AVN Story--Websites Fined For having Links to
 

Websites Fined for Links to Pirated Movies
ShowStash.com, CinemaTube.net ordered to pay millions.
By: Sherri L. Shaulis

Posted: 05/23/2008

LOS ANGELES - A federal judge has ordered ShowStash.com to pay $2.7 million in damages to members of the Motion Picture Association of America for posting links to pirated films on third-party sites ...see full story at below link.


http://avn.com/internet/articles/30390.html

I wonder if tube sites with copyrighted porn might be concerned!

Dave

I see bankruptcies, anyone else? :)

There is no way the owner of that site will be able to pay that fine. Whats crazy is the site gets almost no traffic. I wonder how they came up with that number.

thanks for the head's up as usual Dave :thumbsup

without help from the legal system, content would be worthless. hopefully rights' holders will continue to enforce.

Besides the possible copyright violations aspect, I wonder how some tube and other sites containing porn would fare if DOJ/FBI checked them for 2257 documentation?

firs you have to prove who the owners are and where they are located... i think this would prove to be difficult...

thats a high price to pay for a little adsense cash.

Thanks for the Heads up Mr Cummings and thank you for your service on this memorial day weekend.

1. Thanks, Tony404:-)

2. Here a copy/paste from http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=830503 concerning a reason for the waning of sales:

" biskoppen
Registered User


Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Very small penis
Posts: 2,720 This has been going on for like 5-6 months according to our stats...
Full scenes are seen all over the tube sites and their traffic increased every single day... which means less sales every single day...

This will continue untill some of the money strong programs gets their heads out of their asses and go together to hire some skilled laywers to get this stopped.. by not doing this they're not just fucking their own sales, they're fucking their affiliates (us) who worked hard over the years building up their programs...

And yes, the weak economy in the US doesn't help either...

Isn't there a law against profitting from traffic generated in an illegal way? If so, how about sueing all the programs buying ads on redtube etc etc.

The responsability is on the programs, not the affiliates... but it seems like they don't give a shit"

Dave

The other problem is, some of these money strong programs are the owners of many large tube sites. :(

Interestingly enough I have been talking with 2 lawyers that represent the MPAA and they are aware of the copyright infringement going on within the adult industry and I think are ready to sit down with us to discuss how both industries might work together on some of these cases/situations...

Im going to try and set up something for next week here in LA.

Damm ...

:thumbsup

That's very hopeful news--thanks!

User submitted content, that gets removed on request or filtered out - vs - a site linking to known pirated content and probably ignoring removal requests and/or not having enough money to fight in the first place, is vastly different.

At that, hasn't anyone noticed that Tube sites have been buying content/dvds? Not saying all of them, but some of the biggest ones have been for awhile.

And 2257 got kicked in the balls, so it's going to make the new law harder to stick if it was pushed. And with the old law, they only need to keep a record of the producers, which is easy to do.

Piracy always has been and probably always will be an issue, and having the power of the MPAA would probably help a ton. But only if they go after better targets and stop wasting time and money with the almost insane attacks that they are known for.

2257 is the double-edged sword.

so many have called its name to be used against piracy, but that blade cuts both ways, as the DOJ could successfully use 2257 in the correct way against copyright infringement (because they have not docs) , but use it in the darker way of trying to shut down porn to satisfy the religious/conservatives.


Fight the people kill people!

I am sure you know people around you that have downloaded one or tons of movies files from torrents. These guys don't go to the movies or rent the DVD, so they really do cost the film industry alot of money.

They target out the poor little person, because they have to make examples of anyone they can prosecute to show, that this is wrong, and you can get busted.

People who "share" files, think its a victimless crime, or that they are just not allowing fat cats to profit, but in reality, its hurting the artists who make money for the use of their music on the movie, the actors and those involved that get points on the sales, etc.

Sharing = stealing and people do get financially harmed by the downloaders actions!


Fight the Hoods Robin!

They have targeted some online file sharing people. However, they have also targeted people that have shared good songs, with just a few friends.

If I buy "anything" and I share it with a friend or two, and not sell it to them. Nothing is illegal about that, and nothing should ever be illegal about that, it does not harm anyone in anyway. If anything, it's an example of the best self-marketing-promotion you could ever ask for.

They don't always fight the good fight - if they had it their way they would charge you for every play, every time in your home.

Their target here I doubt was small fries. And if so they send a STRONG singal to other small fries not to do this type of crap.

I've got mixed feelings towards piratebay, but recently they helped distribute a NIN album legally through the Internet when the NIN load balanced servers themselves were not capable of handling the load. Give our take torrents can't be blamed for this problem, I think it's our society in general. People in the US are always trying to find the best deal possible and if they are able to get something free they will do it legal or not. On the other hand I have seen the Japanese economy flourish because they appreciate our music and movies. Perfect example is the rap industry and how the Japanese hip-hop scene are one of the major buyers.

If you "share" songs that you bought with someone who didn't pay for them, you are stealing. It is illegal regardless of motive or profit. It doesn't matter if you distribute one copy or thousands.

yes what you are describing IS in fact illegal.


Except your friends now have no need to PAY for the music. The whole "I wasn't going to get it anyways so I'm not hurting anyone" is a BS excuse. If I'm having to pay for it to enjoy it YOU are too or you don't deserve to enjoy it.

Piracy is not all bad. It has been the driving force behind putting a computer in most people's homes on such a rapid timeline.

I think it hurts the big artists the most, and majorly helps out the indie artists who need to get their name out there.

Besides, the big artists and their record labels have monopolized the record stores, radio airwaves, tv and every other form of media for too long anyways. They've proven they're greedy and won't help out the little guys, in fact they do everything they can to suppress the little guys.. So fuck 'em.

Hard to see the value in pirating porn though. :)

I think it comes down to if you need the branding, you're happy to take it. You just want to get your shit out there any means necessary.

I'm not a legal expert, but isnt it possible to make a lawsuit in the US against several people that include foreign "John Doe's" as long as there is people involved in the lawsuit that is from USA, I think I've seen that a couple of times with the FTC.
If such a case can be won it might be worthless for collecting the money, however it should be possible to collect revenues directly from the sponsor (if US based) or the credit card processor of the sponsor (if US based), not sure how far it could be taken but possible directly from Visa US before the revenues reach the processor.
Just throwing some ideas, mayby it would lead to something :2 cents:

that's because if you are the content owner, YOU have the right to do that.. to allow people to share, or steal , orwhatever.

If the content owner doesn't want that to happen, then he didn't have that choice nor gave permission.. very significant difference.


Fight the dividing line!

Here's an interesting story from the Gene Ross site (i.e., www.********.com) about a couple who apparently download porn, make copies, and sell it--they got raided, but it makes me wonder if a lot more of that kind of stuff is happening.

" 5/24/2008 06:14 AM PST



Couple Had Porn Operation Running Out of Their Apartment



--deseretnews.com


WEST VALLEY CITY, Utah — An apparent odd entrepreneurial venture has landed a West Valley couple in jail following a two-month investigation.

Amber Lynn Lexes, 20, and Michael Kyle Lund, 21, were arrested Wednesday and booked into the Salt Lake County Jail for selling DVDs full of porn out of their apartment, near 3600 South and 2200 West, according to police.

About two months ago, investigators received a tip on the alleged porn distribution business, said West Valley Police Capt. Tom McLachlan.

After conducting an investigation that included undercover officers going to the door and buying DVDs, a search warrant was served Wednesday and the couple arrested. The couple also had a 2-month-old baby who was taken into state protective custody.

McLachlan said no child porn had been discovered as of Thursday morning. The couple was not making the porn themselves but rather downloading or obtaining images from another source and burning them onto a disk, he said. McLachlan did not know Thursday who the customers were that had been buying the couple's porn.

Detectives seized a stock of DVDs and computers.

"It was a low-level operation. But that may prove to be different once we look inside their computers," he said.

Lexes and Lund were arrested for investigation of multiple counts of pornography distribution. Court records show only Lund had a minor criminal history, including arrests for drug possession and disorderly conduct. "

I can buy art, and resell it, yet the artist makes nothing.
I can buy a person hand crafted item, say a table, and resell it in the paper, same deal.
I can buy just about anything in the world, including books, and resell them on my own terms, and the original creators make nothing.

As long as I don't rebrand, try to duplicate it, say it's my own version, make a corporate profit, ect.. it's all legal.

Until you get to some music and movies. However, I can buy a cd/dvd for a gift, and sample it first. I can lend anything to a person I want, including my car, even my house, hell my kids.. but I can't lend someone a DVD, legally...

Don't you think they are abusing the power of the law, just a tiny bit, in some cases at least?

Utah is not the place to be pushing porn. They love illegal immigrants though.

Once you sell the item you no longer have it. You also only have ONE of that item. HUGE difference than buying a CD or DVD making a copy( or 2 or 500 ), sell it and still having one for yourself to enjoy.

In this particular case, no. They were linking DIRECTLY to the actual files first of all. Put it this way if you tell someone where they can buy drugs even though you didn't actually sell the drugs you can in fact be busted for helping facilitate a drug sale.

When you give a copy of a cd or dvd to a friend you are still in possession of that item and now your thieving friend has a copy too. That IS and should be illegal.

Absolutely not. You act like they are trying to take advantage of you for something you have to have. It's music. It's a luxury. If you can't or won't spend the money they ask for the item, you can't have it. I want a brand new BMW but I can't afford the price. Does that mean I should steal one since I am too broke to buy one?

That's incorrect, people in general are always trying to find the cheapest or free way to get things.

US is still one of the countries where regular Joe can actually AFFORD to pay for stuff, and can also get easily PROSECUTED for pissing on law, and you can exploit the massive consumer base exactly by offering a "great deal".

Those points still make it a great market place, even in times where many claim that the copyright is dead.

The lower you go the income / market price ratio for legal licenses the more piracy, it's not like anyone in the Eastern Europe would HAVE to steal copyrights but if a Windows XP license costs one third of an average monthly income, you'll rather spend it on gas or booze unless you need it for work.

As I mentioned before, I don't know ANYONE in my close environment who would actually pay for software, music or games for his own use.

exactly, no value in pirating a product that satisfies its client in about 15 minutes :2 cents:

It's tough to create a cult folllowing in porn, especially nowadays when the level of the product is very good and its accesibility, for the first time in the history - completely off the hook.

The video quality and stuff is definitely enough to satisfy most of potential customers, while the creativity and diversification is exactly the opposite.

If you see for example stuff from Twistys on tube8 - well I can't imagine how can any of their super professionally custom shot scenes upsell while it's free stuff from a thousand other producers around, in some cases maybe even with exactly the same models, maybe even shot by the same producer.

I did say, not including the file sharing people. The have went after people for sharing, cd/dvd's - with intention to return the items to the owners. And one lady purchased the digital rights to online movies and her son installed software with school which shared, unprotected drm content. The list of individuals targeted by them, which have been wrong, is my reference.

They are clearly abusing power in several different cases, with insane demands, accusations, while providing no real proof of the amount of money lost - or gained - from piracy.


I have no issue with this case, what this site was doing was wrong.

My issue is the mpaa and how / what they are doing. And it's not fighting piracy, if it was - "the people losing from piracy" would be gaining from the 40k cases they have took on.

That's the best news I've read lately. Do keep us inform.

i hope tube sites go down the hole

If I rent a movie, and let a friend borrow it, is that stealing too? What if... I purchased the DVD, broke my dvd - and got a copy from my friend?

What if my friend would never buy the dvd, and I want them to experience it, so I give them a copy - or an extension of mine?

Oh yeah, still illegal I'm sure - but isn't the point that someone loses $$$?


Music is NOT a luxury, it's part of life. It's created for the people. Without the people - we would have no artists. I support a full free market enterprise music industry - I know for a fact the world is filled with far more talented artists than the music industry 'allows' me to hear. I would much rather not be force fed Nickelback anymore.

If you want a BMW and can't afford it, you go buy an old used one.. If you can't do that, maybe you can buy the kit - and build and exact copy - part by part of all non-bmw parts, you could even put a BMW stamp on it - but you couldn't sell it as a bmw.


Take some time to read more about the mpaa and what they have done.. They have done good, and taken down lots of bad shit, don't get me wrong. But that is "very minor" compared to the "illegal" attacks, false information, lies, and general personal terrorism this group has created for some.

Music IS a luxury. It's not like prescription medication or food. You can live without it.

If a band wants to make their music "free for the people" then they don't need to sign a contract with a record company. They do it to get rich. Just because you don't agree with their motives doesn't mean you can steal their music. If making music for everyone to enjoy for free is their goal, then great. They can distribute their music under creative commons. There are thousands of musicians who do make their music free. If you are that interested in those lesser-known artists then you should actively search for them.

I know exactly what the mpaa has done. They have gone to great lengths to protect their property and I support it 100%.

You can think Music is a luxury all you want.. People made and have listened to music well before it cost anything, in the best and worst of times throughout all of history - it's in the soul.

This has nothing to do with bands making money, they have every right to set a price and make money, even if the choices they have are limited.

But since this is about the bands/artists - then shouldn't all the efforts of the MPAA help and benefit the artists directly?

The MPAA has done one major thing.. they educated the mass public on what piracy was and different ways to get it - for sure with music. They also helped the better talented people get recognized as the people flooded to these networks. This however is having an odd effect on artists, as piracy grows, their fan base grows, and so grows the concerts - and that means more income for the artists. Then, oddly enough people are also buying - not always the full dvd but unique song downloads, people that wouldn't have normally ever purchased the dvd or couldn't purchase the dvd before.

That has started to make artists stand up and voice opinions on the subject as half dead fan bases all the sudden grew.

Ok when I was in high school and we're talking 25 years ago, we were studing something and there was some show on about it and our teacher recomended watching it. I suggest she tape in and bring it in school and show that. She was told she legally could not do that. She had to buy the tape from the producers of the show. They supposedly had a special version for educational purposes. And of course the version that was made for schools was like $100 even though it was exactly the same as the one on TV.

So this kind of stuff has been going on for long time.

It has been... this is also a little different, educational or not, it's still the state which makes the video being used by a corporate entity. Also probably good chance the producers wouldn't make an income from the viewers. So charging is understandable, even if it's an over charge for a school.