i have said repeatedly if you got proof that the site owner is posting it themselves then sue them because they are commiting a copyright infringement. But a user posting it is GENERATING ANY MOINETARY GAIN.

theft no because copyright infringement is not a theft
copyright infringement - maybe ?

what right did the paysite give that person (access shifting)
is the tube sites using swarmplayer technology
Does that country have a piracy tax (like canada/ sweden) ?
can you prove that you are losing sales due to the action ?
did the copyright holder register the copyright with the us copyright office?

....

I am amazed that I created a topic that lasted until page 4.

BTW, this post has to do with this thread...
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=840797

You keep parroting that over and over in this thread. Keep posting it. It won't make it true, but keep posting it. The fact is, copyright infringement may not be directly spot-on defined as theft, but it certainly is a tangent of theft at the very least. If someone is infringing your copyrighted material and profiting from it it absolutely IS a form of theft, oblique or otherwise is immaterial. Whether a court defines it that way or not is also immaterial. Any sensible-thinking person should be able to see it clearly.

Robbie is the one who is in the right in this thread, not you.

Sorry chum, you are fighting the wrong fight.

This is the internet porn biz, was it any different 10 years ago?

Thanks for the exposure..... :thumbsup

Copyright infringement = theft PERIOD. You don't know 10% as much about this issue as you think you do.

:1orglaugh You are wrong though. He is dumb.

He is a fool. Everyone on this board thinks hes a fool...like really everyone. Hes in every fucking thread acting like he knows how shit works and all he really does is show what an idiot he is. I know very full people who are so full of themselves and at the same time so fucking dumb.

It can be argued that copyright infringement does not exactly equate to theft if you take the word of the law to be exact ("A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" (Theft Act 1968, Section 1), however, later on the act goes on to state that "appropriation" occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property - which I'm willing to bet could be used against a tube site owner in a court of law.

I wasn't aware that the paysite had given the person any rights to the content - they've simply provisioned the "right" for a person to view their content for such a period of time that said person maintains a membership with that site, and I highly doubt any paysite is going to randomly give normal members any form of broadcast rights when such rights are frequently sold between various broadcasting companies.

Besides, if somebody was a member of the paysite (in order to have the "access shifting rights"), why would they want to view the content through a different gateway (the tube site) rather than the original paysite itself?

I'll hold my hand up and honestly say I've never heard of "swarmplayer" technology.

For the sake of argument, and because this board seems to be US dominated, no - both the tube site and the paysite are operated in and by American residents.

Nobody realistically can, because that works on the assumption that everyone who saw your content would have purchased it if they hadn't seen it - which is flawed, because otherwise advertisements would have a 100% success rate. However, both the MPAA and RIAA seem to somehow wangle this "proof" out of nowhere in court situations, so I'm sure there is some legal angle which negates the need for such proof.

My understanding of US law is shaky here, but I was under the assumption that it was along the same lines as English law, in that copyright is automatically assigned to the creator (under The Berne Convention, 1886) upon creation of the content; it does not need to be asserted or "registered" with any government entity.

again look up he definition of fraud compare that to copyright infringement, that is a much better match, because it does not have any disqualifying clause "with the intent of prermently depriving the other of it" , you quoting the appropriate as assessing rights does not change the the disqualifier.

not intentially but the signing up to a paysite is a contract, with the three basic parts, offer acceptance and consideration.
The offer could include things like download all these videos which would then inherit the fair use right of backup and recovery (since the you don't have to be connect to the website to watch the video)
and if the paysite does not hard bind the login to the mac address of the computer that signs up (allowing the person to view from any machine) grants the fair use right of access shifting.

combine those to rights together and you get uploading to the tube site, because there are X number of people share the same right. The network effect comes into play. The problem is the when x+y people view the content, y are committing a fraud claiming they have the fair use rights when it is not possible because they NEVER paid for the original right necessary to obtain cede fair use right.

it a streaming techology that uses bittorrent type protocol for distribution of content, it has the benefit of scale really well because the more people who view a video at the same time, the more sources you have.
IT also inherits the technical spec of not making the content sharing legal, because no one is giving a complete copy of the file .

Downloading /viewing if you don't own a right (fair use or licienced) is still illegal. But since you were talking about the uploading part of the transaction it is relevant to declaration that it is copyright infringement.

well it uploader would also have to be american, and you would have to be able to prove that with the information you gleem that info without violating that users privacy rights.

But sure i will conced that point under those conditions.
one of the ways is the statutory damages that you are entitled to if the copyright is registered. It still does not change the fact that there is no infringement if you have been granted a fair use right (weather you intended to or not).

However the lack of a revenue stream can be used to blunt the arguement of copyright infingement.
For example if the product is no longer available (as is the case of mame roms), or from your industry backroom facials videos. Without a revenue stream to destroy, the distribution (as long as you don't charge for it) does not even destroy a potential revenue stream.
[/QUOTE]

My understanding of US law is shaky here, but I was under the assumption that it was along the same lines as English law, in that copyright is automatically assigned to the creator (under The Berne Convention, 1886) upon creation of the content; it does not need to be asserted or "registered" with any government entity.[/QUOTE]

the burden to extract damages increase significantly if you don't register the copyright (see above)

even testpie recognizes why copyright infringement is not theft

he goes on to make the mistake thinking that disqualifying phrase is the word appropriates it not its "permanently depriving the other of it"

if i am not "permanently (or temporally) depriving the other of it " (see joy riding procecution) then i am not committing theft. Copyright infringement is a fraud plain and simple.

Maybe you should be asking yourself the question why do you want it to be theft instead of fraud. Both are still crimes, both are still actionable.

The riaa has been misrepresenting it because they want to avoid answering the question "does that person have a right to the content ?". That question has relevance only in the case of fraud since if you have a right, you are NOT fraudlently claiming a right YOU DO NOT HAVE.

Such a position destroys fair use rights and turns the conditional monopoly into an absolute one.

The question i have for you, given the fact that both fraud and theft are a crime why do you continue to argue copyright infringement is theft and not fraud.

I don't know why you guys even bother with this gideongallery character.

His argument is not solid and would be/has been ripped apart in several Courts already.

do me a favor and point out such case, educate me. please point me to the us supreme court decision that says copyright infringment is theft.

You're quick to raise "Space shifting" arguments and cite from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc when in fact within the scope of the business models at hand Courts have already decided against this. See, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.

This "tubing" practice is operating in either an illegal or at best a "dark corner" grey area. This is why so many of these "tubing" companies are being sued.

If I spend $100 million dollars producing a movie you do not have the right to take that movie and display it for free on some website. Yes, it really is that simple and thats the way the law is meant to be read. DMCA is not designed to be a loophole to get around this. As soon as marketability is applied DMCA is thrown out the window and that is why you see Google flying the "Broadcast yourself" flag with regards to Youtube.

I honestly find it disturbing that there are people like yourself that think otherwise. Seriously.. what is wrong with you?

Guys the game of verbal tennis can only be played if someone hits the ball back.

You're right. This gideongallery character is a tool.

I will ignore him like I've suggested myself earlier.

Gideon = Minusonebit?

I don't "continue to argue" anything here sir. I made one post on this subject, and I stand by it. As I said, it may not match the true definition or the court's definition of theft, but I can still recognize as a thinking person that it absolutely is a form of it.

Of course if I ever need to press charges against someone for it I'll be more than happy to nail them for fraud as well as anything else they deserve, and won't quibble over the neverending semantics that you seem to want to continue to argue over.

Existing laws aside, if you or anyone else can't see the theft aspect of copyright infringement, there's something wrong with you.

again with the misquoting to try and fabricate a point

i did not associate "space shifting" with sony vs universal, i associated time shifting which it was.

as to the my references to napster case, the justice Robert R. Beezer ruled that space shifting did not apply because each act of space shifting had an associated act of copyright infringement. They did not say space shifting/ access shifting was not a fair use right.
I pointed out in the case of bit torrent and swarm player you are never sharing the entire file, that arguement that justified it prohibition does not exist, because it can be proven that the protocol by design does not associate an infringement with each space/access shifting.


never said it was i said the DMCA safe harbor provision was the balance to the increase power the take down request granted copyright holders. I said that balance was need to protect fair use,
I said that the unintended consequence is that companies who are to cheap spend 150/month to hire someone to send down take down request, it does legalize what would normally be a copyright infringement

I have said but that is that companies own fault, because they are too cheap or lazy to protect their content using the methodology provided by law.

I said that methodology is already too strong, because the cost of defending your fair use right (like comentary for 50 second sample , already used in the same purpose on a major broadcast station) would exceed $1,000 and as a result the take down request are already censoring free expression.

IT doesn't matter what the facts are i am right because i say so defense.

changing the context of a crime, changes the crime, it makes things that are legal, illegal so it is VERY important to get the terminology correct.

It interesting you refused to answer the question but still decided to "continue arguing with me" .

Interesting that you completely failed to notice that I in fact did answer your question, in the second paragraph of my above post.

Or rather, you read it and were simply unable to comprehend it.

Btw, thanks for proving my last statement right. :thumbsup

Is copyright infringement theft or isn't it?
Of course most online articles on the subject are taking into consideration the broad range of copyright infringement types that can occur. But when the argument is narrowed down only to online intellectual property (video, photo images, written stories etc), and in the scenario where they are inside one's private member's area and are then copied and displayed on someone else's site (for profit in any form, such as ad sales), I really don't see any other way to see said copying and redistribution without authorization than for what it is... theft.

If you're more compfy with term "Piracy" then so be it. But as the above quote says, the two terms are, in the court's eyes, interchangeable.

:thumbsup

i am am more comfortable with the term piracy because that is what is considered interchangeable.



your own quotation shows that ""have of late been mercilessly pirated"

the problem is your taking a terminology defined before the first copyright act was defined (and therefore before fair use was recognized) and using in a context after fair use was defined and recognized.

Your using a term that was defined when talking about an absolute monopoly and applying to the law after the monopoly was made conditional (wrapped in fair use)

Likewise conceeding that piracy (derived from to pirate) and copyright infringements are the same term, it again quite clearly not theft.

the laws regarding salvage, mitigated/eliminated the crime of piracy just fair use mitigates/eliminates the copyright infringement.

there is no mitigation to theft, and that is the problem refering to copyright infringement as theft puts copyright back to it original absolute monopoly.

GideonGallery you still miss the point... Go ahead and build a website where users can put up their own shit and I will "anonymously" post all of Nasty Dollars full length videos...

See how long it takes for them to charge you with content theft when you don't remove their content by request.

here's your solution - give back Brazzers a dose of their own medicine - build your own tube site, hide your ownership of tube site as best as you can, put the little DMCA policy link at the bottom, join Brazzers network and download every movie they put on their sites - hire some outsourcers to upload them to your Tube site - advertise you have the complete Brazzers content library for free everywhere you can - advertise AFF and cam sites - traffic won't take long to build up and then make your little white label deals with Videosz or Videobox

no they will not they will charge me with copyright infringement, because the safe harbor provison would no longer apply if i refused to remove the content.

you missed the point the law is already in your favor, because the only way, the content could stay up there (access shifting) was if you were willing to as the annonymous poster was willing to spend millions defending that right.

The end result is the take down request will stop the content from being posted, because you as the annonymous poster would not be willing to defend any potential fair use right.

If you're using firefox ctr+click there pages and burn there bandwidth :) In opera ctr+shift+click.

At least they are not alone. community.livesex.com/free/video/942.html is listing their full-length videos

It's still accepted today though.

In the works...

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

reread my post again

theft is not interchangeable with copyright infringement
piracy is interchangeable with copyright infringement

just like piracy could be mitigated by salvage rights, copyright infringement can and is mitigated by fair use rights.

Just because piracy was equated to theft, before salvage right were established, does not mean that theft can be associated to copyright infringement.

No matter how the face less masses of wikipedia misquote the actual statements.

Thank you, no.

Maybe you should read my post again son. Click the link to the original piece, it clearly states "Piracy and theft are interchangeable"


Sure it does, and yes it can, under certain circumstances, as I've already outlined and proven.

Ah, your lame attempt at discrediting the source. I was expecting it a week ago, nice to see you now want to pick up the argument and rescue the thread from page,...what, 10?

Check the reference sources at the bottom of that wikipedia page the "faceless masses" are using, they look pretty solid to me.

The problem is that the original sources referenced DID NOT SAY THAT.

They only recognized pirated ( NOT THEFT)

Which means it was exactly what i said it was a misquote by wiki poster.



^ See Berne Copyright Convention, 1886: "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection." (Art. 12).
^ See also Massachusetts Circuit Court Folsom v. Marsh, 1841: "If so much is taken, that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient, in point of law, to constitute a piracy pro tanto."

neither the berne convention nor Massachusetts Circuit court Folsom V marsh, 1841 talk about theft, the addition of that word was unsourcable and simply put in by that wiki contributor

When i reference wiki it because i have read the original case law (betamax case) and want to reference a plain english explaination for the less educated.

BUT I MAKE SURE THE WIKI SUMMARY IS CONSISTANT WITH THE SOURCES REFERENCED. Which obviously you did not.

post most simply the original source is correct "piracy and copyright infringement" are interchangeable

The misrepresentation of those sources is incorrect "piracy and theft and copyright infringement" are all interchangeable.

considering the rest of your quote included the statement "though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable"

and you are trying to make the case that Three are actually interchangable.

Get a refund cause it's not working.

http://www.spankwire.com/Busty-Claud...n/video126017/
http://www.spankwire.com/Busty-Claud...n/video127599/

I dunno why people are even bothering to argue with this tool gideongallery. He can split hairs all day long, bottom line is if he's in the US and I ever catch him using my shit he can argue minutia and definitions with a judge, while he tries to tell him why I shouldn't get ALL his sites, servers and bank accounts in the judgement.

If he won't take your shit off his tube sites sue him, plain and simple. Fuck these little theives.

Your argument is so weak a newborn's sneeze could rupture it.

If A. (copyright infringement) = B. (piracy), and B is interchangeable with C. (theft) in the eyes of the court, then A certainly equates itself nicely with C.

As I've said several times now, in certain cases, under certain conditions. I'm not talking in blanket absolutes, as you seem to be doing. And I have already in this thread alluded to an example of when the term theft would definitely apply in such a case.

Defend it or spin it any way you want, I and everyone else who has read or posted in this thread except you knows you are in the wrong, period. Further arguing is pointless, as Dig so eloquently just said.

Cheers.

read the two sources
neither of them MENTION theft


According to the sources piracy and copyright infringement are interchangeable. I do not dispute this.

however your second point that piracy and theft are interchangeable is based on a MISREPRESENTATION of these sources.

Which means A !=C.


simply put

1. Piracy (a) is interchangeable with copyright infringement (B) (see sources)
2. Piracy (a) is interchangeable with Theft (false since this statement is a misrepresentation of sources)
3. Therefore your conclusion is false.

sorry hit enter by mistake

Your entire arguement that copyright infringment is theft is based on the fact that some wiki poster add the words "and theft" to a description of the two source which only mentioned piracy as a term for copyright infringement.

That what is called a false authority proof. The fact that the authority is proven wrong (by quoting the actual statments and showing the misrepresentations) proves the conclusion is also wrong ((copyright infringement = Theft) is false).

Own a paysite and own your own content, have it downloaded from your members area (ie "stolen") and then used without your authorization for the financial gain of others and see how your tune changes.

He owns nothing. And is only here to try and convince himself that this theft is "okay" by trying to call it something else.

Everybody who has any common sense can distinguish when something is being STOLEN. Except people with an agenda.

And fuck Wikipedia. I'm making my definition of THEFT the fact that the content is MINE. I made it, I paid for it, I registered a trademark for the sole use of it on the internet for the adult biz.

Gideongallery you are a parasite. And you're just another freeloader looking to make bank off of the backs of others.

I hope that you come to a convention and proudly wear your "gideongallery" badge and get in our faces and tell us that you have "fair rights" to our content to monetize as you please. And then when you after you are thrown out...you can go over to Hollywood, CA and go to Universal, or Paramount and tell them the same thing.


But I somehow doubt that will happen. You have to actually have disposable income to be able to attend a show. And since you're such a "fair rights" to everybody kind of guy...I'm guessing that you just give everything away for free.

What you're trying to justify is theft. And the fact that you keep saying the same thing over and over and defending theft leads us all to believe that you are doing it. I would suggest that you STOP. And at least TRY to create something on your own.

The path you're on now is going to lead to nowhere.


Now since you've finally acquired a domain in gideongallery.com Shouldn't you be off searching for FREE hosting? You obviously aren't at the level of the people whom you are trying to "educate" It makes you look like the surfer you are for your site to go to NOWHERE

Listening to you talk about how it's just fine to steal others property and monetize it is just like talking to a street bum. You have nothing. You are "homeless" on the internet. And you're wildly waving your arms around while you plot to loot our businesses.

Please stop posting on an adult webmaster forum and go back to the "let's rationalize theft" forum. You have no friends in the adult industry.

Even if i owned a paysite, i would never misrepresent copyright infringement as theft, because i don't need to do that to protect my rights.

I am not greedy enough to try and destroy fair use, so using the law as it is written is fine with me. I protect my software from being pirated by using dmca take down request.

so we are going with the its theft because i say so arguement
The question i have for you is why does it have to be theft, fraud is still a crime
copyright law still protects you.

You don't need it to be consider theft to protect your content.

The reason the RIAA and MPAA keep misrepresenting it as theft is because they want to prevent fair use. Look at some of their statements and they claim that things which have been explictly defined as legal (format shifting) are crimes. The RIAA has said the act of ripping a song from a dvd you bought to your hard drive is a copyright infringement even though the courts have explictly stated that is legal.

Is the reason you keep claiming it a theft for the same reason.
As i have pointed out to you independent studies have proven that the fair use economy is worth trillions each year. So believing in fair use does not mean that give it all way.



it not theft it is a fraud. The fact that i declare it as a crime clear means i am not justifying it. The only thing i object to is misrepresenting fair use as a copyright infringement. What i object to is cry babies complaining because they are to lazy or cheap to use the laws as they are currently written. They are already in your favor and making them any stronger would do more damage to the economy as a whole.


i have owned the domain since 2001-11-12. i have more than enough money comming in so i don't need to do anything with it.

I have mentioned there are tons of solutions (product placement, branding bugs, moving to live content) but rather than listen you guys just cry like little babies.

The business model is changing you can adapt or die. you need to understand that fact. My post prove that point.

Sorry, none of your twisted endless psychobabble is going to convince me that your argument is right Gideon. If you smuggle a vidcam into a movie theatre and record a brand new release Hollywood movie and then proceed to make copies and sell them for profit, they call it piracy. Are we clear so far? Good. Then, as we have seen in the wiki and it's supporting legal documents and reference materials, the courts in that sense see "piracy" and "theft" as interchangeable.

Still with me?

Good.

Now then, I see very little difference between someone "taking" a movie (I'll make the correlation of video recording a movie as being similar to downloading someone else's content) and "taking" someone's content from their pay site for the purposes of profiting from it later yourself.

Both are unauthorized actions.

As I said, I really don't care what charge sticks to the person doing it. If they get found guilty on fraud so be it, as long as they are fined/punished appropriately and restitution is made to my satisfaction I'm all good. But at the end of it all I'd still leave the courthouse knowing that the person who did it is a piece of shit thief on top of whatever else the court wants to call it.

That's what I'm saying.

I'm really not here to argue the logistics or fine details of law, as laws can differ from state to state, country to country. I'd advise you to get over your foolish penchant for, as dig420 said, "splitting hairs".... it's theft and we all know it. I suspect even you know it but just stubbornly won't concede that it is in this kind of example.

But do carry on. If anything it's good for the postcount.

GG, you are without a doubt...the funniest guy I have ever read on here. You don't own a damn thing. You have been berated by everyone in this business. Nobody on GFY does business with you and nobody will. Yet, here you are. Thinking that YOU somehow know better than people who have put together multi-million dollar businesses.
"Adapt or die" BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You aren't even in a position to have to "adapt" You own nothing in this biz. You are nothing in this biz. You're just a troll sitting lonely at your computer. And the only attention you get is when you make outrageous statements.

Am I wrong?

Then why the hell are you on here?

You don't contribute anything. You don't do business. Yet...here you are fulfilling some pathetic pyschological need.

You MUST come on here and be seen and heard: "Look at me! Look at me! I'm Gideon Gallery with the website that goes to nowhere and the mystery software that I spend my time using take down notices to stop the pirates! I can't get anybody to give a flying fuck about me....Sooooo, I'll just make outlandish statements that will piss people off so they will notice me!"

Yeah, we noticed you alright. Now please leave. You have no business here. And that makes you VERY common. It looks like guys like you make up about 99% of GFY these days.

And that's what GFY wants so they can sell advertising based on how popular the forum is.

So you fulfill at least ONE function. Other than that...I truly believe you should take a good, long look in the mirror and ask yourself just what in the hell you are doing.

Please leave. You will fit in a lot better somewhere else. But NOT in the adult biz.

yup

nope they see "piracy: and "copyright infringement" as interchangeable

hell even the wiki no longer supports your statement

looks like the misrepresentation has been fixed.





As i have repeatedly said if you have proof tube site owner is doing that they should be found sued. But that is not what we are talking about.

the act of recording the video in the theater is illegal in and of it self, which means you were never given the content as a take away. The consumptions was directly associated with a physical location (that seat)

If you sell them the service with the promise they can download the video and therefore allow them to watch the video without being connected then you automatically grant them fair use right to that content as well. The copyright act grants me the right to backup and recover that content i paid for.


Do you hard bind the membership to the mac address of the computer they signed up with. No then your membership grants them access shifting rights (the right to view from multiple machines). What happens when you back up acccess shifting right granted. That gives you the tube site.

The problem is some annonymous user will have to spend like a million bucks to defend such a right, so for now all you have to do is send a dmca take down request and that right is being usurped. The point is you guys are still whining.

And if you were actually could win such an arguement brazzers would not own the tube site. You would have driven them into the ground already. And this thread would never have existed. The safe harbor provision protects them and makes it legal (neither copyright infringement or piracy).

It still amazes me how much time gideon has.