people who actually put the work in to create things should put all their work in the public domain in some kind of stupid bet with him? The guy is so goddamned predictable. And such a total and compete failure in life. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc