With a file locker you pay a monthly fee to unlock probably billions worth of content. That's not delivery, that's charging at the door to get in the secret shop in Chinatown selling stolen and bootlegged stuff.

That's the same as saying stores need to change because Chinatown folks do it better.

It's still theft.

Maybe if content owners weren't being robbed blind they'd have money to change things.

The first sentence of my post was in response to you, the rest of it wasn't. I have no idea whether you steal content or not so I wasn't accusing you of that.

But you are missing simple business fundamentals when you argue this topic. For example, saying that it's all about the delivery method and then comparing a file locker to Steam. That's just naive, a file locker has no production costs, the original production company of the content featured on a file locker could not sustain itself copying that business model. Are you suggesting one company produce porn, Hollywood movies, Billboard pop music, popular software, then offer it all on their very own file locker?

That's essentially what you are saying, that one giant media company should produce all of the most popular music, movies, and software then sell it for an all-you-can-eat price on their own legitimate file locker.

Can you not see how silly that sounds?

You and I have had this discussion before and it's nothing personal. But to say that file lockers point to some new business model is just crazy and misses the most fundamental aspects of what a business model needs to succeed.

People steal Mach 5 razors from Wal-Mart and sell them for cheap and I'm sure the customers of those stolen razors love it. But it's not a business model that someone could use or a way to point out a flaw in Gillete or Wal-Mart's business model.

:thumbsup

want to name one person who as been charged with perjury for filing a bogus dmca takedown

an unenforced penalty is not really a penalty

I don't know if you personally steal content or not. You say you don't and I'll take your word for it.

I do know that you defend and do business with tubes that do however.

And that's what defines you as a tube boy to those of us who don't.


For someone with a 2003 join date you are indeed strikingly bereft of all manner of clues.
.

I wish I could name one day of the week that you didn't post your asinine drivel on this board.




.

Gideon, I have you on ignore but in quotes I can see your inane drivel. The penalties for filing a bogus DMCA claim are not just a charge of perjury, since this happens between individuals the penalties are usually civil matters resulting in losing your case ,since there's often a counter notice in place necessitating a court proceeding, to being found liable for monetary damages. You should be on here trolling for the undoing of tax laws since they also require you to swear under penalty of perjury when filing tax returns.

http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of...kedown-request

Furthermore part of the DMCA wording for takedown notices is "I have a good faith belief that" blah blah blah...so there is a distinction between bogus and innocent mistakes. Making a mistake on a DMCA or your tax return is not perjury just because you made a mistake, you have to have specific knowledge contrary to your action.

But you should ask the EFF and the Ukrainian pirates to take it easy sticking their hand up your ass to make you talk.

Sniper Sopa

Amen to that.

All the cocks in these threads who blather on about freedom, democracy, censorship and wishy washy notions about internet hippy ideals are the biggest bunch of fakes.

They just like getting stuff for free.

You Sir get the benefit of my sig....

I don't buy into the whole "government censorship" aspect of it. You use material that is not yours or you don't have permission to use, your site is blocked. Period. Licensing deals/contracts were created for this very reason. In the real world, if you walk into a store and steal something that is not yours, you go to jail, or at the very least are arrested and have to pay a fine. You are not eve allowed to borrow it and display it for a while unless you have permission to do so. Don't see a big difference. In fact, the real world is worse, and we don't see people up in arms about shoplifting charges and how they are censoring their shopping experience by now allowing them to shoplift.

And the "false claims" argument is simply laughable. Guess what happens if you file a false police report? Yea, you get into trouble. Same thing applies here.

The problem is easy to solve. Don't load anything onto your site that you don't own or don't have permission to use. Sure, it may create some extra paperwork and some companies may need to hire more people to deal with it all, but so what? So what if Google, Facebook or Youtube has problems. The best part about Youtube is the real user submitted material anyway. Adapt or die, and I don't care which one you choose. Of course, this simple concept doesn't jive with leeches who make a living off other people's property, but that is to be expected.

50 SOPA replies. Supporters v Pirate supporters.

There will be another one along soon, just like buses.

So maybe you can come up with an idea that will work to stop pirates.

I understand the price argument and it has grounds. This is the model.

Buy cheap content, DVD stuff and old stuff being sold for rock bottom prices.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/banners/banner.gif

Do away with all marketing. No affiliates, no traffic merchants, etc. Then sell packages on a $1 to $5 price scale. Let's say 20 Gigs for $1 and 100 Gigs for $5. Of course this pricing would need adjusting to suit

So what would be your job online? :1orglaugh

Piracy effects everyone working in online porn except those pirating and earning from it. It effects affiliates, ad sellers, traffic brokers, site owners and billing companies, except those like Paypal. :(

Because it brings down the value of the products sold. This has hurt online porn, music, films and many more. Are films made today for a quick killing or to produce master pieces that are timeless, cost money and need a long time to bring a return. Or need a high profit of one, to enable a gamble on another?

Great post mynameisjim

Excellent post Jim. :2 cents:

No I can't and neither can industries with much more money to spend on the problem than porn. People keep yelling that you can't compare porn to games / movies / whatever but they are missing the point entirely. It is the new delivery methods and price points that sucked up all of the customers that are available. If someone did something with porn that addressed price and experience they would see the benefits. This is already being done with the DVD sites that were $8.95 per month, easy to browse and hassle free.

Again, it might be something completely different or it might be something damn near the same. I guess we'll have to wait on Manwin to do it because it seems not many others care to even try to break away from their $29.95 per month gameplan.

First of all, I would do the same thing I've always done. Until you can pirate the user experience of talking to a real person webcams will always sell. Second, just because the price point goes down does not mean traffic is not required. It might be purchased directly or it might be revshare of small purchases for life but someone will take all the traffic they can get. The cost of porn content is so tiny in comparison to most things, it's not like you need to be a multi millionaire to do something non standard.

Sure it does, and if they ever figure out how to get rid of it sensibly it will be a great day.

The entertainment industry has actually grown during all of this "devastating piracy", they just don't like to tell you that.

Doesnt matter if you buy it or not, but it's the truth.

Government uses arguments that are popular amongst a group of people to push through their agenda of control and money. They don't give a fuck about your content or any other.

Example: argument 'safety' -> scared people fall for it -> patriot act - real argument 'control'.
This is no different, this would be the first step to control the internet. And it will happen, not now but in the near future, because when our friendly leaders want it it will go through no matter what.

They did and the politicians didn't like it. The next one will do better. This is like losing one battle in a war. The was isn't over yet.

If everyone did that it would cost everyone a lot of money. Because it wouldn't increase the number of customers enough to cover the loss of profit. If one site does it and picks up lost customers from other site it works. If everyone does it, then it drops to $4.95, then $2.95 and so on.

If webcams do the same, that will hurt you. And as more sites go to the free webcam model, again this will hurt your income. At the moment you benefit. Sell traffic from piracy sites to webcam and dating sites and you're in the profit margin. Those still left in the pre recorded porn part of the industry are suffering. All of them.

Because it brings down the numbers of people buying, adopt your price method and it will bring the revenue crashing down. Every guy downloading from a piracy is a potential customer. Maybe not today because of age, but he will grow up. Maybe not for $30 a month because of his income. Price it for $5 in his country only or similar countries with a similar economy.

All this has hit everyone, site owners, affiliates, designers, content producers, etc. Even those who sell traffic to webcams. Because it's enforcing the belief that it should be free. So when MFC and Chaturbate pop up, they get loads of freeloads who love watching girls live. When the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th pop up. Your traffic sales will be worth less and less.

You can't build an industry in a community where the people think it should be free because it's "online".

So just be honest and don't come up with ridiculous excuses for hating anti piracy laws. Just say "This is the way it is today. And I have to live in the world as it is. Not as it should be."

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

So the DVD shops closing are not being effected by piracy? DVD sales have plummeted that was part of the industries income. I can assure you if they were making more they wouldn't be campaigning to have piracy shut down.

Anyway it's a stupid argument. Maybe I should pirate your product because you make more money than I think you should. OK that's right, you're not a victim, you're part of the victimising brigade.

Rubbish.

I lived most of my life before we had the free Internet guarding or backs. During that time I saw a controlled press bring down a President and a UK Government. Watched it stop a war and reveal so many scandals, corrupt officials and scum that the list is too long. Even in the days of the Internet they still reveal scandals and corruptions. The cricketers now in jail because of the News Of The World, the politicians in jail because of the Guardian. Both in last 12 months.

Was it the controlled media who exposed Bush and his war mongering or the Internet? It was both, but they still can't muzzle the media, so have no fear they won't muzzle the Internet.

You're dead right, control will come. But it won't be that bad for those who abide by the law. For those who don't. They will suffer.

they will pass some similar law later

Wikipedia, Reddit plan blackout in SOPA protest

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/16/tech...edia/index.htm

That must mean wikipedia are pro-piracy, right?

Sigh

Sopa will face the Paraiyar

No - it means that wiki are on the same side as all the other companies that dont actually produce any unique IP.

If the peeps running wiki had to make a return on the money invested in producing a product they might have a different view on the matter.

Wiki is not a business that has to sell its wares after investing resource in r & d and production. It is free to join the pathetic band of internet hippies that really need to grow up.

Wiki does not suffer from piracy.

I'm not sure why that whole concept is so difficult to grasp; and I am absolutley certain that having your own funds on the line concentrates ones thoughts on the matter.

This just in Chuckie Cheese to protest SOPA.

This was the final piece in proving Damian right. If any company is against SOPA that makes you right Damian because clearly those companies are wayyyy smarter than the companies that are for SOPA.

SMH. At times I find your comments interesting, other times you sound like one of the sheep commenters on TorrentFreak or Wjunction. Peaks and valleys my friend.

Needs a loud complaining orchestrated chorus

Yes, make it personal. That makes sense.

You are a pornographer that wants the government to be able to censor the internet and you can't see what is wrong with that picture?

If Paul Markham and Robbie are for something, I think my default position would be to be against it.

But, knock yourself out.

You think breaking DNS is a good idea. OK. Cool.

I would defend to the death your right to want the government to be able to censor the internet.

Bless you. It's really the desperately close to failure people that think this will actually stop piracy. It's a sign of the desperate.

Work out how to sell content in this day and age, don't wish it was 10 years ago. It isn't. And it will never be.

xoxoxo

actually it hasnt grown if you compare dollars to dollars. it has shrunk. they sold less tickets but they cost more so the numbers look like they are growing and they arent.

They are also making and releasing more movies. To me if you have to make more product and charge more for it just to make the same amount of money that you were once making it is not a good sign.

Here is a Great Interview with Wikipedia, on Exactly why they are doing this.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/17/tech/w...html?hpt=hp_t3

I know why they are doing it. I was mocking the fuckstick idiots that say that anyone against SOPA is pro-piracy.

SOPA lives?and MPAA calls protests an "abuse of power"

Full Article

As for SOPA, it's hardly dead?as some news outlets claimed this weekend. While House Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has expressed reservations about bringing the bill to a vote without "consensus," House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) is moving ahead with plans to mark up SOPA and move it out of committee. The most controversial bit, DNS blocking of "rogue" sites, will be removed from the bill.

"We will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy," he said in an announcement today. "Markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February."

But the domain system is so strong?

it are the dinosaurs who are stuck in 1997 who desperately try to grasp anything that, in their naive mind, will bring those times back, it's pretty sad.

Well he's not 100% right is he?

Wikipedia isn't a site dedicated to freedom. So doesn't fall into that category.

They can talk about Pirate Bay as much as the like. They just can't link to it.

If the law works as it should, there won't be any links to follow.

As for following the money, maybe the interviewer should of pressed him on this as it was his solution.

So what is wrong with it?

Consider you live and have lived in a world where nearly everything published offline is censored. Can you tell me the websites that brought down a US President, UK Government, shamed the UK Government with the expenses scandal, put politicians and cricketers into prison and today are getting their asses kicked for not censoring what they were doing?

Censorship is required online as well as offline. Without it the publication of child porn, snuff, brutal real rape scenes, etc would be legal. Is that something you would encourage?

And please no debate about the act being illegal, because it shows a lack of understanding.

Yes nico-t what a stupid idea of going back to a time when piracy was a cottage industry and no threat. :1orglaugh

There's no point discussing it with you Paul. You think government censorship is good. I don't. It'd be like an atheist trying to persuade a born-again Christian god is bad :)

I defend to the death your right to think that trusting the government to censor the internet is a good thing for the porn business.

there is no good faith belief excuse of copyright infringement

That by definition is unbalanced.

A wrongful accusation does as much damage to innocent company as an "accidental" infringement (believing it fair use when it not).

so why do you object to the penalty for making a bogus complaint being raised to losing your copyright.

Why is the statement

"Don't load anything onto your site that you don't own or don't have permission to use"

but the statement

"Don't send take down notices for content that not your, or that was authorized"

not valid.

If you want wipe them from the internet solution,

why are you upset that people are asking for "wipe out the copyright solution" to balance the abuse on the other side.

I just don't see an alternative. Without censorship all the things I listed would be legal to publish and would encourage people to commit the crimes for the profit of selling the content to the websites.

This happened in Denmark when they took away the law of censorship and withing a short while there were many magazines with child porn. so they had to rethink the law and bring in censorship.

Nothing wrong with censorship if the line is drawn right. Recently in the UK a person was brought to court under a censorship law. He won his case because the jury decided what he was publishing wasn't obscene. Their decision has shot a hole into the law a mile wide. So it wasn't the UK, it was a jury.

Whether this law is right or wrong is another debate. But the debate on censorship is pointless, we have it and you cross the line and you'll get hammered. If a jury says you crossed it.

Yes no point in discussing it, because you'll lose the argument. :thumbsup

The way I read the law, it's people with "Sites dedicated to piracy." That need to be worried. An "accidental" infringement is your usual bullshit. Like an accidental murder or bank robbery. Even online if you "accidentally" publish child porn, they will "accidentally" put you in prison.

And what's fair use in terms of the law? Pirate Bay isn't fair use for sure.

Here you have a valid point. Do you think a host would take down a website on the strength of an email? Simple solution is a registered letter, signed on delivery, from a lawyer in a legal firm as the first step.

I don't think it states what is the adequate notification. But defending yourself against someone who was wrongly accused and punished on the strength of only an email. Is pretty far fetched to bring down a website. They might remove a song, film or scene. But never a whole site.

Still this needs to be stated better in the law.

Into the black ...

Damian - there is censorship now everywhere. We as a society (enforced by regulations laid down by our governments) dont allow cp, rape, snuff etc. Why is this different ?

Censorship of stolen content is just as easy (and desirable) as censorship of content that society has decided is morally unacceptable.

The "freedom against government censorship" stance championed by sites like wiki that have nothing to lose is absolute bullshit. It might be fashionable but it is also naive and selectively dishonest.

See sig for further advice.....

so now free market competition is bad.

Cost of making movies is coming down, new revenue streams are existing to augment those "sagging numbers"

let complain about that stuff too.