Another one bites the dust

[Prospero]

They are closing in! Anyone suggest any other good sites for free downloading of music. btjunkie proclaimed itself the world's biggest.

[Silcc69]

I have used thepiratebay for years. I know they have also been fighting the US Government for a long ass time.

[Maxwell Silver]

Governments should not police the net.

[MrsKellyPierce]

That's cause you guys want to be able to steal...

Stealing is wrong...online and offline..would you steal from a store?

[GroobySteven]

Governments should not police the net.

Cool ... so let pedos and rapists run wild?

[SammiValentine]

Yay anarchy

[GroobySteven]

BTW - The Pirate Bay is on the run (again).
As of Feb 01 they moved their url from http://thepiratebay.org/ to http://thepiratebay.se/

The Pirate Bay is a massive profit making company. Don't get caught up into thinking they some sort of freedom idealists.

[Silcc69]

That's cause you guys want to be able to steal...

Stealing is wrong...online and offline..would you steal from a store?


Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not commit adultery


I'm just sayin.....

[Kevin Dong]

Fuck the quality is shit on those sites anyways - either the tracks don't work or they are corrupt, or its fake files. Either way I am not going to jail for stealing anal porn from Brazzers. memberships only for me.

[timxxx]

Cool ... so let pedos and rapists run wild?

Ahh.....The George Bush argument 'either with us or with the terrorists'.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/53295111_637be17159.jpg

[GroobySteven]

Ahh.....The George Bush argument 'either with us or with the terrorists'.



Well when someone says that "governments shouldn't police the internet", them it's not a with us or with them, it's a clearly silly statement as there are various degrees of crime. Your point is actually more ridiculous.

[Jericho]

Propero, Prospero, Prospero...Feeling puckish, are we? Lol

[Prospero]

Blimey tim

[Prospero]

Thanks tim and Seanchai. The trouble now with the pirate bay is hen you tryin to download something it takes you directly to Limewire who have been defunct for about 18 months.

[MacShreach]

Well when someone says that "governments shouldn't police the internet", them it's not a with us or with them, it's a clearly silly statement as there are various degrees of crime. Your point is actually more ridiculous.

So do tell...which government do you think should be policing the internet? And how would you rationalise the situation in which laws made in one country affect people in another, who have no right or method to challenge or dispute those laws, by dint of not having a vote in the country in which they were made? How do you suggest that the obvious democratic deficit in that be rectified? Or do you think that's just all right, to fuck with democracy anyway?

[runningdownthatdream]

So do tell...which government do you think should be policing the internet? And how would you rationalise the situation in which laws made in one country affect people in another, who have no right or method to challenge or dispute those laws, by dint of not having a vote in the country in which they were made? How do you suggest that the obvious democratic deficit in that be rectified? Or do you think that's just all right, to fuck with democracy anyway?

Excellent point....and one which Seanchai - for all his liberal leanings - doesn't seem to have considered. Unfortunately too many short-sighted people more concerned with increasing their already large revenues by trying to have government enact laws with far-reaching and long-lasting repercussions.

Why not make a few extra bucks today so that we can trade in the MBZ and buy that VEYRON but fuck the next generation since we won't be here, right!?

[GroobySteven]

Both silly and purile arguments and overly personalised, which pretty much under-mines your points.

I don't have an answer on exactly how it should be done but the current laws aren't working and the suggested ones aren't the answer. I believe there are already international copyright laws in place, all they need to do is close the loopholes which were created in a different time and era and for a different purpose.
Those that are muddling copyright with freedoms and rights, have a very different agenda.

[MacShreach]

Both silly and purile arguments and overly personalised, which pretty much under-mines your points.

I don't have an answer on exactly how it should be done but the current laws aren't working and the suggested ones aren't the answer. I believe there are already international copyright laws in place, all they need to do is close the loopholes which were created in a different time and era and for a different purpose.
Those that are muddling copyright with freedoms and rights, have a very different agenda.

Neither argument is silly or puerile; on the contrary, both are very much part of legitimate political debate right now. As for being personal, they were legitimate questions posed in response to a statement that you made, which invited them. Your response, however, shows your usual level of arrogance.

Democratic rights become very important when people's freedom is impinged upon by laws made in another state, and no amount of condescension on your part is going to change that.

[GroobySteven]

Democratic rights become very important when people's freedom is impinged upon by laws made in another state, and no amount of condescension on your part is going to change that.

Yet what rights when criminals are stealing copyright under the guise of freedom of speach? Let me turn the question on you, how would you deal with it?
You percieve me as being arrogant because I'm strongly opinionated and have something to protect and stand-up for and not just a pipedream of an ideal that has no grounds in reality.

[runningdownthatdream]

Yet what rights when criminals are stealing copyright under the guise of freedom of speach? Let me turn the question on you, how would you deal with it?
You percieve me as being arrogant because I'm strongly opinionated and have something to protect and stand-up for and not just a pipedream of an ideal that has no grounds in reality.

Like I said before.......work on the IP protection at source. The answer is with technology not with legislation. This damn society is sick with a welfare mentality and looking to the fucking government to solve all problems! If the government could solve crime why the fuck are guys still sticking up gas stations and getting away with it?

[MacShreach]

Yet what rights when criminals are stealing copyright under the guise of freedom of speach? Let me turn the question on you, how would you deal with it?
You percieve me as being arrogant because I'm strongly opinionated and have something to protect and stand-up for and not just a pipedream of an ideal that has no grounds in reality.

I have never condoned using freedom of speech to steal copyright. However I think, as you well know, that a free internet is the ideal, and we have to find a way for people to make a living with that. Free television has been normal for decades, after all. The internet is just another broadcast medium.

I don't perceive you as arrogant because you are opinionated, I perceive you as arrogant because you are presumptuous and condescending. I have no problems with your opinions, though I may disagree with them.

But you are right, you do have something to protect--your self-interest.

[GroobySteven]

I have never condoned using freedom of speech to steal copyright. However I think, as you well know, that a free internet is the ideal, and we have to find a way for people to make a living with that. Free television has been normal for decades, after all. The internet is just another broadcast medium.

I don't perceive you as arrogant because you are opinionated, I perceive you as arrogant because you are presumptuous and condescending. I have no problems with your opinions, though I may disagree with them.

But you are right, you do have something to protect--your self-interest.

Television is free? In the UK you pay an annual license fee and then extra for premium outlets and in the USA practically all TV needs to be on a subscription service. The free television is very poor quality and anybody who "steals" the better product can be prosecuted. Your analogy for how the internet should run is correct but in support of free internet.

We already pay for internet, we pay ISP's to allow us access to the internet - at different speeds (again at a premium) so how is that free?

Absolutely I need to protect my self-interest, which supports more than myself. If your reasoning that everything on the internet should be free, then I don't think that's for altruistic reasons? I'm only condescending and presumptuous when I know I'm completely right. :)

[GroobySteven]

Like I said before.......work on the IP protection at source. The answer is with technology not with legislation. This damn society is sick with a welfare mentality and looking to the fucking government to solve all problems! If the government could solve crime why the fuck are guys still sticking up gas stations and getting away with it?
:praying:

[Nicole Dupre]

Cool ... so let pedos and rapists run wild?
Of course. How else can you blackmail a politician? ;)

[MacShreach]

Television is free? In the UK you pay an annual license fee and then extra for premium outlets and in the USA practically all TV needs to be on a subscription service. The free television is very poor quality and anybody who "steals" the better product can be prosecuted. Your analogy for how the internet should run is correct but in support of free internet.

We already pay for internet, we pay ISP's to allow us access to the internet - at different speeds (again at a premium) so how is that free?

Absolutely I need to protect my self-interest, which supports more than myself. If your reasoning that everything on the internet should be free, then I don't think that's for altruistic reasons? I'm only condescending and presumptuous when I know I'm completely right. :)

Advertising-model television is free. The UK licence fee only goes to support the BBC. UK viewers also have a wide range of Freeview channels. Have you been so long outside Yorkshire you had forgetten? I'm sorry US television is crap unless you pay subscription...too bad. Refuse to pay Murdoch and things will get better.

We do indeed pay ISPs and that is one very important place where revenue for content should be sourced. At the moment they are selling something they don't pay for.

Regarding your inference that I support freedom for ulterior motives, you need have no concern; I can say with hand on heart that I have no copyrighted material belonging to you, other than some from when I did actually have a subscription to one of your sites. (Which won't be renewed.) However, your imputation of dishonesty on my part, rather than engaging in proper debate, is something that is not a surprise.

As for you being completely right...not so far. As for you being arrogant...case absolutely proven.

[GroobySteven]

Advertising-model television is free. The UK licence fee only goes to support the BBC. UK viewers also have a wide range of Freeview channels. Have you been so long outside Yorkshire you had forgetten? I'm sorry US television is crap unless you pay subscription...too bad. Refuse to pay Murdoch and things will get better.

We do indeed pay ISPs and that is one very important place where revenue for content should be sourced. At the moment they are selling something they don't pay for.

Regarding your inference that I support freedom for ulterior motives, you need have no concern; I can say with hand on heart that I have no copyrighted material belonging to you, other than some from when I did actually have a subscription to one of your sites. (Which won't be renewed.) However, your imputation of dishonesty on my part, rather than engaging in proper debate, is something that is not a surprise.

As for you being completely right...not so far. As for you being arrogant...case absolutely proven.

... but you can't have a television in the UK WITHOUT paying a license fee can you (unless you prove it cannot receive TV channels). Yes there are channels getting paid by advertising revenue but you don't get them unless you pay the Beeb. I'm not sure where you get Yorkshire from, maybe you should check up on your Geography.
I fail to see where I called you dishonest? Explain?
Right so far.

[jaxqt28]

I have two words: private tracker. Personally I have no sympathy for the recording or movie industry. They make billions of dollars. I'm sorry you lost a few mil lol.

[giovanni_hotel]

Many file sharing and torrent sites are going underground. They won't show up on random internet searches. Good luck finding the right hole to dig, mole men.

The interwebz just is no fun anymore.

Who remembers department and convenience stores before closed circuit security eye-in-the-sky cams??

The good ol' days. Past tense.

[timxxx]

I have two words: private tracker. Personally I have no sympathy for the recording or movie industry. They make billions of dollars. I'm sorry you lost a few mil lol.

The only millions he has lost are in his imagination.

The web giveth and the web taketh away :Bowdown:

[jaxqt28]

Big studios just need to realize that their archaic distribution system is out dated. With the advent of cell phones with large capacity file storage systems, portable media players, and more and more people doing things online, people don't like to use physical media anymore. It's much more convenient to have a digital copy of your media so it's all in one place and you can search and categorize it. Music artists acknowledge this fact. These file sharing sites allow users to still get content for free, all while the artists still get paid for the downloads and allows them to easily distribute their music. All artists have to do is sign up for a paid account. This could be applied to movies and software also. This is more relevant to file sharing sites, but torrent sites could probably do the same. The studios need to embrace the technology not fight it. But big studios would rather price gouge by selling physical media. </rant> lol

[runningdownthatdream]

Big studios just need to realize that their archaic distribution system is out dated. With the advent of cell phones with large capacity file storage systems, portable media players, and more and more people doing things online, people don't like to use physical media anymore. It's much more convenient to have a digital copy of your media so it's all in one place and you can search and categorize it. Music artists acknowledge this fact. These file sharing sites allow users to still get content for free, all while the artists still get paid for the downloads and allows them to easily distribute their music. All artists have to do is sign up for a paid account. This could be applied to movies and software also. This is more relevant to file sharing sites, but torrent sites could probably do the same. The studios need to embrace the technology not fight it. But big studios would rather price gouge by selling physical media. </rant> lol

...like I said earlier and in another thread the solution is technology-based but they are too lazy and greedy to pursue that with the creators of the various file formats. It's not just the big studios but companies like Grooby too. It's far easier for them to pay lobbyists to influence lawmakers (which incidentally is perfectly acceptable to them) rather than invest in making their product secure.

[timxxx]

It's far easier for them to pay lobbyists to influence lawmakers.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ymJj9T0Pppw/Txm8RvpvaMI/AAAAAAAAAVI/HRxNFFY4nag/s1600/DobbMoney.jpg

Too right,that ship has already sailed,this is a fight they CAN'T win.All the huffing and puffing & name calling is not going to change that.

[MacShreach]

... but you can't have a television in the UK WITHOUT paying a license fee can you (unless you prove it cannot receive TV channels). Yes there are channels getting paid by advertising revenue but you don't get them unless you pay the Beeb. I'm not sure where you get Yorkshire from, maybe you should check up on your Geography.
I fail to see where I called you dishonest? Explain?
Right so far.

... but you can't have a television in the UK WITHOUT paying a license fee can you (unless you prove it cannot receive TV channels). Yes there are channels getting paid by advertising revenue but you don't get them unless you pay the Beeb. I'm not sure where you get Yorkshire from, maybe you should check up on your Geography.
I fail to see where I called you dishonest? Explain?
Right so far.


Sorry, you have a problem with logic. Yes if you receive broadcast television in the UK you have to pay a fee that goes entirely to the BBC. You can watch as many of the other channels as you like for free, other than the Murdoch ones of course, which...I wouldn't watch anyway.

Oh, my geography is just fine thanks. So is my history.

You said "If your reasoning that everything on the internet should be free, then I don't think that's for altruistic reasons?" in other words, you think my argument for a free internet comes from reasons of self-interest. You stop short of accusing me of thievery or intent thereto, but let's not imagine I am quite so naive, hmm?

[MacShreach]

Big studios just need to realize that their archaic distribution system is out dated. With the advent of cell phones with large capacity file storage systems, portable media players, and more and more people doing things online, people don't like to use physical media anymore. It's much more convenient to have a digital copy of your media so it's all in one place and you can search and categorize it. Music artists acknowledge this fact. These file sharing sites allow users to still get content for free, all while the artists still get paid for the downloads and allows them to easily distribute their music. All artists have to do is sign up for a paid account. This could be applied to movies and software also. This is more relevant to file sharing sites, but torrent sites could probably do the same. The studios need to embrace the technology not fight it. But big studios would rather price gouge by selling physical media. </rant> lol

That's a good analysis. However, it's more than just trying to gouge selling physical media; they want to establish a new revenue stream through the internet, but the problem they have is that the market price for their product, via download, is zero. That is of course the consequence of the internet and free market forces. What the studios want to do is what the record companies tried to do, which is charge a price for downloading their product which is roughly the same as what the customer would pay if he or she did buy a physical product. This, they say, is to protect the existing distribution network, which is of course a lie, because what they want to do is cut out the middlemen and take all the money for themselves. But because their product has zero real market value, they can't. So their solution is to attempt to force legislation to curtail the free market. This has never worked in the past and it won't work now. :shrug

What is funny is that they do not see how many enemies they are making, by following this line, amongst people in their target market, as is manifest even here.

[GroobySteven]

...like I said earlier and in another thread the solution is technology-based but they are too lazy and greedy to pursue that with the creators of the various file formats. It's not just the big studios but companies like Grooby too. It's far easier for them to pay lobbyists to influence lawmakers (which incidentally is perfectly acceptable to them) rather than invest in making their product secure.


I've never paid a lobbyist and I don't have the means to build out own file format which could take millions. I do however, use the law to it's full extent when applicable, use existing software to make it as difficult as possible to stop piracy, hire individuals to remove as much stolen content and make it has difficult as possible to find our stuff. If it's driven underground as much of it is, then that's the right direction.

You'd be an idiot not to use all of those means in protecting your business and for us, it's working.

[GroobySteven]

Sorry, you have a problem with logic. Yes if you receive broadcast television in the UK you have to pay a fee that goes entirely to the BBC. You can watch as many of the other channels as you like for free, other than the Murdoch ones of course, which...I wouldn't watch anyway.

Oh, my geography is just fine thanks. So is my history.

You said "If your reasoning that everything on the internet should be free, then I don't think that's for altruistic reasons?" in other words, you think my argument for a free internet comes from reasons of self-interest. You stop short of accusing me of thievery or intent thereto, but let's not imagine I am quite so naive, hmm?

Your logic is flawed - you stated TV is free, it isn't you pay for it! You could not watch those free channels if you had not already paid. True or false?
You want free internet because you don't want to pay for it, that's not altuistic, I never stated you were going to steal it or anything such.

[GroobySteven]

Big studios just need to realize that their archaic distribution system is out dated. With the advent of cell phones with large capacity file storage systems, portable media players, and more and more people doing things online, people don't like to use physical media anymore. It's much more convenient to have a digital copy of your media so it's all in one place and you can search and categorize it. Music artists acknowledge this fact. These file sharing sites allow users to still get content for free, all while the artists still get paid for the downloads and allows them to easily distribute their music. All artists have to do is sign up for a paid account. This could be applied to movies and software also. This is more relevant to file sharing sites, but torrent sites could probably do the same. The studios need to embrace the technology not fight it. But big studios would rather price gouge by selling physical media. </rant> lol

That model works when there is an artist account (basically the Itunes model) but while there are free options available which are set up to steal and profit from those same artists work then a lot of people are going to take that option who may have bought it.

It's amazing that all of the supporters of the "free for all internet" like to vilify the studios because "they make billions of dollars" but refuse to do the same to the websites set up to steal and profit from that studio's work and who haven't had to pay a cent towads that production.

You should have a choice whether to buy a product. If you can't afford it, or don't think it's worth the ticket price, then vote with your wallet and don't buy it. Stealing it because a company "makes billions" is justifying your own criminal behavior. Don't cry if you get caught.

[MacShreach]

Your logic is flawed - you stated TV is free, it isn't you pay for it! You could not watch those free channels if you had not already paid. True or false?
You want free internet because you don't want to pay for it, that's not altuistic, I never stated you were going to steal it or anything such.

That is a non-sequitur, and no, I will not let you away with it. In the UK, the only channel you pay towards is the BBC, via the Licence Fee. All other channels work by an advertising revenue model or a subscription revenue model. If I watch advertising-based television like STV, for example, or C4 or C5, they get no money from me via the Licence Fee, thus I am watching their content for free. Q.E.D.

Free internet is like advertising-based television in this way: we pay by being exposed to advertising, which is sold. Content, which is required to encourage us to watch the channel, is paid for by the channel, not by us; in the end it is paid by the advertisers, who add the price to their products, so, if I buy that product, I will pay a proportion of the cost of the television channel. But I don't have to buy the product.

This is the way forward for the Internet, and it will inevitably happen, because there is no way that using legislation to deny a free market as large as this is going to result in anything other than a huge black economy, which is in no-one's interest. I believe the internet should be free so that everyone can access it, because I think that this will be, in the long term, the most useful, and ultimately, the most profitable path.

What has to happen, however, is that content producers must get a share of the advertising revenue that is being generated, which at present they do not, and that is unfair. Unfortunately the short-sightedness of some traditional content producers has caused them to target the end-user instead of using their legal muscle to arrive at a deal with the internet-based companies, which is something they actually could achieve.

I certainly don't want to pay directly for the Internet, but I see nothing wrong in that, as long as the content providers are getting their share of the advertising revenue that a free internet generates, which is a huge economy.

Sticking your head in the sand has an unfortunate consequence...

[MacShreach]

It's amazing that all of the supporters of the "free for all internet" like to vilify the studios because "they make billions of dollars" but refuse to do the same to the websites set up to steal and profit from that studio's work and who haven't had to pay a cent towads that production.



You can include me out of that one, chum. I want to see a free internet because it is a logical and profitable way forward. Content providers should pay for the content they provide.

[LibertyHarkness]

good another pirate site goes down ..

[Nicole Dupre]

You can include me out of that one, chum. I want to see a free internet because it is a logical and profitable way forward. Content providers should pay for the content they provide.
Huh? Content providers should pay for what they provide? You've lost me. If I have a restaurant, I should cook and serve you a meal and pay your tab?

[Nicole Dupre]

No one deserves to walk just away from the sites with any content in the first place. If you want to buy the site's content and walk away with it, maybe that should be an option. Maybe you should get taken to a separate page where you pay for all the content for $300 or something. However you want to structure it, I don't care. But you need to pay for it. Being a member for a lousy $30 and taking everything you can steal is just nuts.

And camming is just sad; punching in on a time clock to spontaneously get horny? lol What nonsense. Talk about being a monkey expected to dance and do tricks when someone waves a peanut at you. Cam models are not paid nearly enough. They just do it because they won't make squat from porn.

You fucking jackasses don't deserve shit for free. Not porn, not music, and not films. Entertain yourselves if you're so fucking special.

[MacShreach]

Huh? Content providers should pay for what they provide? You've lost me. If I have a restaurant, I should cook and serve you a meal and pay your tab?

No, I mean your restaurant should pay the farmer, or the wholesaler or wherever you buy your produce from, and then charge the customer for the food it sells--similarly, people providing content on the Internet should pay the people who make it, they should absolutely not be just using it to make money and paying no-one.

[GroobySteven]

That is a non-sequitur, and no, I will not let you away with it. In the UK, the only channel you pay towards is the BBC, via the Licence Fee. All other channels work by an advertising revenue model or a subscription revenue model. If I watch advertising-based television like STV, for example, or C4 or C5, they get no money from me via the Licence Fee, thus I am watching their content for free. Q.E.D.
You would not have been able to switch on your television unless you'd paid the license fee. So therefore, those free television channels you watch would have been broadcasting and you, wouldn't have had a medium to play it on. This is just a silly argument. YOU have paid to watch television. Whether you switch on the BBC or not, is your choice.



Free internet is like advertising-based television in this way: we pay by being exposed to advertising, which is sold. Content, which is required to encourage us to watch the channel, is paid for by the channel, not by us; in the end it is paid by the advertisers, who add the price to their products, so, if I buy that product, I will pay a proportion of the cost of the television channel. But I don't have to buy the product.

This is the way forward for the Internet, and it will inevitably happen, because there is no way that using legislation to deny a free market as large as this is going to result in anything other than a huge black economy, which is in no-one's interest. I believe the internet should be free so that everyone can access it, because I think that this will be, in the long term, the most useful, and ultimately, the most profitable path.

What has to happen, however, is that content producers must get a share of the advertising revenue that is being generated, which at present they do not, and that is unfair. Unfortunately the short-sightedness of some traditional content producers has caused them to target the end-user instead of using their legal muscle to arrive at a deal with the internet-based companies, which is something they actually could achieve.

I certainly don't want to pay directly for the Internet, but I see nothing wrong in that, as long as the content providers are getting their share of the advertising revenue that a free internet generates, which is a huge economy.

Sticking your head in the sand has an unfortunate consequence...

I agree with all of the above and that is pretty much how a business like ours works now. A multi-tiered approach to selling premium outlets, to running free sites/channels like http://www.tgirls.com or http://www.tgflix.com which profit from advertising and from the potential onsell of tangible products.

So your free channels of say C4 spend money to produce content. They then partially profit from that content by broadcasting it and selling advertising space within the commercial breaks or product placement within the program. All very well but a massive part of their profit also comes from selling the foreign broadcast rights to that content. When an individual steals the content and broadcasts it for free, on his own channel with his own commercial breaks making advertising revenue for himself ... and everybody knows that the content on this channel, is completely stolen - then both the thief and the end user, should have renumeration action taken against them for the loss of that income.

[GroobySteven]

No, I mean your restaurant should pay the farmer, or the wholesaler or wherever you buy your produce from, and then charge the customer for the food it sells--similarly, people providing content on the Internet should pay the people who make it, they should absolutely not be just using it to make money and paying no-one.

Absolutely.

[MacShreach]

You would not have been able to switch on your television unless you'd paid the license fee. So therefore, those free television channels you watch would have been broadcasting and you, wouldn't have had a medium to play it on. This is just a silly argument. YOU have paid to watch television. Whether you switch on the BBC or not, is your choice.



I agree with all of the above and that is pretty much how a business like ours works now. A multi-tiered approach to selling premium outlets, to running free sites/channels like http://www.tgirls.com or http://www.tgflix.com which profit from advertising and from the potential onsell of tangible products.

So your free channels of say C4 spend money to produce content. They then partially profit from that content by broadcasting it and selling advertising space within the commercial breaks or product placement within the program. All very well but a massive part of their profit also comes from selling the foreign broadcast rights to that content. When an individual steals the content and broadcasts it for free, on his own channel with his own commercial breaks making advertising revenue for himself ... and everybody knows that the content on this channel, is completely stolen - then both the thief and the end user, should have renumeration action taken against them for the loss of that income.

I'm sorry you don't understand basic logic; that really isn't my problem though and I refer you to my previous posts on the subject of the UK licence fee, in which the point has been well established. I am afraid your repeating a logical error over and over again is not going to make it correct.

C4 does indeed make content to broadcast, and sells that. But a far greater part of its content it buys in from independent production companies as well as major studios, upon which, of course, it does not charge residuals, and it pays the people who make that content.

Clearly, if C4 were not paying these providers, then they would take action. Those who broadcast content must pay for it, either by producing it themselves or by paying those who do. That is what I have been saying; thank you for catching up.

Similarly, people who make content have to strike a deal with internet companies to get residuals from that content. It doesn't stop them selling it direct, it just opens up another revenue stream.

[GroobySteven]

You are welcome. I'm pleased to see you are now on the same page.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJBNlkuEPoxnVradU7O-0bKfLZEExMdT6INzAndgV2qeP6HnGOJK3sSKqx

[Nicole Dupre]

I'm sorry you don't understand basic logic; that really isn't my problem though and I refer you to my previous posts on the subject of the UK licence fee, in which the point has been well established. I am afraid your repeating a logical error over and over again is not going to make it correct.

C4 does indeed make content to broadcast, and sells that. But a far greater part of its content it buys in from independent production companies as well as major studios, upon which, of course, it does not charge residuals, and it pays the people who make that content.

Clearly, if C4 were not paying these providers, then they would take action. Those who broadcast content must pay for it, either by producing it themselves or by paying those who do. That is what I have been saying; thank you for catching up.

Similarly, people who make content have to strike a deal with internet companies to get residuals from that content. It doesn't stop them selling it direct, it just opens up another revenue stream.
"Residuals"?

You've lost me again. On solo sites, the girl and the webmaster each get a cut. The money was already laid out to produce the content. On multi-girl sites, the webmaster already paid the models and shooters. Where in the equation does it ever make sense to allow some loser to download it all for free? And why are these losers sharing it with anyone? Should we pay them something to rob it and upload it back to the internet too? lol

And how does this "force the people who broadcast it" stuff you're talking about work onlne? Do you expect my broadband provider to pay my site for the privilege of having it contained in their cable signal? lol

It sounds like you're getting into concepts similar to publishing rights and royalties as well. Do you think Seanchai is going to pay his models royalties? Or do you think we're going to sell him publishing rights to the content we appear in? In the case of Grooby, he's already made his investment. He paid the models and shooters. It's not unlike the record companies paying all of those blues and early rock artists to make them a record. Down the road, they're not getting anything for it because they don't own the recordings. But that's not the issue. Those deals are struck up before the fact. The issue is, why is anyone possessing something that they haven't paid for? They don't own it.

[MacShreach]

You are welcome. I'm pleased to see you are now on the same page.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJBNlkuEPoxnVradU7O-0bKfLZEExMdT6INzAndgV2qeP6HnGOJK3sSKqx
Sour grapes, pet?

[MacShreach]

"Residuals"?

You've lost me again. On solo sites, the girl and the webmaster each get a cut. The money was already laid out to produce the content. On multi-girl sites, the webmaster already paid the models and shooters. Where in the equation does it ever make sense to allow some loser to download it all for free? And why are these losers sharing it with anyone? Should we pay them something to rob it and upload it back to the internet too? lol

And how does this "force the people who broadcast it" stuff you're talking about work onlne? Do you expect my broadband provider to pay my site for the privilege of having it contained in their cable signal? lol

It sounds like you're getting into concepts similar to publishing rights and royalties as well. Do you think Seanchai is going to pay his models royalties? Or do you think we're going to sell him publishing rights to the content we appear in? In the case of Grooby, he's already made his investment. He paid the models and shooters. It's not unlike the record companies paying all of those blues and early rock artists to make them a record. Down the road, they're not getting anything for it because they don't own the recordings. But that's not the issue. Those deals are struck up before the fact. The issue is, why is anyone possessing something that they haven't paid for? They don't own it.

"Residuals." You get paid every time something is broadcast, printed, published, etc.It is a standard model everywhere, apparently, except the internet. In your Grooby example, if an actress had residual rights, then she would get paid for the work and again, whenever the work was sold. Just the same as a songwriter gets 9% of every sale of a song, irrespective of who sings it or sells it; there are organisations that ensure that money is paid. Very early blues and rock artists may have been selling rights outright, but since at least the 50's, residuals have been the model, with the artist receiving an advance on these from the record company, rather than a rights buy-out.

It's all about publishing rights and royalties. Seanchai is an independent producer who sells his work directly through websites. He could also sell through other sites and charge a royalty.

If you look at the broader media, basically this is already how things are set up. For some reason the Internet seems to think it has its own rules. Google, for example, makes squillions from advertising to people searching for content that they give diddly-squat for. We are not talking about insignificant sums of money here. All I'm saying is thatsome of that advertising revenue--whoever collects it--should go back to the artist, content producer, whatever, and this approach is likely to be a lot more productive and profitable than trying to get the horse back in the stable.

I wasn't talking abut ISPs being charged, although I certainly don't see why not--that was looked into several years ago but got stalled. But in the UK, for example, all radio stations pay a fee to broadcast music, and that is collected and returned to the artists, via the recording companies. Why shouldn't ISPs pay a fee in a similar way?

These models are all in place and have been shown to work....why is the internet different?

I am not arguing that people should be allowed to steal; I am arguing that in the long run, a properly set up, free model, where the artists get paid via royalties, if you like, will be more economically viable than the present mess.

[LibertyHarkness]

models will want payments upfront for shoots ... no model is going to shoot for a 3rd party company for free on the whim that they may or maynot make some decent dollar back ...

Now a model that owns her own website and produces her own content is slight different but we alreay have a varient of that for getting paid a royalty back on some of the big VOD and Clipsites ..

For example ...

I shoot 1 hardcore of me with x Model.. now my outlay cost is this ...

Model Fee £
Photographer Fee £
Editing/etc Fee £

This then goes up on my offical paysite , i then use the same content on other outlets such as aebn, hotmovies, mns, rude etc and i get paid 25%/30% of whenever it sells.. now if i sell my rent one of my movies scenes on my cam site i use in the uk i then earn 70% of £2.99/£3.99 for everytime its rented ... which can rack up to about 200pounds in a week or so ..

But I dont pay out royalities to other performers they were paid a one off fee to shoot exclusively for me, and i can do what i wish with that content basically .. So not sure how a model release would work allowing models extra money back years down the line for shoots ..would be interesting to see that one take shape .

As it stands at moment if a model/company is smart they will use all the other various clip/revenue outlets they can to increase their passive income,, it doesnt take much effeort to rehash some existing content in other channles to earn you an extra 1k a month .

Macshreash the method you talk about is never going to happen as there is no real clear who runs the internet ..Would that be Google? Microsoft? BT etc is it the ISP as they carry the signal provide the means, is it micorsoft as they made the internet, is it google as they rule the internet pratically now it seems ...

In terms of piracy - there is no way to stop it, if it can be made and posted somewhere it will be copied and given away.. all you can do is try minimise the damage you sustain from it ..by whatever means at your disposal..legal action is perfectly fine. stealing is stealing at the end of the day.

You could stop offering downloads and encrupted streaming only instead that is tied to one machines mediaplayer i forget what this tech is called but i have seen it .. it basically locks out people sharing it ...but with the quality of video cameras today you could just as easily stick a camera on tripod and record your screen if you cant rip the video directly ..

Its an interesting debate and an interesting area of where the interent will develop and how industries such adult, music, movies, gaming will adapt to its changes ... personally i think membership sites are dying medium .. i think something more akin to Itunes for porn would be neat as people can pay for what they want or rent what they want ..

[Nicole Dupre]

"Residuals." You get paid every time something is broadcast, printed, published, etc.It is a standard model everywhere, apparently, except the internet. In your Grooby example, if an actress had residual rights, then she would get paid for the work and again, whenever the work was sold. Just the same as a songwriter gets 9% of every sale of a song, irrespective of who sings it or sells it; there are organisations that ensure that money is paid. Very early blues and rock artists may have been selling rights outright, but since at least the 50's, residuals have been the model, with the artist receiving an advance on these from the record company, rather than a rights buy-out.

It's all about publishing rights and royalties. Seanchai is an independent producer who sells his work directly through websites. He could also sell through other sites and charge a royalty.

If you look at the broader media, basically this is already how things are set up. For some reason the Internet seems to think it has its own rules. Google, for example, makes squillions from advertising to people searching for content that they give diddly-squat for. We are not talking about insignificant sums of money here. All I'm saying is thatsome of that advertising revenue--whoever collects it--should go back to the artist, content producer, whatever, and this approach is likely to be a lot more productive and profitable than trying to get the horse back in the stable.

I wasn't talking abut ISPs being charged, although I certainly don't see why not--that was looked into several years ago but got stalled. But in the UK, for example, all radio stations pay a fee to broadcast music, and that is collected and returned to the artists, via the recording companies. Why shouldn't ISPs pay a fee in a similar way?

These models are all in place and have been shown to work....why is the internet different?

I am not arguing that people should be allowed to steal; I am arguing that in the long run, a properly set up, free model, where the artists get paid via royalties, if you like, will be more economically viable than the present mess.
lol Well it sure as hell isn't like the way it works. The model gets paid a one time fee. These companies can look for these models anywhere, and they pay them whatever they're willing to walk away with. Just imagine how many TS in the desperate days of their early transition have taken practically nothing to do these shoots. lol And think of how far your money could go in the Third World with that approach.

But I suspect you have your work cut out for, in terms of proposing this new "residual" approach to the current shemale porn companies. lol

And the girls are all too shady and cannibalistic to band together and cooperate, to accomplish anything to help the younger, more up-and-coming girls.

[Nicole Dupre]

And there is no advertising money in shemale porn. lol The only thing being advertised in shemale porn is more shemale porn, and the occasional dildo. lol

[GroobySteven]

Sour grapes, pet?

Far from it. Bemusement.

[Tiffany Anne]

I read this article earlier...I'd be interested in both of yours...Mac and Steven's...opinion on it.

Whereas the ideas expressed work in the mainstream world...I don't know if it does or could apply to the porn world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/03/you-will-never-kill-piracy-and-piracy-will-never-kill-you/


good another pirate site goes down ..
And two more go up.

BT Junkie wasn't even really a site in it's own right. Just one of a number of search engine type sites.

[GroobySteven]

I read this article earlier...I'd be interested in both of yours...Mac and Steven's...opinion on it.

Whereas the ideas expressed work in the mainstream world...I don't know if it does or could apply to the porn world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/03/you-will-never-kill-piracy-and-piracy-will-never-kill-you/


And two more go up.

BT Junkie wasn't even really a site in it's own right. Just one of a number of search engine type sites.


The model he put forward (which I think he took from elsewhere) would be excellent and as I've stated before, when we get to the Itunes model or the Steam model, then yes that is the way forward, in the delivery. Some of the main points in his article were naive though and suffer from the same flawed logic that most people who enjoy piracy go for, "we're not actually stealing, it's not tangible, it can be replaced, I wouldn't have bought it anyway". That may be so for that individual but when they're presenting it to others who MAY have bought it, then it represents a lost sale.

There is no doubt in my mind, that our multi-strategy approach to piracy is working for us.

[Prospero]

a pointed reflection.....

[lisaparadise]

a pointed reflection.....that just about says it all.:Bowdown:

[tvkim]

Mega upload has closed but won't this just give all the other file sharing sites a chance to take its place?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2099425/FBIs-Megaupload-bust-reduce-internet-piracy-says-study.html

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

Someone will contest what I am posting but YES Kim just like when Napster died we all found an alternative.....
the only catch this time is the "anonymous" hackers are going after government sites until they learn their lesson and leave the file sharing folks alone.....

[SammiValentine]

a pointed reflection.....


haha he also cheated at quake2 :O give him anothert 10 years :>

[Prospero]

You're right Sammi - what a bastard

[tommy001]

How many is that now closed? Did the guy from Megaupload really get 50 years?

[Prospero]

I think its unlikely - whoever created that visual was labouring his point.