Buyer Beware! Transsensual.com Is Streaming Only!

[broncofan]

It really does not matter whether it's theft under the common law or statutory version enacted by most states because copyright law is federal. If it violates federal copyright law then it is "infringement" which is basically the invasion of the property right of another. Because it's intellectual property, you can't actually deprive the owner of the content, but that doesn't mean you're not invading a property right. It just isn't larceny under common law because that only contemplates tangible property. But even the U.S constitution grants an express right to Congress to pass laws to protect intellectual property.

The golf course theft of services analogy is a reasonable one. If you sneak onto a golf course when nobody is playing and don't take any divots or leave ball marks you have deprived nobody of the ability to play. But property rights include the right to preclude other people from using the property or to control the terms of use and demand a fee.

[Instrumental]

It really does not matter whether it's theft under the common law or statutory version enacted by most states because copyright law is federal. If it violates federal copyright law then it is "infringement" which is basically the invasion of the property right of another. Because it's intellectual property, you can't actually deprive the owner of the content, but that doesn't mean you're not invading a property right. It just isn't larceny under common law because that only contemplates tangible property. But even the U.S constitution grants an express right to Congress to pass laws to protect intellectual property.

True indeed. Copyright infringement is the correct term. My point is simply that calling it theft or stealing is inaccurate. People like to call it that to sensationalize and make it seem worse since "copyright infringement" doesn't sound as sinister.

The golf course theft of services analogy is a reasonable one. If you sneak onto a golf course when nobody is playing and don't take any divots or leave ball marks you have deprived nobody of the ability to play. But property rights include the right to preclude other people from using the property or to control the terms of use and demand a fee.

Ah, but this isn't like sneaking on to a golf course. This is like making a replica of a golf course without depriving the owner of the original golf course access or any of the resources they use to run theirs. Sneaking on to the golf course would be comparable to a person hacking a website and taking content I think.

[MrFanti]

Can't wait until music & theft pops up....

[broncofan]

True indeed. Copyright infringement is the correct term. My point is simply that calling it theft or stealing is inaccurate. People like to call it that to sensationalize and make it seem worse since "copyright infringement" doesn't sound as sinister.



Ah, but this isn't like sneaking on to a golf course. This is like making a replica of a golf course without depriving the owner of the original golf course access or any of the resources they use to run theirs. Sneaking on to the golf course would be comparable to a person hacking a website and taking content I think.

It's hard to analogize because it's intangible property. When you make a replica of a video, you've captured the entire value of it....if you copy a golf course, most of the value would be in the resources such as land and so you haven't appropriated much. Anyhow, if nothing else it highlights the fact that someone can interfere with a property right even if they haven't damaged the property, which is close to the case when a very good golfer plays a course when nobody else wants to and is respectful of the grounds.

I think what you're saying is that it's sensationalism because the producer is still left with something. But the thing they started out with is the ability to market their creation. If people don't pay for it, they are not left with anything to market (or anyone to market to). It does sound like a close approximation of theft.

Edit: of course it does not meet the legal definition of theft because the legal definition of theft is intended to cover tangible objects that can be physically taken.

[broncofan]

You also said that the owner of the intellectual property right is not even deprived of the right to sell to the infringer. But in practice, if someone has already committed infringement by illegally downloading your work, you would like to rely on more than the honor system for recompense. If they've already downloaded your work for free they have no incentive to pay for it other than moral obligation which is not very strong when they did not feel the moral compunction not to commit infringement to begin with.

[Instrumental]

I think what you're saying is that it's sensationalism because the producer is still left with something. But the thing they started out with is the ability to market their creation. If people don't pay for it, they are not left with anything to market (or anyone to market to).

Same is true whether it's being pirated or not though. Businesses and entrepreneurs with good business sense will adapt to the market as many have done.

A person who has downloaded something often has incentive to purchase an item after having downloaded it besides morals. Often, companies sell bonus info, artwork, and other exclusive incentives along with the purchase of the primary item. Even digitally, companies will have coupon codes and other exclusive deals. You suggested that copyright infringement is a display of a lack of moral compunction, however I disagree in this regard. I think the ability to download media puts power into the consumer's hands and the moral failing occurs when the consumer neglects purchasing an item they otherwise would have bought had they been unable to get it for free.

[GroobySteven]

Same is true whether it's being pirated or not though. Businesses and entrepreneurs with good business sense will adapt to the market as many have done.

A person who has downloaded something often has incentive to purchase an item after having downloaded it besides morals. Often, companies sell bonus info, artwork, and other exclusive incentives along with the purchase of the primary item. Even digitally, companies will have coupon codes and other exclusive deals. You suggested that copyright infringement is a display of a lack of moral compunction, however I disagree in this regard. I think the ability to download media puts power into the consumer's hands and the moral failing occurs when the consumer neglects purchasing an item they otherwise would have bought had they been unable to get it for free.

You can word it any which way you wish, when you're taking content that you're not entitled to for free, then you're stealing it.
However, this is my forum, I pay the rent on the servers - and give it free to users (making the budget on advertising). As your a thief, you're not entitled to this site. So get the fuck outta here.

BANNED FOR LIFE.

[DeadGirl-Productions]

My golf analogy in it's original form is exactly apt.

Golf club members pay a membership fee to enjoy the amenities of the golf club. AT THE GOLF CLUB.
Porn site members pay a membership fee to enjoy the amenities of the site. ON THE SITE.

You don't get to take the course home with you when you're done and if a site says no downloading, the same applies there as well.

You wanna golf at home? Play a golf videogame, landscape your property, hell - start your own golf club.
You wanna porn outside of a site. Go outside and meet someone who's willing to fuck you, ya lazy so and so.

(whether or not the streaming only business model is financially viable is outside the scope of my analogy, BUT I've done it myself and was able to pay the bills... also, Ada Black's new site will be streaming only, so will be sure to post the results once this subject comes back around.)

[christianxxx]

If I start a site that is streaming only then that is because I SPECIFICALLY don't want anyone to download any of my content. So if you download the content and share it, then of course you are manipulating my content in a way that I expressly don't want you to do. Every fan knows this and every fan that downloads or views content that is supposed to be only streamed knows it as well.

[lifeisfiction]

There is a legal answer to this and it would surprise people, but I am not going there.

I signed up for the site and found it to be streaming only and cancelled within 15 mins. I think they should have been more clear on it. Not going to pay for something I don't like and there are other websites.
I personally don't like DRM, very limiting in my past experience and streaming only options it is not the same as a downloaded file. Especially when I want to watch a video in hd, downloading is a much more convenient option. So, I can't blame people for being upset. Especially when some companies have laggy servers so it is garbage.

I just wish they had said it was streaming only from the beginning.