You are wrong again gideongallery. It's starting to become a habit for you. You said I want to make 50 thousand off something that cost me 3k to make? WRONG. I want to make a LOT more than that.

It's MINE asshole. Not yours. Keep spinning. The only thing you're gonna end up is penniless. My JOB is to make money for me and my family. That's why I create stuff, and parasites like you try to steal it and come up with ways to justify it.

I'll say it over and over and over: You seem to have no problem coming up with a million ways to justify stealing other peoples' content. And yet not ONE way to create your own.

You are a real piece of work.

Now leave. You don't belong here.

You know...I thought communism was pretty much a failed and dead experiment. But gideongallery shows that it is still alive and well.

You really should just leave before you lose all of your pathetic income. Either that or just keep your mouth shut and your eyes open and try to learn how to make money.

One thing is for sure...you won't be doing any business with anybody on GFY. And running a freaking banner in a sig on a message board is about the most ignorant thing I could ever think of for trying to make money.

What do you think is gonna happen gideongallery? In your mind do you think that surfers are going to click that banner and sign up and you're gonna make money?

You really don't have a clue do you?

This is a message board! I get more traffic at my sites in 1 minute than a message board is gonna get your sig banner in a week.

Just leave. You are an embarrassment.

why do you keep going back and forth with him? lol

I'm just sick of all these people who aren't in our business coming on here and speaking in an authoritative tone about things that they know nothing about.

gideongallery is one of those pathetic tools that the old cliche was once written about: "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing"

He thinks he's a legal expert from reading shit on the internet. And he thinks and is encouraging others to think that they can steal and get away with it.

I want to make sure that people realize that no matter what this failure of a human being thinks or says: Stealing is WRONG. And taking something that belongs to another and making money with it is STEALING

He can parse it all he wants. He can double talk all he wants. Hell, if he actually had done ANYTHING at all or had anything at all I would back off. I could respect him and allow that he has his reasons.

But he has no reasons other than extreme laziness and an inability to do things on his own.

He should leave.

The idiot actually compared ME to a slave owner in the old south :1orglaugh

Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't the SLAVES do all the work while the slave owner made money?

Isn't that what this thief is doing to us?

We do all the work, assume all the risk, pay for everything.... and then he just takes it and makes money.

Who is the slave in that scenario gideongallery.

LEAVE.

time to leave this thread to die an natural death I think Robbie, but heh I am just an noob so please do not feel offended.

This thread turned out to be pretty gay.

Have you ever bought content and seen license ? 99,9% of licenses don`t give you right to upload full scene on free site. It gives you rights to use 2 min clips but not full scene. So when pornhub`s employe see 20 min video with well known pornstars he shoud assume that video is fucking stolen and decline it. But their policy is totally different. They don`t want to own site with legal content - short clips and homemade produced videos. They want to make as much money as they can on stolen videos.

Is this fair use ? No, it`s simple theft

your trying to claim a control level that even real physical product don't have

if i buy a car, i can rent it out, i can make money off it
GM does not have a right to stop me from doing that

Copyright law give you a right to do that with you make videos. But that control over distribution, what you can do with the content you buy is explictly bound by fair use.

you control the distribution for everything that is not fair use.

the same law that grant you that exclusive right grants me fair use rights to the content.

your arguement about how you own it because you made it is the equivalent to GM we have complete control over how you use the car you bought from us because we made it.

It is an insanely stupid declaration.

when you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

The fact is the law does not require them to make that assumption, and if it did it would destroy fair use like parody, comentary, backup , timeshifting etc.

If you could licience away fair use vcrs would have been illegal, because the tv station that sued would simply say we don't licience you to timeshift the content. and the vcr manufacters (in that case sony) would have had to remove the record button.

you can't licience away fair use because as the law is written your exclusive rights don't exist for the scope of fair use. All of the exclusive rights that are granted by the copyright act are not granted for fair use. so it basically if the copyright act did not exist.

i realize you wish the law was different but it not. the safe harbor provision exists, if the safe harbor provision was as easy to get around as you guys keep saying it is pornhub would be out of business already.

it not which means at the very least you are wrong, and at the very best i am right.

i have repeatedly said that access shifting has not been established yet, so it is totally possible that not a fair use right, i believe it will be. so far everytime it has been tried to be established the technology that did so tied copyright infringment (in and of itself) with each instance of access shifting. The question will be what will the ruling be when that is not the case. When the distribution methodology only gives you hundreds of non working copies (as is the case with trying to play the pieces "I" gave you in a torrent swarm/ tstream) and does not have an associated copyright infringement (in and of itself)

Nobody is listening to your pathetic grade school lawyering and completely fucked up analogies....You aren't BUYING anything. So how can you analogize that to GM selling me a fucking car?

Leave gideongallery. You will NEVER make money from anyone here...at least not legally. So the only thing I see you doing here is scouting for more websites to STEAL from

You are a poor excuse for a man.

Oh really? If you buy camera in a dark alley for a fraction of its true value and it is clear that serial numbers have been erased you will face verdict for fencing. And every jury will find you guilty, because you should know that camera with erased serial numbers is stolen.



Bullshit

You have rights to timeshift the content, but don`t have rights to sell the copies or to make money in any other way from that content. If you don`t believe me - try.

Safe harbor provision exists for user uploaded content, not for user uploaded and accepted by operator. Pornhub will be out of business after first lawsuit.

When The Dark Knight comes out on DVD, go buy it and share the entire thing on a tube site and let the producers know that they can't stop you from making money off it.
See if they agree with your analogy.

the problem is with copyright material it is not that cut and dry.
CRIA tried to sue canadians for illegally downloading/uploading music at the same time as they accepted money from the governments piracy tax. They were paid for the piracy, with that tax, yet they still believed they were entitled to more money. The supreme court ruled otherwise.
in essence they "accidently" licienced the illegal download of music by taking the piracy tax.

what about uploads by uses from cede countries, what about any other "accidental" licienced rights.


absolutely i never said you did, however sony proved you had the right to sell goods(and therefore services) that faciliate timeshifting. The same is true with any other fair use right. that is all the tube sites are doing.



i realize you would hope that is true but i think it not very likely. i really doubt a judge is going to say that the only way we will let you have the protection of the safe harbor provision is if you let criminal content to be posted freely. I really don't think any judge is going to want themselves associate with ruling that implictly support child pornography.

could you imagine we didn't want to let child pornography to be listed on our site but the judge said the only way we were entitled to safe harbor protect was to automate the system and allow the illegal content to be posted.

the analog was to describe the rules that GM had to live under because of "property laws"

fair use grants me different rights, i never said i had a right to make money off the distribution. AS I HAVE SAID MORE THAN 56 TIMES ALREADY, IF YOU HAVE PROOF THAT THEY ARE UPLOADING THE CONTENT THEMSELVES SUE THEM BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A CRIME.

the point is if i "backed up" my copy of dark knight to the torrent sites, i would not be making any money from that. As the user i would not get a penny of the money from the advertising that site would make.

but as the betamax case proves, companies like sony can make money selling goods that fulfil fair use rights. Torrent sites that faciliates my "back up" rights have similar rights to make money.

they only reason you can buy a car from gm is becuase of property laws which date back to the destruction of feudism in europe.

The point i am making (and it is valid) GM has to respect those property laws and build a business that conforms to that legal enviroment. those laws prevent gm for setting up an economic feifdom around their created asset.

The sole reason you can claim that i am not buying anything is because that is the way copyright law is written (the problem is that is only for NON FAIR USE uses)

If GM suddenly said we want to go back to the feudism system, where you can only licience the use of the car, property laws allow you to say fuck you.

Like wise if you were to try and claim your exclusive rights for fair use uses of your content, section 107 of the act grants me the right to say fuck you.

I am not defrauding out of anything providing fair use usage services because your exclusive rights don't exist for that scope.

Please leave gideongallery. Every moment you are here is just a waste of your time and amusement for me. I'm going to follow you everywhere I see you on this board and continue to point out that you do NOTHING and only try to justify (poorly I might add) theft.

Why don't you get off of GFY and try to do SOMETHING constructive with your life instead of being a squatter and a bum?

LEAVE

So you agree that in some cases, such as the one I mentioned previous, copyright infringement and theft are equatable and interchangeable?

Good. We've obviously made a breakthrough.

That's all I wanted to get straight here.

Sure it is. You said theft doesn't apply to copyright infringement cases. I just showed you how in some instances it can and does. I never said it applied in every case, of course it doesn't. You are the one arguing that it never applies, and now you've been shown that it can apply.

And you agreed. My work is done here. :D

why argue with an idiot?

has anyone from brazzers commented in this thread?

Drama........

no i said it was illegal
illegal != theft.
because fraud is illegal too.


theft does not apply
it has never applied
that does not mean that copyright infringement is legal, or right or whatever you guys keep trying to misrepresent my statment to be.

I have saying copyright infringement is a crime, all i am saying is when you misrepresent it as theft gives it a level of absoluteness that it is not entitled too.

Wjixx arguement about the illegality of fencing and trying to apply it to copyright absolutely proves the point i am making

As yourself why is it a crime,it because the possession of that item proves one element of the crime. for you to have that item to sell in the back alley (assuming it was my camera) i do not have possession of that item. The combination of you having possession of something you can't prove you own, establishes the criminality of the action.


now look at CRIA case i referenced in response
while their original arguement made by CRIA in the case would be consistant with your theft analogy you have posession of the song (because you downloaded it), you did not buy it from us (you don't own the cd, itunes download etc) so therefore you are guilty.

IF copyright infringment is theft that would have been enough.

However copyright infringment is possession with a false claim or a right of possession (fraud) which allowed an arguement that ultimately won our under the law.

CRIA talked the government into taxing me with a piracy tax, to compensate them for all the explicitly unauthorized personal copying. (offer) the government agreed to implement such a tax (acceptance) and the government paid them the money from that levy (consideration). That is the three requirements of a valid contract (licience). The act of downloading in canada is 100% legal becuase it was paid for.

by misrepresenting copyright infringement as theft you criminalize behavour that is legal and give the copyright holders rights not granted under the law (the right to double and triple charge for the same content -- as in this example).

because what he is wrong about destroy trillions of dollars of legal business to protect duplicate income he is not entitled too.

sorry typo should be out not our

actually I fucked up and listed adultblacklist as being thieves, that would be incorrect.

INDUSTRYBLACKLIST.COM are the fucking low life thieves
I have no rub with adultblacklist and they are prolly fine folks, my apologies to them

my bad brain fart....just wanted to clear that up

hey Im old....

Is right or wrong only defined by legal hairsplitting? Is the law the only instance? Censorship and arresting people for voicing their opinion china is ok because it's their law?

This fair use thing is just a legal excuse for something that's socially and ethically unacceptable. It's arrogant and denies facts noone with common sense would deny.

Bottom line: It's just an example why our society goes down the drain.

So where we at with this? Oh yeah thats right...

NO WHERE!

Keep on rolling Brazziers! Take that money while these guys cry about it and do absolutly nothing to stop you!

we are not talking about right or wrong, we are talking about how legitimate it is to call brazzer actions theft. Theft is a legal term, and therefore completely bound by what the law says.

the religious right thinks this entire industry should not exist even though it is perfectly legal, do you really want to make the arguement that something that is illegal just because some group (with a clear bias) considers it wrong.

It is working quite well, Thanks for the tip, We now have 400 pending removals on that site , thanks for the heads up:thumbsup

This board is going to make you go completely mental then. :1orglaugh

I've been doing so much work rendering video lately that I have had plenty of spare time to go berserk. LOL In reality I just laugh at some of the shit...but I'm sure if someone walks up to me in real life and tells me that they are going to take my shit and they have "fair use" and "safe harbor" to make money off of it....My smile would probably disappear. And so would their smile. :)

Gideon should write mainstream blogs because that fucker is one hell of a windbag about shit he knows nothing about..

Imagine if you will, he is selling LCD TV's at $2,500 a pop and making $125 a sale....

He really missed his calling kissing Brazzers ass.

They license all the content you see.
 

They license all the content you see.

Nothing illegal abou it


I guess that's too tough to imagine, huh?

You the official spokesman for Brazzers?

the only reason you think i don't know anything about piracy is because of your bias

Your analogy of theft to piracy is applying a physical criminal act to a virtual criminal act.

When i applied physical rights to virtual rights robbie attacked me saying that the anology was wrong, the point is it was your anology i was using.

[QUOTE]....You aren't BUYING anything. So how can you analogize that to GM selling me a fucking car?

[QUOTE]

think about for a second , you can't buy content (only licience it) which means you can never own the content

the criminality test for theft is possession without ownership.

so what exactly is the concequence of never being able to having ownership (only authorization) to that test.

we both know that liciencing content for tube distribution is not copyright infringment/piracy. So if brazzer was to licience chokers content for their tube site they would not be guilty of piracy

yet if we applied your representation of theft and the criminality test that goes with it to this 100% legal transaction

brazzer would have possession (true) and not have ownership (!False =true)

both conditions would be true, therefore they would be guilty of theft and thru your equality guilty of piracy.

this should have rung bells in your head saying "ding ding ding piracy is not theft"

because the condition of transaction (no ownership only authorization) makes you guilty even when you are 100% innocent.


Apply the test of fraud
distribution with a misrepresentation of authorization

distribution (true) with a misrepresentation of authorization (false)

results in the correct answer not guilty of piracy.

your bias blinds you to the fact that your test makes everyone guilty, while mine comes to the right answer when you are actually innocent.

If you mean on the tubes I have to differ.

I have had many ICQ conversations with many producers and program owners and so far they have yet to have a license for a single video (except for their own).

[QUOTE=gideongallery;14530903]the only reason you think i don't know anything about piracy is because of your bias

Your analogy of theft to piracy is applying a physical criminal act to a virtual criminal act.

When i applied physical rights to virtual rights robbie attacked me saying that the anology was wrong, the point is it was your anology i was using.

[QUOTE]....You aren't BUYING anything. So how can you analogize that to GM selling me a fucking car?

The law is pretty clear on licensing things. No need to rewrite it but you can "license" something for resale and all kinds of things. It is a form of limited ownership/rights.

Your leg to stand on is it is possible do to the muddiness of the internet that it is possible to take a video and display it on your site so easily that you might not know it is stealing is crazy. A small child might take an apple from a store front and not know that it is wrong but it still is even though it is easy to do.

Here's how I look at it. As long as Freeones links to Brazzers stuff, then it's not like the sales I send are going to make any kind of noticeable difference.

It's like being pregnant either you are or you aren't, you can't be 25% pregnant. In this case either you own it or you can not. The fact that you can only licience it use means that the theft can not apply (fraud does). The problem with applying fraud criminality test is that there is a lot of stuff you guys are pretending is a crime which is in fact perfectly legal. If i have bought a right to view the content (licience) then i have a fair use right to timeshift that right to view, i have a right to backup that content, and to recover that content. I may even have a right to access shift that content. And i am perfectly within my right to use the cheapest provider of such services (torrents, tube sites etc).

we are not talking about me taking content and putting it up on the site myself we are talking about providing a service that allows people to put up content they purchased a right to view, for the purpose of access shifting/time shifting, recovery, backup because the original content liciencor refuses to fullfil those fair use responsiblities.

Don't like piracy provide for those fair use rights for free, then you can take away the fair use arguement (as in the decss case) from all the site pirating your content.

btw i have never said that piracy was right, piracy is wrong. however a lot of the stuff you guys are claiming is piracy is just fair use distribution of your content. It is legitimate because you guys refuse to meet your fair use responsiblities, and therefore the market is creating competition to do so.

Sigh...yes you can license it. Franchises do it all the time in the "real" world. When you grow up gideongallery, you will be thankful that your communistic ideas and free-loading attitude didn't apply to your parents. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to make money and keep a roof over your head.

Why would you send them anything regardless though? They are shady and could likely pull the plug on you at any minute. Eventually they ill not need or want you.

"I'll give you $100 if you dig your own grave....."

i love the communist arguement again, interesting considering that the fair use economy is 6 trillion dollars which is an order of magnitude bigger than all the piracy claimed by all the industries in the US.

Funny how supporting the bigger economic principle is communistic just because it your industry that "hurt". Adam smith's invisible hand at work, if anything my view is overly free market.

Right, so...if somebody says "big player" it actually MEANS American of Canadian? :1orglaugh

The "fair use economy" gideongallery...that is hilarious. People stealing others work with NO purpose or intent other than to profit from it is NOT fair use.

But I suppose that you being unemployed and living at home with your mommy and daddy IS fair use. So carry on troll. Carry on...

Regardless of this topic and all the shit that's been slung..but you must have been living with your head up your ass if you really thought that :1orglaugh

Ever heard of this small country called CHINA? They only have 1.3 billion people living there so I guess it's not something most people would have heard of. But hey...