Germans who watched porn on Redtube told to pay up

[Stavros]

Germans who have accessed porn on Redtube have been contacted by a law firm acting on behalf of the owners of the copyright to porn films and warned they face fines of 250 Euros in what is being seen as an important test case. How the firm got the IP addresses of the users is one of the contentious issues...

from the Guardian:

Thousands of Germans get warning letters for watching copyrighted porn

Letters ask recipients to pay €250 fine for watching films on streaming website RedTube.com


It is the kind of letter that might well lead to a distinctly uncomfortable conversation around the breakfast table: this month, between 20,000 and 30,000 German households received legal warnings for having viewed copyrighted pornographic films via the streaming website RedTube.com.
Initially, it had been assumed that a court error had led to the sending of the letters, which ask for the payment of a €250 fine to the Swiss media agent that claims to hold copyright for the films, including Amanda's Secret, Miriam's Adventure and Glamour Show Girls. But now the legal firm behind the warnings says it plans to look into more infringements on porn streaming sites in the coming year. "Redtube was more like a test balloon," Thomas Urmann of U+C told Welt am Sonntag newspaper.


Were the Bavarian law firm to succeed, it would set a worldwide precedent. In the past, streaming sites have been able to circumvent copyright law, as no copy of the original work is created. But U+C, which specialises in file-sharing cases, argue that viewing clips on streaming sites can constitute a proliferation of copyrighted material since a tiny copy of the file is created in the memory of their computer.
Urmann said the letter had elicited responses from hundreds of internet user households, some of them from irate wives and partners. "Most of the conversations, however, have been very factual and businesslike."
RedTube's Alex Taylor released a statement saying: "RedTube stands by its firm opinion that these letters are completely unfounded and that they violate the rights of those who received it in a very serious manner," describing the court's actions as blackmail and a violation of privacy.
The copyright lawyer Christian Solmecke told the Guardian that there was not only "no legal basis" for the fines, but that it was possible that the law firm behind the letters may have broken the law: "It is hard to imagine how the IP addresses of the users could have been obtained on a legal basis."
He suggests that the Cologne state court that handed out the IP addresses to U+C law firm only did so in the mistaken belief that RedTube.com was a file-sharing site like BitTorrent. Furthermore, research by online news portal heise.de suggests that those users who received the warning were redirected to the copyrighted clips without their knowledge, in what the site calls a "computer scam".
Solmecke said he had received thousands of calls from people unsure whether to pay the fine or not. "Most of them remember having accessed RedTube.com in the past, though none of them had very clear recollections about the titles and storylines of the films they had watched."


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/thousands-germans-legal-warning-letters-copyrighted-porn

[Kevin Dong]

Kevin Dong approved

[danthepoetman]

Very interresting. But it's not going to work. How should the people know who has a copyright for one clip or another? Why should they believe that Redtube, or any other site doesn't have the rights? The law firm should be able to prove that each person who watched a copyrighted film didn't know Redtube had no right to stream it. Was there really a court judgement allowing such billing? It would seem quite surprising, and I would rather think that it's probably some kind of mix up, as is suggested in the article. Or if it is not so, I can't imagine such a decision not being overturned in a higher court, be there a probable appeal.
It's not that I don't approve the measure, but I don't think it's practicable.

[Stavros]

If it can be done because it is practicable, but can it be done to everyone who downloads illegal content? The American example in the link below suggests that prosecuting individuals is costly and backfires on producers, although there have been well-known cases of people being sued, in one case for $220,000, and there might be a difference between a teenager downloading tracks from a new album to someone downloading thousands and then re-selling them on another website or offering them for free in return for advertising.

The alternative is to use data gathered by ISP providers and ask them to intervene and issue warnings to customers and cut them off if they persist in downloading material from known torrent sites such as (now defunct) megaupload and thepiratebay. But I am still not sure what the legality is of obtaining data from ISPs on web visits, although there must be a legal argument for it if the police believe, for example, that illegal trading is going on. As for the Germans, I find it hard to believe people going to Redtube are not aware they did not produce the films whose extracts they show, and that they do not have permission from the producers to show it. You would have to be pretty naive not to know that the films are available at a price on the sites they originate from. Its not as if you are either warned when visiting a tube site or asked to pay a small fee or register to use it.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded

[danthepoetman]

This makes a lot of sense, Stavros; making commerce of it is largely different from simple occasional downloads. As to the person who downloads being most probably aware of the illegality of the gesture, I agree with you. But in court, you have to prove an intention. That's why it seems difficult to imagine such suits working against particulars rather than against the site itself.
You're also right: I'm sure that with sufficent elements of suspicion, they can have a warrent to get private infos from the providers. But on the simple basis of some private, occasional downloads, as related by the article? That seems indeed more doubtful...

[bluesoul]

there is in no way this is going to work. they already tried this with mp3s and only ended up fining a mom (http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplifier/minnesota-mom-hit-with-15-million-fine-for-downloading-24-songs.html) and the ocassional kid (http://mp3.about.com/b/2010/01/06/student-to-challenge-675000-illegal-music-download-fine.htm) all concluding with them finally changing their tune (http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/study-confirms-illegal-downloads-increase-music-sales/)

another problem is that they don't understand the infrastructure and landscape of piracy. suing the occasional random joe for plopping into a tubesite is exactly like going for the occasional drug user who buys for a few bags of his favorite narcotic from the popular streetdealer whilst behind the scenes you have an entire cartel making sure the market is well stocked. eventually, drug user 1 is replaced by another newb in the scene asking "where can i get my drugs?"

in fact, in the "fantasized" event they do even shutdown a bunch of tubesites, i only see others (or the same ones) coming back online with a more secure design to protect their user base, you know, exactly like the back online and better secure, mega upload (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265779/Megaupload-new-site-Kim-Dotcom-sticks-fingers-FBI-launches-file-sharing-website.html)

[bluesoul]

turns out what i suspected ain't gonna work, ain't working (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131212/14232225551/redtube-smacks-down-german-copyright-troll-attempting-to-blackmail-its-viewers.shtml). in fact, turns out the ones serving the copyright claims are trolls

[SammiValentine]

in fact, in the "fantasized" event they do even shutdown a bunch of tubesites, i only see others (or the same ones) coming back online with a more secure design to protect their user base, you know, exactly like the back online and better secure, mega upload (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265779/Megaupload-new-site-Kim-Dotcom-sticks-fingers-FBI-launches-file-sharing-website.html)


Sorry to butt in but............lol at kimble dotcom !! He is just one of those people who has to cheat in life to get anywhere. He was shit at quake2, 1v1, rocket arena2 when we was "youngsters" on barrysworld servers. So shit he resorted to having an aimbot coded, maybe he coded it himself(?)
must be some brains in that cranium... and here we are.... 16 years later :D What a fucking spud head. GG WP.

Apologies, rant over. Carry on :)

[bi-smooth]

are the 20.000 the ones that downloaded films from redtube? or are they the ones that just watched the clips without downloading the films?

[Jamie French]

I'm an adult producer and a musician so I can say without any speculation where folks ought to stand on this issue. Busting some schmuck for downloading music = bad. Anyone who is earnest about making music will be making it whether they get paid or not and live performance will always be a viable form of income. The music business model has simply changed with the times. There is a less profitable platform on which to profit from music making, but a lot of good comes with the loss in the form of independent, non-homogenous musical offerings made at an accessible grass roots level.

Porn on the other hand... there's is no freakin' reason to make porn other than to profit from it, (or to have a never watched personal copy of a shitilly executed home movie made by you and your gross wife, hidden away in a closet for years.)

They'll never stop online theft but I'll definitely root for folks who would act as a thorn in the side those who insist that I shouldn't be able to pay rent by providing a service people love. I hope this German thing goes far. When you peel back all the layers the thief has to answer to ME, not Redtube, not a lawyer, not his wife or family. Fuckin' ME. Continue to justify your theft then be prepared to make your own shitty porn cause that's the only option you'll have left.

Cameras are expensive, start saving up. (It'll be easy with all the money you save on free porn.)

[Stavros]

I'm an adult producer and a musician so I can say without any speculation where folks ought to stand on this issue. Busting some schmuck for downloading music = bad. Anyone who is earnest about making music will be making it whether they get paid or not and live performance will always be a viable form of income. The music business model has simply changed with the times. There is a less profitable platform on which to profit from music making, but a lot of good comes with the loss in the form of independent, non-homogenous musical offerings made at an accessible grass roots level.

Porn on the other hand... there's is no freakin' reason to make porn other than to profit from it, (or to have a never watched personal copy of a shitilly executed home movie made by you and your gross wife, hidden away in a closet for years.)

They'll never stop online theft but I'll definitely root for folks who would act as a thorn in the side those who insist that I shouldn't be able to pay rent by providing a service people love. I hope this German thing goes far. When you peel back all the layers the thief has to answer to ME, not Redtube, not a lawyer, not his wife or family. Fuckin' ME. Continue to justify your theft then be prepared to make your own shitty porn cause that's the only option you'll have left.

Cameras are expensive, start saving up. (It'll be easy with all the money you save on free porn.)

Powerfully argued and I agree with it, except I don't want to see my neighbours home video (and if you saw my neighbours, neither would you, no matter how extreme your fetish). I don't know how this can be tackled at the individual level, so the only other thing I would ask is: do younger people go to live music events? Because while a lot of the time I play CDs, it is that visceral, sensational, almost tactile experience of being in the same room as a musician that has given me so many unforgettable experiences. Maybe the trend ought to be for live music not to be recorded, and for bands/performers that gain a reputation not recording so that the only way to see an act is to see it live...

[jenssch]

there is in no way this is going to work. they already tried this with mp3s and only ended up fining a mom (http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplifier/minnesota-mom-hit-with-15-million-fine-for-downloading-24-songs.html) and the ocassional kid (http://mp3.about.com/b/2010/01/06/student-to-challenge-675000-illegal-music-download-fine.htm) all concluding with them finally changing their tune (http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/study-confirms-illegal-downloads-increase-music-sales/)

another problem is that they don't understand the infrastructure and landscape of piracy. suing the occasional random joe for plopping into a tubesite is exactly like going for the occasional drug user who buys for a few bags of his favorite narcotic from the popular streetdealer whilst behind the scenes you have an entire cartel making sure the market is well stocked. eventually, drug user 1 is replaced by another newb in the scene asking "where can i get my drugs?"

in fact, in the "fantasized" event they do even shutdown a bunch of tubesites, i only see others (or the same ones) coming back online with a more secure design to protect their user base, you know, exactly like the back online and better secure, mega upload (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265779/Megaupload-new-site-Kim-Dotcom-sticks-fingers-FBI-launches-file-sharing-website.html)

they do understand.
these guys dont want to take down anybody, they just want to rip-off some people.
even if it holds no ground, i bet there will be thousands who are ashamed and silently pay the fee.

that kind scam has been around forever and is especially popular for porns.

[Brittany St Jordan]

A good portion of the tube sites are owned by a company called Manwin. Manwin was berated for hosting tube sites so instead of taking them down they have also taken over some of the bigger name sites in porn over the past few years. (Use Google) Someone once mentioned the idea it would be pretty sweet if Manwin kept using the tube sites to lure the folks in with the quasi legal content and then one day flipped the switch to make it all PPV. Where only the legal owners of the content would give Manwin permission to host it and get a portion of the income generated from people watching it.

Whether that actually happens or not, who knows? It will be a really sweet victory for content producers and independent models you are always having their work stolen and spread amongst the masses for free.

Nobody has ever read a review about how great the latest Porsche is to drive and then went and stole one to share it with their friends. Test driving is far from stealing so using piracy to sample content before committing to an actual purchase I can agree with. It is the rampant disregard for "The rich fuckers, bitches and sluts who make porn already tons of money" argument people use that is upsetting whenever I hear people use it as an excuse for their thievery.

Tube sites are only a portion of the theft though. Using the same analogy as above, they are the meth dealers in the exploding mobile homes of the internet. Yes, they provide a means for people to get their fix but really have no idea what in the fuck they are doing other than having the ability to say "I run a tube site" to their friends. With the file sharing sites like Mega Upload, it makes it hard to track the dealer or the user so when either is caught it is a good day for porn producers everywhere.

So what happens to the people who are unable to pay $20 for a DVD or for site memberships and insist that they have to download everything because they are unable to afford it? They do what everyone else in the world does when that are unable afford something. They go without it until they can afford it.

There needs to be a technology that can identify the ip address of where the content is being downloaded from and if it is from one not of the copyright owner the file then becomes a virus which destroys their entire hard drive only after sending an email to everyone in their address book a list of all of the video and photo files on their computer. Let this happen and watch piracy drop like a drunk chick on prom night.

[Jackal]

Are these people even the copyright owners and how are they going to prove any of this?This reminds me of a few years ago when I received letters, phone calls and voice mails from a debt collection agencies demanding money from "my car insurance provider." The problem was that, at that time, I never drove a car, purchased car insurance or possessed a driver's licence. This seems like a scam to trick people. They are common.

[bluesoul]

There needs to be a technology that can identify the ip address of where the content is being downloaded from and if it is from one not of the copyright owner the file then becomes a virus which destroys their entire hard drive only after sending an email to everyone in their address book a list of all of the video and photo files on their computer. Let this happen and watch piracy drop like a drunk chick on prom night.

there is. but it's useless because there is also a technology that can mask the ip address of where the content is being downloaded from or make it seem like it's coming from another location- when in reality it is not.

also, something similar to the virus idea was tried and failed after also being found illegal (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/110110-sonybmg-rootkit-fsecure-drm.html).


So what happens to the people who are unable to pay $20 for a DVD or for site memberships and insist that they have to download everything because they are unable to afford it? They do what everyone else in the world does when that are unable afford something. They go without it until they can afford it.

i like this point a lot. but here's the deal: we live in a capitalist world where everyone is obsessed and consumed about getting things- particularly media. we have phones to take pictures and apps to post on instagram.

the idea of downloading and uploading is now infused as part of "what we do" on the computer to the point where the average porn consumer really doesn't see anything different about reading an article on wikipedia and downloading the latest video from their favorite website illegally. in fact, don't most people strictly run blogs where they share copyright material?

[Brittany St Jordan]

in fact, don't most people strictly run blogs where they share copyright material?

Yes, however, they also point the material back to the original provider or wherever they found it at so that people can can go to that specific site. This generate traffic for the original content provider and in sometimes often money through ads and promotions. Again, Here is a great car, why you should buy and where to to buy it at. Not, here is a car and where to steal it, how to share your stolen car with your friends and fuck the people who made the car because they already have money.

[bluesoul]

Yes, however, they also point the material back to the original provider or wherever they found it at so that people can can go to that specific site. This generate traffic for the original content provider and in sometimes often money through ads and promotions. Again, Here is a great car, why you should buy and where to to buy it at. Not, here is a car and where to steal it, how to share your stolen car with your friends and fuck the people who made the car because they already have money.

interesting because i've seen more links pointing towards where the content came from on tubesites than on blogs. usually, the tube sites have a few minutes of a scene with a big logo @ the end. also, the video might identify the talent or scene name/title.

on blog sites it's just the picture or a gif of a scene. most people either end up coming here and asking for id help, or possibly just including the image in their collection and mentioning it as one of those "scenes they've always been looking for"

[Brittany St Jordan]

interesting because i've seen more links pointing towards where the content came from on tubesites than on blogs. usually, the tube sites have a few minutes of a scene with a big logo @ the end. also, the video might identify the talent or scene name/title.

on blog sites it's just the picture or a gif of a scene. most people either end up coming here and asking for id help, or possibly just including the image in their collection and mentioning it as one of those "scenes they've always been looking for"

That is all affiliate content created for the purpose of promoting the original site. What I am talking about is the actual theft of the site content, ripped DVDs and dumping of entire photo sets for people to access for free. Two completely different aspects of tube sites and file sharing.

[bluesoul]

That is all affiliate content created for the purpose of promoting the original site. What I am talking about is the actual theft of the site content, ripped DVDs and dumping of entire photo sets for people to access for free. Two completely different aspects of tube sites and file sharing.

if you download a torrent of an entire ripped dvd or entire photosets, they give as much information as to where the content originates from in the information pack.

also, if you download an entire ripped dvd, none of the information is changed. so if a company includes it's logo, website, email etc. all that is left intact.

blogs however usually have to alter this information due to size limitations or making the content quicker to access. below is an example of what i mean of a movie being offered illegally for free with all the information one would need to acquire it legally (front and back cover with company logo/website and full cast list that can quickly be googled)

http://i.imgur.com/RdpbSqb.png

[Brittany St Jordan]

if you download a torrent of an entire ripped dvd or entire photosets, they give as much information as to where the content originates from in the information pack.

also, if you download an entire ripped dvd, none of the information is changed. so if a company includes it's logo, website, email etc. all that is left intact.

blogs however usually have to alter this information due to size limitations or making the content quicker to access. below is an example of what i mean of a movie being offered illegally for free with all the information one would need to acquire it legally (front and back cover with company logo/website and full cast list that can quickly be googled)

http://i.imgur.com/RdpbSqb.png

Again, "here is where I stole the car from. You can buy one if you like or take this stolen one I have for you" Stolen content is stolen content and there is no way to possibly justify it. The bloggers with the affiliate content is they way to spread the word about stuff people enjoy. Throwing up full copies of stolen property and listing the the owner does nothing to drive traffic to or generate income for the owner of the content.

It isn't about logos and who made it. It is about profits being taken away from the people who created it. Companies, both bog and small, all need to be able to make a profit from the works they produce. This can be porn or late TV gadgets. Business is business and when people are undermining the ability for the people who created the product that is destructive to everyone. Soon everyone will be shooting amateur porn with smartphones because that is all they can afford to use.

A lot of work goes into each of those shoots. Models have to get their wardrobe and make-up together and possibly get some new toys depending on the science. Photographers have to be hired to shoot the photos. Video guys have to come and shoot the video. Sometimes this is done by the same person. Some models require make-up artists as they are unable to do their own. All of this takes time to accomplish.

Once the scene is done then it is off to be edited. Both the photos and the video get tweaked and twerked to get it ready for production. For a solo site that ends there. When there is a DVD the process happens three or four and maybe five times for each scene on the DVD. Then there is cover work, distribution, marketing and should there be a sparkle of hope there will be a sale made to turn a profit.

So yea, when 1000 people steal a single pirated version of something that is taking roughly $20,000 in DVD sales from the company. This is only a small fraction of what really happens so when you scale it up for accuracy the numbers get into the millions of dollars companies are losing to piracy.

I will play my own devil's advocate for a moment and say that yes, there is some truth that the piracy does broaden the fan base as it gets to people who may not have otherwise seen the content and learned that a particular company or model existed until they saw the pirated content. If that person turns into a paying fan or member to a site then piracy works for the purpose of drawing in that one person. However, most people are going to stick with the free illegal stuff than pay for the content they want.

So the question is, how do we produce content we know is going to be stolen more than it is purchased while offering it to our honest fans who pay for it without charging them an outrageous amount for the content? Is the day of the porn company production now an antiquated means to creating and distributing content? When the porn companies die off where will the content come from?

What is unable to be pirated? Live cam shows and escorting. Yes, I know you can technically record the cam show and all of that but there are very people doing that so it is of no concern. The live personal interaction of cam shows and escorting is where a lot of models go to because of the fact that creating content and having it ripped off does little to pay the bills or put food on the table. That is why I enjoy my cam shows as much as I do because I know that when I am done for the day there will be a paycheck regardless if someone recorded my show or not.

[danthepoetman]

Sorry to butt in but............lol at kimble dotcom !! He is just one of those people who has to cheat in life to get anywhere. He was shit at quake2, 1v1, rocket arena2 when we was "youngsters" on barrysworld servers. So shit he resorted to having an aimbot coded, maybe he coded it himself(?)
must be some brains in that cranium... and here we are.... 16 years later :D What a fucking spud head. GG WP.
Apologies, rant over. Carry on :)
Sammi, yeah, he's a fucking spud head, but a fucking spud head living in a 15.8 million pounds mansion... :)


there is in no way this is going to work. they already tried this with mp3s and only ended up fining a mom (http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/amplifier/minnesota-mom-hit-with-15-million-fine-for-downloading-24-songs.html) and the ocassional kid (http://mp3.about.com/b/2010/01/06/student-to-challenge-675000-illegal-music-download-fine.htm) all concluding with them finally changing their tune (http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/study-confirms-illegal-downloads-increase-music-sales/)
another problem is that they don't understand the infrastructure and landscape of piracy. suing the occasional random joe for plopping into a tubesite is exactly like going for the occasional drug user who buys for a few bags of his favorite narcotic from the popular streetdealer whilst behind the scenes you have an entire cartel making sure the market is well stocked. eventually, drug user 1 is replaced by another newb in the scene asking "where can i get my drugs?"
in fact, in the "fantasized" event they do even shutdown a bunch of tubesites, i only see others (or the same ones) coming back online with a more secure design to protect their user base, you know, exactly like the back online and better secure, mega upload (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265779/Megaupload-new-site-Kim-Dotcom-sticks-fingers-FBI-launches-file-sharing-website.html)
Bluesoul, thank you for the very enlightening links...

[danthepoetman]

Sorry for the previous post. I didn't want to butt in a conversation as if it didn't existed. I just checked on what I posted yesterday without looking further, and I reacted immidiately.
I will nonetheless repeat offending. I think this link in particular, posted by Bluesoul, is intriguing and interresting. The illegal download would increase the legal sales!

Study Confirms Illegal Downloads Increase Music Sales
Written by Mike Hohnen on 22nd March, 2013

"The war against piracy has just gotten that much harder for the record label execs – a study undertaken by The European Commission Joint Research Centre has discovered a direct relation between an increase in illegal downloads and an increase in music sales.

The study shows that when illegal download activity rose by 10%, activity also rose on music purchasing sites. Sure, only by 0.2% but it’s still a rise. Then final figures were dram from a sample of 16,000 European residents over a 12-month period.

The language in the report suggests that people will be more inclined to buy the digital copies as they download “suggesting complementarities between these two modes of music consumption”, but our guess is it’s more to do with when you can’t find the right torrent anywhere and you’re forced to buy it.

The report also claims that legal streaming is also playing its part because, according to their results, “a 10% increase in clicks on legal streaming websites led to up to a 0.7% increase in clicks on legal digital purchases websites”.

It’s currently happy days for record sales, which saw their first rise in numbers since 1999, with many thanks to Adele and the tweenwave sensation. But can those awful, screaming tweens and slumbering mums sustain an entire industry? Stay tuned."

[SammiValentine]

Sammi, yeah, he's a fucking spud head, but a fucking spud head living in a 15.8 million pounds mansion... :)



yea well, spuds get mashed, boiled and roasted. :D

People who happy to make success like that so be it, I have the right to call him a potatoe and to get on with working hard and trying my best not to shit on people from a great height :D

Meh. he sucked at quake2 anyway, I was boss. he can suck my plums. yea both of them, mmmmmmmmmm. :D

[Tapatio]

No excuse for theft- just faulty justifications.

[danthepoetman]

yea well, spuds get mashed, boiled and roasted. :D
People who happy to make success like that so be it, I have the right to call him a potatoe and to get on with working hard and trying my best not to shit on people from a great height :D
Meh. he sucked at quake2 anyway, I was boss. he can suck my plums. yea both of them, mmmmmmmmmm. :D

Lovely Sammi, no doubt in my mind you are the boss and the goddess at much more than that!

[Tapatio]

I found the study cited in Hohnen's article (link below.)

It's not compelling, and the data comes from Nielsen. I have a problem with that because (from my understanding) they track the internet usage of people who agree to have their internet usage tracked. I think the Hawthorne Works studies have been revisited recently, but people who know they are being watched behave differently.

This study found no real sales displacement, but here's something that I think is true: an illegal download of a song leads to a 100% decrease in purchases of that song by that user.

Displaced.

I'll take my grant money now. We'll start a center. Someone think of a prestigious name and I'll write the mission statement.

http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC79605.pdf

[Females&Shemales]

America!

[othello]

I have a dumb question .Is there a way to make a dvd once it has content on it non transferable to a computer? Or make pictures and movies from the official sites non downloadable or ripable? Maybe put a line of code that makes it non downloadable? Just A thought. Also shouldn't they be going after the tube sites and bring them down?To me they seem to be the cause of the problem.

[Stavros]

A good portion of the tube sites are owned by a company called Manwin. Manwin was berated for hosting tube sites so instead of taking them down they have also taken over some of the bigger name sites in porn over the past few years. (Use Google) Someone once mentioned the idea it would be pretty sweet if Manwin kept using the tube sites to lure the folks in with the quasi legal content and then one day flipped the switch to make it all PPV. Where only the legal owners of the content would give Manwin permission to host it and get a portion of the income generated from people watching it.

Whether that actually happens or not, who knows? It will be a really sweet victory for content producers and independent models you are always having their work stolen and spread amongst the masses for free.

Nobody has ever read a review about how great the latest Porsche is to drive and then went and stole one to share it with their friends. Test driving is far from stealing so using piracy to sample content before committing to an actual purchase I can agree with. It is the rampant disregard for "The rich fuckers, bitches and sluts who make porn already tons of money" argument people use that is upsetting whenever I hear people use it as an excuse for their thievery.

Tube sites are only a portion of the theft though. Using the same analogy as above, they are the meth dealers in the exploding mobile homes of the internet. Yes, they provide a means for people to get their fix but really have no idea what in the fuck they are doing other than having the ability to say "I run a tube site" to their friends. With the file sharing sites like Mega Upload, it makes it hard to track the dealer or the user so when either is caught it is a good day for porn producers everywhere.

So what happens to the people who are unable to pay $20 for a DVD or for site memberships and insist that they have to download everything because they are unable to afford it? They do what everyone else in the world does when that are unable afford something. They go without it until they can afford it.

There needs to be a technology that can identify the ip address of where the content is being downloaded from and if it is from one not of the copyright owner the file then becomes a virus which destroys their entire hard drive only after sending an email to everyone in their address book a list of all of the video and photo files on their computer. Let this happen and watch piracy drop like a drunk chick on prom night.

Although I sympathise with much of what you say, I cannot believe that creating a virus to destroy someone's hard drive would be acceptable punishment, or legal or practical -the technology that is devised to do it could be stolen by someone else and used for different reasons to infect computers. In any case, I think the point about this story is not just the loss of income to legitimate producers, it speaks to the embarrassment issue -most men who do it would not admit to paying for sex, but it is cash, it is not recorded on a credit card or debit account bill; people who use tube sites may do so as an alternative to purchasing porn to avoid having to explain to their wife/partner/family this odd item on the bill, and that they like porn of any character. That is an explanation, not an excuse. There are now other ways of purchasing online material anonymously, such as UKASH vouchers -maybe some of the commercial sites that currently do not accept it should do so -anonymity and 'covering one's ass' is the issue for many people.