Grooby Legal Action against Piracy ...

[GroobySteven]

http://www.xbiz.com/news/124883

Lightspeed, Grooby File Suits Against Hundreds of Bit Torrent Users

By Rhett Pardon
Friday, Sep 3, 2010

CHICAGO — Lightspeed Media Corp., Grooby Productions and Hard Drive Productions each filed copyright infringement suits on Thursday, targeting bit torrent users who allegedly downloaded their works.

The trio of federal lawsuits, all filed by Chicago attorney John Steele, name hundreds of unnamed surfers who may have downloaded a rainbow assortment of films, from solo girl to tranny content, within the past two weeks.

Lightspeed Media, for example, says its JordanCapri and Tawnee Stone website content has been poached.

Solo-girl site AmateurAllure.com, owned by Hard Drive Productions, meanwhile, says it was a victim, while Grooby Productions' parent company Millennium TGA complains that its collections relating to its Shemale Yum, Shemales From Hell and Shemale Pornstar website properties were also breached by bit torrent users.

The three companies now join a handful of other adult companies that have pledged to stomp out piracy. Adult studios Titan Media, Corbin Fisher and Michael Lucas Productions each have recently filed suits targeting swarms of John Doe bit torrent users.

In all of the legal cases, the companies have asked for motions to discover the identities of the defendants through their Internet service providers.

Steele, who filed the suits on behalf of the companies, was unavailable at post time to respond to XBIZ questions, but the attorney operates Media Copyright Group, which offers "turnkey solution for combating online piracy of their copyrighted media."

Steele, according to his legal service company's website, offers to track and ID infringers, as well as pursue damages against infringers on a contingency basis.

Gill Sperlein, general counsel for Titan Media, told XBIZ that he applauded the trio of suits filed Thursday against online thieves.

"There many different ways people infringe adult content," he said. "However, content producers have recently started working together to stop infringement in all of its forms."

[GroobySteven]

THIS IS THE POST THAT WENT OUT TO ALL WEBSITE MEMBERS A FEW WEEKS AGO. PLEASE READ THE REASONING AND THE EFFECT PIRACY IS HAVING ON THE INDUSTRY BEFORE COMMENTING.

I don't want this to be a long lecture on piracy, downloads, the internet and the legalites or morality of downloading porn from stolen content websites. Pretty much everybody has done it in some form or another and it's part of the current format of the internet.

What I do want to do, is introduce some ideas to you as well as the direction we are now put in a position to take, to ensure the longevity of our business and to protect the employees and owners of the company.

While there has always been people getting free passwords, or sharing content, never has there been such a wholesale theft of material, which is then sold for profit. We've certainly seen the effects on our bottomline and whilst we don't seem to be as affected as many other companies (some which are already out of business) without taking steps and measures, I have to wonder, how long we can continue to produce at this level.

It's a common misnomer that these "pirates" and their sites, are just fan sites out to share their own love of this content with other like minded fans. They are not. All file sharers and filesharing companies, get paid and make a lot of illegal money. The uploader to a Rapidshare type site, get's paid when somebody upgrades to a premium download membership, the forum and blog style sites make their money from advertising and the download sites get payments to let a thief illegally download the content. Nobody is doing this for fun - it's an organised business, much of it originating in Russia, China and Eastern Europe.

Many people believe that downloading content from websites is mainly a victimless crime, or the few "rich porn producers" somehow deserve to make less. There are a number of flaws with this approach for our company. We've been operating for nearly 15 years. Many of the photographers and support staff have been with us for nearly that time and these are their full time jobs. We keep employed over 20 full time employees worldwide in various roles, we have numerous part time photographers and support staff and we have the auxilliary employment that comes from that; printers, distributors, affiliates, cleaners, drivers, etc. Many of our employees also are partners or profit sharing from our sales.
We pay transgender models over $700,000 every year in model fees alone.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is of me personally, or the business I chose to be in - without the revenue coming in, jobs will be lost, production budgets will be cut and fans of tgirl porn will suffer from less production.

Our website's are not cheap. I appreciate in these difficult times, that $25-$35 a month is a lot of money. I believe our sites represent good value for money, for what we deliver but in order to try and cater to an ever changing market, we have made some changes in the last year by adding a value pack, releasing the sites for as little $20 a month at our ticket system. (http://www.grooby.com/tickets/). We've also brought in a "cherry pick" system, where you can pick and choose exactly which scenes you want to see at our Buddy Wood, PK Vegas & Shemale Pornstar VOD site (http://www.shemalepornstar.com/) which we may extend to other sites.

We're looking for new ways to bring extra value to your website membership and have just started adding extra full scenes to each website weekly, to allow you to see extra sets from other sites. We are also working on a loyalty program and a few other extras which we hope will enhance your time spent on our sites.

When you join a site, you are getting the updates as they are released and years of back content. You are getting the sets that the models and the photographers wanted you to see and you are contributing to more shoots. We are the only company of it's type which allows direct feedback on all it's websites, to the photographers and webmasters and from this feedback, we will try to adjust and tweak the sites to our members requirements. If you have technical or speed problems with the website, we will try and fix it - at admin@grooby.com

This is an appeal to you all. Whether current or ex-members, or those who have yet to join a website to please think about what you are doing when downloading stolen content. It's not victimless. The victims are the people working on the sites and the models whom you love to watch.
This post is also to inform you because of the untenable position that we've been put in, about actions we are taking to protect our company, the employees, the members and the models.

1. Members are encouraged to download material, keep it and enjoy it for as long as they wish. We have no time limitations written into our material. However, you may not upload it to any file sharing or bittorrent site whatsoever. Anybody found to be doing so, will have legal action taken against them for compensation.

2. Anybody found to be downloading stolen content from any of our websites, will also have legal action taken against them. We have the technical ability to track stolen downloaded content and we will have no choice but to instruct our lawyers to take that action, in an effort to recoup lost revenue.

Any form of legal action is costly, both to our company and the offending parties. We will only take legal action against parties which our lawyers are confident of winning. Other parties illegally downloading our content may find themselves open to other actions, including media publication and announcements.

I'd like to thank all our members and supporters over the years and for your continued support. We will continue to do what we do best, in producing unique and original transsexual content. We will listen to your concerns, your feedback and your wants and try and cater to them. I am confident that the majority of you will understand what I aim to accomplish with this message and what we as a business and as a group of fans of this material, need to do, to survive through the next decade.

Thank you.
Steven
CEO
Grooby Productions

[BellaBellucci]

Right message. Wrong messenger. If you pay out $700,000 a year for models, then you're obviously pocketing much more than that. Not to mention that in your case, your business is your lifestyle as well as your job which means you also get tax write-offs for pretty much just living. And like Wal-Mart, you profit from exploited labor yet you complain about shrinkage, specifically because the thieves are reselling the content for profit. On the one hand, you state that it's these thieves that are the true enemy, but then you go on to say:


1. Members are encouraged to download material, keep it and enjoy it for as long as they wish. We have no time limitations written into our material. However, you may not upload it to any file sharing or bittorrent site whatsoever. Anybody found to be doing so, will have legal action taken against them for compensation.

2. Anybody found to be downloading stolen content from any of our websites, will also have legal action taken against them. We have the technical ability to track stolen downloaded content and we will have no choice but to instruct our lawyers to take that action, in an effort to recoup lost revenue.

So which is it? Are you saying that you're suing companies like Napster now and individuals, like the RIAA did, later? The former I can see but the latter is PR suicide. Even still, I love to watch a hypocrite waste time, money, and energy on a battle he can't win against an enemy who is as morally questionable as he is, so please, have at it. :dancing:

You may have banned me on HD because of your petty ego, but at least you still keep me entertained. From the bottom of my heart: thank you. :) xoxo


~BB~

[Trans-Promo]

GET THEM BOSS !

I would do the same thing if I had the resources to. We are producers, artists, videographers, photographers and models and we deserve to get payed for the work we produce.

You don't see these people going into someone's home or into a store and stealing... and why? Because there are repercussion to being a thief.

Bella, explain to me why you saying it is not ok to go after thieves? Or are you the next Sue Lowden?

YouTube- Sue Lowden's Chicken Pays For Bypass Surgery! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TIPqpp0tdM)

[BellaBellucci]

Bella, explain to me why you saying it is not ok to go after thieves?

Is that what I said?


It's a common misnomer that these "pirates" and their sites, are just fan sites out to share their own love of this content with other like minded fans. They are not. All file sharers and filesharing companies, get paid and make a lot of illegal money. The uploader to a Rapidshare type site, get's paid when somebody upgrades to a premium download membership, the forum and blog style sites make their money from advertising and the download sites get payments to let a thief illegally download the content. Nobody is doing this for fun - it's an organised business, much of it originating in Russia, China and Eastern Europe.

I just want to know who he's going after exactly. His statements and actions contradict themselves. The XBiz article says users, but here he is saying that it's faceless eastern European organized theft/resale rings that are the enemy. Which is it?

~BB~

[SunshyneMonroe]

Its funny cuz the same thing kinda happened to me guys where taken vids from my site and postin them on xtube tranny tube ect but all it takes is a email and they take them off

[Nicole Dupre]

If Seanchai had added Bella's site to his solo site stable, we all know she wouldn't be bitching about him going after anyone stealing her content.

I said "IF". lol

[Jack59]

Might I direct your attention to this essay on the subject of internet piracy by author Eric Flint:

http://www.baen.com/library/

[Trans-Promo]

Is that what I said?



I just want to know who he's going after exactly. His statements and actions contradict themselves. The XBiz article says users, but here he is saying that it's faceless eastern European organized theft/resale rings that are the enemy. Which is it?

~BB~

Through my small understanding of IP Law, if a company knowingly allows its members to practice downloading without paying licensing fees the company is liable. When the lawsuit opens, the lawyers to the plaintiff will subpoena company records. Those records will most likely include user information, IP information.

A great example, if you recall, was the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. case. More applicable would be the Pink Visual vs Brazzers case - http://www.xbiznewswire.com/view.php?id=119753

It is imperative that companies shut down anyone - INDIVIDUALS OR NOT - and enforce the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which protects artist against internet infringement.

In my IP class many have spoken of being disconnected from their service provider because of illegal downloads, more internet service providers need to take this type of action.

[BellaBellucci]

Through my small understanding of IP Law, if a company knowingly allows its members to practice downloading without paying licensing fees the company is liable. When the lawsuit opens, the lawyers to the plaintiff will subpoena company records. Those records will most likely include user information, IP information.

A great example, if you recall, was the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. case. More applicable would be the Pink Visual vs Brazzers case - http://www.xbiznewswire.com/view.php?id=119753

It is imperative that companies shut down anyone - INDIVIDUALS OR NOT - and enforce the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which protects artist against internet infringement.

In my IP class many have spoken of being disconnected from their service provider because of illegal downloads, more internet service providers need to take this type of action.

It sounds nice and all but it's impractical and controversial, depending on the scale of the piracy. I'm all set with anyone who has access to sensitive data having any more control. It's a slippery slope. You want them to take actions that are not legally mandated (banning users) to enforce DMCA now, but would you still be OK with them censoring you if they wanted to shut you down for other reasons, such as something you said or something you did online?

The DMCA is intended to force content providers to remove uploaded content upon a claim of infringement, not to force ISPs to take actions against its own customers and likely could not due to first amendment considerations.

Also, DMCA is far from perfect. Common arguments against are that it:


1) stifles free expression, such as in its use against Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov, Princeton Professor Edward Felten, and journalists;
2) jeopardizes fair use;
3) impedes competition, such as blocking aftermarket competition in toner cartridges, garage door openers, and enforcing walled gardens around the iPod
4) interferes with computer intrusion laws.

I'd guess that expanding the law to ISPs is (thankfully) not a likely scenario. I agree with the article Jack posted.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

~BB~

[NYBURBS]

Through my small understanding of IP Law, if a company knowingly allows its members to practice downloading without paying licensing fees the company is liable. When the lawsuit opens, the lawyers to the plaintiff will subpoena company records. Those records will most likely include user information, IP information.

A great example, if you recall, was the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. case. More applicable would be the Pink Visual vs Brazzers case - http://www.xbiznewswire.com/view.php?id=119753

It is imperative that companies shut down anyone - INDIVIDUALS OR NOT - and enforce the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which protects artist against internet infringement.

In my IP class many have spoken of being disconnected from their service provider because of illegal downloads, more internet service providers need to take this type of action.

There are safe harbor provisions of the DMCA that apply to ISPs and other 3rd party providers. However, it does require them to have a mechanism for receiving complaints of infringement and removing that content.

[Trans-Promo]

Did you sign the paper when you received internet service? Relinquishing your rights to privacy?

If you are thief you are a thief - hiding behind the first amendment won't make you any less.

I don't do anything illegal online, nor have I ever downloaded stolen content - this being movies or music. I go to the store and to the movies just like any decent human being should

[SmashysmashY]

I'm glad I use irc.

[Trans-Promo]

In addition - we are not talking about freedom of press here. We are talking about people's way of making a living... Am I wrong here... I mean honestly

[Trans-Promo]

i'm glad i use irc.

translation = i steal porn

[BellaBellucci]

Did you sign the paper when you received internet service? Relinquishing your rights to privacy?

If you are thief you are a thief - hiding behind the first amendment won't make you any less.

I don't do anything illegal online, nor have I ever downloaded stolen content - this being movies or music. I go to the store and to the movies just like any decent human being should

Ahh, the old, 'if you're not doing anything wrong, then why can't I invade your privacy' argument. Wow Danielle, you really know how to recycle a classic! :Bowdown:

If you didn't sign the agreement, would you have service? Talk about a captive contract! ALL of the ISPs make you relinquish privacy rights as a condition of service. I don't think that's fair, do you?

~BB~

[SmashysmashY]

translation = i steal porn
I don't really believe in copyright in it's existing form, sorry. I think it has no basis in reason except to secure finances at the expense of guaranteed popular rights.

[Niccolo]

The original post states that there are gangs of crims roaming about Romania and Bulgaria, who are actively stealing porn from the people who make it, and these gangs are making a profit from doing so. To be consistent, surely Grooby should harness this technical expertise we're told about and find out who owns these websites, and take the appropriate measures to have them shut down. That would, as I said, be more consistent with the original complaint, more cost effective, and it might even work.

[BellaBellucci]

In addition - we are not talking about freedom of press here. We are talking about people's way of making a living... Am I wrong here... I mean honestly

The internet is a communication tool. Pretty much anything that goes on online is a First Amendment issue. The fact that one's privacy must be breached in order to identify them as a pirate is the issue. Those potential breaches of privacy that may not have cause chill free speech by internet users.

Although I would qualify that by saying that if there is a warrant or court order with which an ISP is expected to comply, then they should, but it's not their job to be e-vigilantes.

~BB~

[NYBURBS]

I don't really believe in copyright in it's existing form, sorry. I think it has no basis in reason except to secure finances at the expense of guaranteed popular rights.

I have some issues with current copyright law also, namely the fact that it continues on after the author's death (can thank Europe for that lol). However, I am very much in favor of protecting someone's rights to their creation. How would you feel if you spent 5 years of your life writing a book and then I come along and seed an e-version of it on the internet for free? I'm willing to bet that you'd feel robbed.

[BellaBellucci]

I don't really believe in copyright in it's existing form, sorry. I think it has no basis in reason except to secure finances at the expense of guaranteed popular rights.

Wow, that statement is about as harsh as Danielle's expectations that Verizon and Comcast play Copyright Batman. If you create something, you have the explicit right to own it and profit from it, whether it's physical or intellectual property. My problem isn't with copyrighting. It's with our current methods of (attempted) enforcement.

~BB~

[SmashysmashY]

I have some issues with current copyright law also, namely the fact that it continues on after the author's death (can thank Europe for that lol). However, I am very much in favor of protecting someone's rights to their creation. How would you feel if you spent 5 years of your life writing a book and then I come along and seed an e-version of it on the internet for free? I'm willing to bet that you'd feel robbed.
Nobody believes that they should never use other people's ideas without paying them money. If you believed that then you wouldn't even be able to talk because you didn't invent the words you are using.

[Niccolo]

But prosecuting someone for reading it? Surely the way to go would be to find out who had actually taken the book from you and made it available to the general public?

Put it another way: if one wanted to stop the activities on this site, would banning a user work? Two? Three?

Wouldn't the most effective way to go be to actually stop the site? Then the actitivies that take place here would cease.

If legal action was required then it'd be a much cheaper option too. You'd only be paying a solicitor to go after one other party, instead of several. Keeping any legal bills to a minimum is a very, very good thing indeed.

[BellaBellucci]

But prosecuting someone for reading it? Surely the way to go would be to find out who had actually taken the book from you and made it available to the general public?

Put it another way: if one wanted to stop the activities on this site, would banning a user work? Two? Three?

Wouldn't the most effective way to go be to actually stop the site? Then the actitivies that take place here would cease.

If legal action was required then it'd be a much cheaper option too. You'd only be paying a solicitor to go after one other party, instead of several. Keeping any legal bills to a minimum is a very, very good thing indeed.

I love how the argument from the more litigious parties is that they can't sue all of those companies because there are too many of them. I laugh every time I hear it. Millions of people download illegally, some of them are even here on this thread complaining about lost revenues. They're going to sue them all instead?

The real reason they don't sue the actual pirates is because:

a) most of them are out of the country
b) they nearly all have lawyers and litigation is expensive

It's just much easier and makes a more frightening point for the plaintiffs to sue individuals and make examples out of them, regardless of their ability to make restitution because they really have little or no defense.

But preying on the vulnerable has always been Seanchai's strong suit.

~BB~

[NYBURBS]

Nobody believes that they should never use other people's ideas without paying them money. If you believed that then you wouldn't even be able to talk because you didn't invent the words you are using.

You can't copyright an idea nor can you gain rights to simple words. We're talking about an actual creative work (i.e., a novel or film) that most certainly is the product of someone's effort.

[sunairco]

There's no conflict in what Steven says. There's a big difference between Fair Use of content that you paid for and using content that's outright stolen. The old record and magazine example is just as valid with digital content today. Legally pursuing those that maliciously gain entry to a website without paying or reselling intellectual property is by all means justified. It's the legal pursuit that I take issue with. Identifying a culprit and pursuing to the fullest extent of the law both civilly and criminally is a reasonable and honorable action. However Steven mentions retaining a copyright group to monetize infringement. I do hope that his legal team has advised
him of the potential reprecussions of using of spamigation specialists.

[BellaBellucci]

There's no conflict in what Steven says. There's a big difference between Fair Use of content that you paid for and using content that's outright stolen. The old record and magazine example is just as valid with digital content today. Legally pursuing those that maliciously gain entry to a website without paying or reselling intellectual property is by all means justified. It's the legal pursuit that I take issue with. Identifying a culprit and pursuing to the fullest extent of the law both civilly and criminally is a reasonable and honorable action. However Steven mentions retaining a copyright group to monetize infringement. I do hope that his legal team has advised
him of the potential reprecussions of using of spamigation specialists.

Sure, OK. It's reasonable, although I don't know about honorable since it's expected that a person would want to protect their own intellectual property. And it's certainly impractical:

http://www.techspot.com/news/35389-how-many-people-has-the-riaa-sued-in-total.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/17400810200.shtml

... shall I continue?

And there is most certainly a conflict when Steven talks about the small-time home downloader and Eastern European porn theft rings making a profit on their activities in the same breath. They are most certainly not the same, and while Steven says on one hand that he's not worried about the little guys, they're exactly what this whole thing is about.

~BB~

[SmashysmashY]

You can't copyright an idea nor can you gain rights to simple words. We're talking about an actual creative work (i.e., a novel or film) that most certainly is the product of someone's effort.
I know you can't copyright ideas and words but they are the product of someone's effort and you don't believe that you owe money simply for that fact.

[dc_guy_75]

It should be easy to make men (who have downloaded tranny porn) pay, especially if they're married. Haha.

Read the last line of this article:
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/09/suing-hundreds-and-hundreds-of-porn-pirates-has-gone-viral.html

[NYBURBS]

I know you can't copyright ideas and words but they are the product of someone's effort and you don't believe that you owe money simply for that fact.

I think any reasonable person can see the difference between using a language to converse in a generic sense and copying a work that someone else has produced without paying for it or receiving their permission. We're talking apples and oranges here.

Answer my question. How would you feel if you worked hard to create something, even based your livelihood on it, and then someone else came along and made use of it without paying?

[dc_guy_75]

I wonder how many judges, politicians, or other prominent people will be on the tranny list?... not including Eddie Murphy and Charlie Sheen....

(where's the popcorn emoticon?)

[SmashysmashY]

I think any reasonable person can see the difference between using a language to converse in a generic sense and copying a work that someone else has produced without paying for it or receiving their permission. We're talking apples and oranges here.

Answer my question. How would you feel if you worked hard to create something, even based your livelihood on it, and then someone else came along and made use of it without paying?
It's a difficult question to answer because it presupposes that if I wrote a book I would charge people to read it. I would only write a book if I thought it contained important information and I wouldn't be surprised to see electronic copies of it because I would place it in the public domain.

So far as the question of ideas and words being subject to copyright is concerned, it was an attempt to illustrate that I understand your ethical argument and reject the premise as do you in most instances.

You're saying that I should feel compelled to pay someone who makes a creative effort because I expect the same. Well first of all I don't expect that and second it's not generally true that creative effort demands monetary compensation anyway.

So to answer your question I'd feel quite good about it.

[deepthroater]

This is just people getting greedy and seeing lawsuits against indiviuals as a buisness model, much like the RIAA. It's not much short of extortion.

IF you manage to get ISP's to provide you with information then I assume you'll send out letters threatening further legal action unless they agree to pay some form of settlement. I'm sure you'll make it clear that if they choose to counter the claims in court they'll be free to do so and they'll be publicly and specifically accussed of downloading material like "I LIKE SHEMALE COCK IN MY ASS AND MOUTH 4*".

This kind of practice is nothing short of extortion when the RIAA does it, when you start bringing the possibility of public embarrasment into things as a tactic then this is pretty much the definition of extortion. I'm sure you'll swear profusely that's not a tactic of yours. But let's face it, you know if you suggest the choice between the lawsuit "SHEMALE COCK PORN LTD. Vs Mr. Bank Manager" and a confidential out of court cash settlement, you're pretty much banking on people crapping themselves and giving you money to go away. Like I said, extortion.

Even the idiots at the RIAA that still seem to be living within a 1970s "Home recording is killing the music industry" bubble understand that filesharing lawsuits are a short term method of monetary gain rather than a deterrent or suitable answer to the online piracy question.

If you're going after illegally cloned sites actually selling your content as their own or these mysterious organised crime syndicates (Your downloads are helping Al Queda!!!!1!! /Fox News) then that's perfectly understandable and justified.

But you're not, because it's too difficult and expensive. You're just going after little guys who've downloaded a porn flick or photo set.

And you're only doing it to make money. Through extortion. Because some shitbag lawyers firm has told you it's an easy way to make some money and you figure "Why not? They're thieves!!!1!!".

A PIRATE DOWNLOAD DOES NOT EQUAL A LOST SALE!

You already know this is true. Yet you'll pretend that piracy is losing you business and shout about being robbed of income, you'll try to sound less greedy and cash-grabbing by saying you're only trying to safeguard employees jobs and salaries and that you're only doing what's right.

Bullshit, you're being greedy, manipulative and biting the hand that feeds you.

I'm sure you're conveniently forgetting, or overlooking, the fact that not one single piece of evidence shows that online piracy actually harms revenue. In fact those pirated movies and photo sets only increase your online business by acting as viral marketing, alerting viewers to your products and actually creating future paying subscribers.

If someone downloads a movie from ThePirateBay or some other pirate site that's for sale in the store at $29.99 it does not equal a loss of $29.99. They more than likely didn't download that movie instead of buying it, they simply downloaded it because it was there, whether it was there or not they still wouldn't have spent $29.99. But now that they have it, they know how awesome "SHEMALE COCKS IN YOUR ASS 5*" is and will visit the site to get more. Possibly subscribing and increasing your revenue, not subtracting from it. Assuming the film is actually any good that is, the only way piracy hurts a site hidden behind a paywall is by revealing that the content is actually rubbish and not worth paying for after all. Create great content and people will pay.

Piracy isn't costing you a thing, don't try saying it is.

You just want to make more money and are going to try and extort it out of people.


All file sharers and filesharing companies, get paid and make a lot of illegal money.

Lolwut? Filesharers do not get paid, stop trying to demonise the average person.


....name hundreds of unnamed surfers who may have downloaded a rainbow assortment of films, from solo girl to tranny content, within the past two weeks....


So this is just about going after the little guy who downloaded a movie, without any cost or damage to you at all, NOT about these filesharing companies and crime networks. Easier to extort money from the little guy isn't it?!


....JordanCapri and Tawnee Stone website content has been poached.

WOW! So content that must be coming up for about 15 years old, and is available in it's entirety pretty much all over the web without even a hint of filesharing has "been poached". Burn the eyes of anyone who's seen it! Better yet, charge them huge amounts of money to not have their eyes burnt!!$$$!!!$!


....Media Copyright Group, which offers "turnkey solution for combating online piracy of their copyrighted media."
....offers to track and ID infringers, as well as pursue damages against infringers on a contingency basis.

This companies entire business model is extortion. At no point have you been thinking about how much money you are "losing" through piracy, you're only thinking about how much you can make scaring the shit out of some poor bastard and threatening him with a "SHEMALE COKS PORN LTD. Vs YOU" lawsuit unless he chooses to settle for the low, low price of $10,000.

You're being greedy, and you know it.


(*I LIKE SHEMALE COCK IN MY ASS AND MOUTH Volumes 1-4 & SHEMALE COCKS IN YOUR ASS Volumes 1-5 © Deepthroater Ltd. 2010)

[AmyDaly]

You're being greedy, and you know it.

oh but the people stealing 100's of sets and expecting tons of free content are the victims

All those "little guys" that you like to call them are the ones using Bit Torrent in mass amounts. Those little guys who are all using bit torrent software are also the providers and uploading content while they download. So yea...those little guys in mass can do a ton of damage.

If anyone is greedy, its YOU. Some of us spend a lot of our own money to put in to the content that the people you support are stealing. You call it greedy because the people who steal the product that we are putting our time, money, and bodys in to are getting in trouble? You hypocrite.

[deepthroater]

oh but the people stealing 100's of sets and expecting tons of free content are the victims

If they're being extorted, yes.

These legal procedures and suits are nothing to do with stopping piracy, nothing to do with addressing the cause of piracy or even the providers of piracy. They are simply a way of getting someone to give you money so you don't publicly drag them through the courts over some shemale porn. In fact they don't even want to go to court, it's too expensive.

If this was about addressing piracy then it would be different, it's not, it's about making money.

[dc_guy_75]

The victims are the people who now know who Tom Moore is....

[AmyDaly]

If they're being extorted, yes.

These legal procedures and suits are nothing to do with stopping piracy, nothing to do with addressing the cause of piracy or even the providers of piracy. They are simply a way of getting someone to give you money so you don't publicly drag them through the courts over some shemale porn. In fact they don't even want to go to court, it's too expensive.

If this was about addressing piracy then it would be different, it's not, it's about making money.

Nothing to do with stopping piracy? Take off the tin foil hat. Grooby isn't the only one suing people. Its not all shemale porn.

And LOL @ Being extorted. They broke the law, deal with it.


This is from the Jordan Capri site: Look like shemale porn to you?
http://main.jordancapri.com

[AmyDaly]

oh and it sounds like someone is really ashamed and embarrassed by the porn they look at by the way

[Niccolo]

Amy, I think the underlying issue here is that initially the finger was pointed at mysterious Bulgarian and Romanian crime gangs, who apparently own websites which carry other people's material. Apparently they make a lot of money from those websites.

And you have in the initial post an admission that for a lot of people nowadays, paying £27 plus for a months's subscription to a shemale site is not possible. Yet these are the same people who are being targeted here.

Going after an easy target in an effort to be seen to be doing something, and hopefully make some money from out-of-court settlements? That explanation seems plausible.

[timxxx]

If they're being extorted, yes.

These legal procedures and suits are nothing to do with stopping piracy, nothing to do with addressing the cause of piracy or even the providers of piracy. They are simply a way of getting someone to give you money so you don't publicly drag them through the courts over some shemale porn. In fact they don't even want to go to court, it's too expensive.

If this was about addressing piracy then it would be different, it's not, it's about making money.

Pretty much right.
It's pay up Faggot or we will let everyone know you're a Faggot.

[deepthroater]

All those "little guys" that you like to call them are the ones using Bit Torrent in mass amounts. Those little guys who are all using bit torrent software are also the providers and uploading content while they download. So yea...those little guys in mass can do a ton of damage.

What damage exactly? If someone downloads one of your sets it does not mean you have lost money. If 2000 people download your photos it does not mean you have lost the income from 2000 potential subscribers. A download does not equal a lost sale!

In the vast majority of cases you won't have lost any money at all, in fact you'll have attracted many more potential subscribers, as long as your content is of sufficient quality or fills a missing niche.

I'd actually suggest you experiment and shoot a set that you'll solely release on P2P via torrent sites. Release it (anonymously) and I gaurantee you'll see an increase in site visitors and completed subscribers. Go a stage further and do some A/B testing, using a different url watermark on the photos so you can track visitors coming directly from typing in the url they see.



If anyone is greedy, its YOU. Some of us spend a lot of our own money to put in to the content that the people you support are stealing. You call it greedy because the people who steal the product that we are putting our time, money, and bodys in to are getting in trouble? You hypocrite.

I'm not being greedy at all. I'm not trying to make money from anyone here under the guise of combating piracy. I subscribe to pay sites.

All I'm trying to explain is that if you want to combat piracy, great. If you want to root out the causes of piracy and act on the torrent sharing sites then that is admirable. Extorting money out of people is wrong.

You have to get out of the mindset that just because someone downloaded something it means you've lost money. Whether the file was there or not, if they wanted to subscribe they would have.

[TSPornFan]

I only buy my porn online. It's best to just buy it. People put money into making the product. Show some respect and pay for it instead of being a thief.

We are in a recession and Grooby's prices are terrible for single sites. Grooby's prices are what straight porn networks have for many sites into one payment of the same or lower price as Grooby. That's my only problem with Grooby's sites. The prices do not equal the amount and quality of the content.

[deepthroater]

Nothing to do with stopping piracy? Take off the tin foil hat. Grooby isn't the only one suing people. Its not all shemale porn.

I know it's not all porn, my point carries the same no matter what the origins of the content. These legal cases are nothing to do with piracy, if you can't see that they do nothing to address the causes and providers of piracy and are only a means of revenue generation then you're missing my point entirely. These "turn-key legal solution" companies are the same that act for the RIAA and they have a proven track record for how they work, if it's not a pretty definitive example of extortion then I don't know what is.

I'm not supporting or even condoning piracy at all, although I will argue that it's nowhere near as bad as you obviously seem to think and can actually be harvested as a positive if done correctly. I'm saying that doing this, threatening to sue people unless they pay you thousands of dollars is ugly and greedy. They're not trying to get the content taken down, they're not trying to get the hosters shut down, they're not trying to do anything about the actual piracy, they're trying to make money. All this while complaining about losing money, even though piracy hasn't actually been shown to cause a loss of sales. Ever.


And LOL @ Being extorted. They broke the law, deal with it.

So let them be charged by the police and the proper authorities then, don't pretend to be all high and mighty for the common good while actually just threatening civil cases to make money. If it's about breaking the law then fine, go for it. But I thought this was all about money, everyones losing money 'cos of piracy right?



This is from the Jordan Capri site: Look like shemale porn to you?
http://main.jordancapri.com (http://main.jordancapri.com/)

Trust me, I knew very well that neither Jordan or Tawnee were shemales (Despite a few decent photoshops floating around, and my dreams).


hypocrite

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"



oh and it sounds like someone is really ashamed and embarrassed by the porn they look at by the way

Not at all, quite the opposite :D

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?p=751242#post751242

[SmashysmashY]

Many use words like "thief" and "pirate" but when enough people feel that it’s okay to do something, that thing ceases to be wrong in their own cultural context. That's just the way it is.

In my opinion artists should be credited and paid but their ability to acquire profit doesn't trump everything else in society like privacy and our ideas of fair use.

Instead of trying to criminalize an entire generation of people they might use their creativity to develop different business models that incorporate free distribution where artists can be paid directly by consumers. Most artists though, particularly high paid ones usually come down on the side companies that exploit artists and consumers.

[Niccolo]

It is an interesting assertion, that someone would have bought a particular video if they hadn't downloaded it. I don't think that is necessarily true at all. One certainly can't just make the assertion and expect people to accept it.

In terms of music, I tend to download most of my music nowadays from Amazon. That costs me a few pounds per album. But if I hear a song I like on the radio, which is obviously free, then that doesn't mean that I would have bought that same song from Amazon. (Obviously if I didn't even know that the song had been recorded, it makes far more sense to say that I would not have bought it.) In truth, hearing a song on the radio makes me more likely to go on to Amazon and buy it, and while I'm at it, I'll take a look at other material by the same artist.

It's generally accepted, is it not, that one's music being heard on the radio leads to an increase in CD sales? In fact, getting one's music on a radio station playlist is seen by artists and record companies as desirable because it brings considerable financial benefits to both. If people listening to a free source of music leads to an increase in sales, why would porn be any different?

[sunairco]

OK, let's look at the big picture for a moment. These copyright groups are targeting the little guys that will acquiese. How about those that don't respond? How about those that are willing to call their bluff? How about those that might pool their resources and mount a good defense with professional witnesses? Up to this point, these are small firms that aren't prepared to litigate many cases concurrently, instead are banking on a steady cash flow from automated demand letters with case numbers plugged into a website and a secured server accepting credit cards. Will they still pursue these cases at their own expense? If they don't, they are admitting to Abuse of Process and this is nothing more then a profit venture and exposing themselves to sanctions and their clients to costly litigation. Just as they were willing to lead a client on to easy profits, there's another group of salivating lawyers just looking for a juicy class action lawsuit.

[BellaBellucci]

Don't waste your time on Amy people. Her Kool-Aid was the strongest. Unless your name is Steven or Buddy, your opinion means shit to her.

~BB~

[blendswell]

too heavy and complex to sort out but i can try and lighten the mood................... YouTube- Amazon Women On The Moon - Video Pirates (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I5dVBezF9k)

[AmyDaly]

Don't waste your time on Amy people. Her Kool-Aid was the strongest. Unless your name is Steven or Buddy, your opinion means shit to her.

~BB~

No, its just you who means shit actually. To everybody lol. Oh and +1 to IL. You just disappeared.

[SmashysmashY]

Wow, that statement is about as harsh as Danielle's expectations that Verizon and Comcast play Copyright Batman. If you create something, you have the explicit right to own it and profit from it, whether it's physical or intellectual property. My problem isn't with copyrighting. It's with our current methods of (attempted) enforcement.

~BB~
I think there's quite a difference between property and "intellectual property" which I don't even consider to be a valid concept. If you take my property then I don't have it anymore.

There may be intellectual rights but there's no property and there's no intrinsic reason that one should continue to be paid for something long after the labor they expended on it is complete. If I design a house I don't get paid every time someone walks through the door but if I make a film I expect to be paid any time someone watches it until the day I die.

[PomonaCA]

The purpose of the original post is what? To serve public notice? State intent? A lawsuit is a lawsuit, let it happen in a courtroom, not the hungangels website. Outside of the suit, this thread looks like a lot of bluff and bluster. Stupid really, along with a lot of stupid posturing by copyright amateurs.

[BellaBellucci]

I think there's quite a difference between property and "intellectual property" which I don't even consider to be a valid concept. If you take my property then I don't have it anymore.

There may be intellectual rights but there's no property and there's no intrinsic reason that one should continue to be paid for something long after the labor they expended on it is complete. If I design a house I don't get paid every time someone walks through the door but if I make a film I expect to be paid any time someone watches it until the day I die.

... because the house doesn't generate a profit.

~BB~

[Brittany St Jordan]

So if I sign a non-disclosure agreement about a project someone is working on and I leak it to the world it is somehow a moment of liberation for free speech? Every pay site with copyrighted material has a user agreement which is a legally binding contract where you, the user, state that you will not disseminate any material without some form of authorization from the owner of that material if even allowed at all.

And for the argument that using stolen material to promote the site is a good thing, stick that you up your ass along with your head. Every site has affiliate programs that you can join for FREE and promote the site for FREE without ever releasing actual paid-for material from the members area of the site. And the big kicker to those is you can actually get paid money instead of paying legal fees.

As Amy said:

LOL @ Being extorted. They broke the law, deal with it.[/url]

Whether a person robs a mom & pop store with a .22 somewhere in podunk Kansas or with an AK-47 in the Mall of America it is still armed robbery. Same goes for file sharing pirates, no matter how big or small they may be they broke the law and there are consequences that go along with that.

The fact that potential customers know that pirated material can be easily found online is enough to dissuade them from actually joining a site so yes stolen material does equal loss in income for the owners of the material. So now the playing field is being leveled by letting copyright thieves know that if they steal and they get caught stealing there will be legal action taken against them. So if by letting potential customers know that you can pay a little now for access to the copyrighted material or pay a lot later in legal fines is extortion then go bitch at 7-11 for every shoplifter they ever prosecuted.

[SmashysmashY]

... because the house doesn't generate a profit.

~BB~You never heard of anyone selling a house before?

[NYBURBS]

If they're being extorted, yes.

These legal procedures and suits are nothing to do with stopping piracy, nothing to do with addressing the cause of piracy or even the providers of piracy. They are simply a way of getting someone to give you money so you don't publicly drag them through the courts over some shemale porn. In fact they don't even want to go to court, it's too expensive.

If this was about addressing piracy then it would be different, it's not, it's about making money.

It is a tactic, but if it reduces the amount of people that share his product on file sharing sites then it will have worked. I doubt a few thousand in settlements are his idea of getting rich.

[JoePitt]

... because the house doesn't generate a profit.

~BB~You never heard of anyone selling a house before?

Heh, have you tried selling a house at a profit in the last 2-3 years? Also, I'm sure Bella was talking more about an ongoing, sustainable profit.

[SmashysmashY]

Heh, have you tried selling a house at a profit in the last 2-3 years? Also, I'm sure Bella was talking more about an ongoing, sustainable profit.Ongoing sustainable profit like what, rent? The designer doesn't retain any copyrights at all, they certainly don't get royalties. That's not how it works.

[NYBURBS]

It's a difficult question to answer because it presupposes that if I wrote a book I would charge people to read it. I would only write a book if I thought it contained important information and I wouldn't be surprised to see electronic copies of it because I would place it in the public domain.


Yea but you would have the choice not to charge for it, instead of the choice being made for you. There's quite a difference.


Many use words like "thief" and "pirate" but when enough people feel that it’s okay to do something, that thing ceases to be wrong in their own cultural context. That's just the way it is.


That's true to a point, of course there are countries where they stone you to death for having an affair, but I wouldn't adopt that as a just punishment simply because people in their culture think it is. Oh and I'm not trying to equate downloading some porn with killing someone, but just pointing out that the whole relativism argument can be quite slippery.



There may be intellectual rights but there's no property and there's no intrinsic reason that one should continue to be paid for something long after the labor they expended on it is complete. If I design a house I don't get paid every time someone walks through the door but if I make a film I expect to be paid any time someone watches it until the day I die.

If you design a house then you're selling the rights to your design to the person who is having the house built. Grooby is selling (or licensing would be a better term) a finished product, but retain the rights to it. By your logic, only the first customer to buy it need pay, then he's free to give it away to everyone else as he sees fit.

[JoePitt]

Many use words like "thief" and "pirate" but when enough people feel that it’s okay to do something, that thing ceases to be wrong in their own cultural context. That's just the way it is.


LOL So by that crazy rationale, you support widespread pedophilia in Afghanistan?

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=49667

[BellaBellucci]

You never heard of anyone selling a house before?

A house is a tangible item that is bought and sold only once at a time. Content is intangible and consumed en masse. How else would a content producer see a return on their investment if not for copyright laws? If they could give it away for free, it probably wouldn't be very good, would it?

It has everything to do with replication and redistribution, but to use your analogy, if someone designed, say, a pre-fabricated house intended for mass production, then yes I think they should have intellectual property rights. And what NYBURBS said.

~BB~

[SmashysmashY]

LOL So by that crazy rationale, you support widespread pedophilia in Afghanistan?

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=49667
You can whine about moral relativism all you like. The facts are undeniable. That's how people behave.

[Nicole Dupre]

Well if Amy drank the Kool-Aid, Bella is just jealous that no one is offering her a cup. She's as thirsty as anyone else. Those pushy tweets asking Grooby about when her photo set were getting released reeked of desperation.

And I still say that Bella would keep her mouth shut if she had anything worth stealing. But she hasn't put anything into a shoot other than showing up in one of those dumpster-Diva outfits of hers. All Bella does is multi-girl site shoots anyway (burning one porn industry bridge at a time). She knows full well that those sites can repackage her bottom-shelf brand on DVD for the rest of her life, and she won't make squat. So I'm not shocked that she's just fine with Grooby, Sammy, etc getting robbed.

She'll still be destitute and licking peanut butter from a knife in a year, and no one will be able to give her pics away anyway. There's practically no bridges left for her to burn, and these forums and a handful of clubs will be the only places left where anyone will have to look at her.

Meanwhile, people will work hard and invest their money into putting out products that thieves will know are worth stealing.

[BellaBellucci]

Well if Amy drank the Kool-Aid, Bella is just jealous that no one is offering her a cup. She's as thirsty as anyone else. Those pushy tweets asking Grooby about when her photo set were getting released reeked of desperation.

And I still say that Bella would keep her mouth shut if she had anything worth stealing. But she hasn't put anything into a shoot other than showing up in one of those dumpster-Diva outfits of hers. All Bella does is multi-girl site shoots anyway (burning one porn industry bridge at a time). She knows full well that those sites can repackage her bottom-shelf brand on DVD for the rest of her life, and she won't make squat. So I'm not shocked that she's just fine with Grooby, Sammy, etc getting robbed.

She'll still be destitute and licking peanut butter from a knife in a year, and no one will be able to give her pics away. There's practically no bridges left for her to burn, and these forums and a clubs will be the only place anyone will have to look at her.

Meanwhile, people will work hard and invest their money into putting out products that thieves will know are worth stealing.

Considering our personal history and the fact that after everything that was said you chose to go right at me instead of discussing the issue like the rest of the grown-ups, I don't think your opinion carries a lot of weight in this thread.

~BB~

[Nicole Dupre]

Considering our personal history and the fact that after everything that was said you chose to go right at me instead of discussing the issue like the rest of the grown-ups, I don't think your opinion carries a lot of weight in this thread.

~BB~
Ultimately you have nothing beyond theory and opinion to bring to the discussion, because you can't relate to having a pay site. And you've said countless times that some people have "too much", "plenty" and "enough" money, so of course you don't care if they're getting robbed. Why don't you just admit it? lol

[SmashysmashY]

Yea but you would have the choice not to charge for it, instead of the choice being made for you. There's quite a difference.Agreed, there is a difference, but as I said we don't always think people should be paid. I may do many things that I believe I should be paid for, others may not agree.




That's true to a point, of course there are countries where they stone you to death for having an affair, but I wouldn't adopt that as a just punishment simply because people in their culture think it is. Oh and I'm not trying to equate downloading some porn with killing someone, but just pointing out that the whole relativism argument can be quite slippery.
Our understanding of these things may change as technology develops. When the VCR was invented people started recording television programs even though it was considered theft at that time the fair use doctrine evolved to accommodate that.


If you design a house then you're selling the rights to your design to the person who is having the house built. Grooby is selling (or licensing would be a better term) a finished product, but retain the rights to it. By your logic, only the first customer to buy it need pay, then he's free to give it away to everyone else as he sees fit.No, by my logic creative work does not give one the right to be paid indefinitely. The US constitution even acknowledges this. You probably don't believe that an architect should retain copyrights and receive royalties but I'm sure they wouldn't mind. I already said that they should pursue different business models that incorporate free distribution not that only one person should pay so that is merely a straw man.

[SmashysmashY]

A house is a tangible item that is bought and sold only once at a time. Content is intangible and consumed en masse. How else would a content producer see a return on their investment if not for copyright laws? If they could give it away for free, it probably wouldn't be very good, would it?

It has everything to do with replication and redistribution, but to use your analogy, if someone designed, say, a pre-fabricated house intended for mass production, then yes I think they should have intellectual property rights. And what NYBURBS said.

~BB~
You probably don't think the best way to insure that artists are paid is to remove existing right and sue people even if you believe that it is important. Personally I wouldn't mind just being taxed for it. Artists could be paid that way. Everyone is already downloading anyway. Almost nobody thinks it's immoral. Why criminalize everyone to guarantee profit for distributors who aren't even necessary anymore?

[NYBURBS]

The US constitution even acknowledges this. You probably don't believe that an architect should retain copyrights and receive royalties but I'm sure they wouldn't mind. I already said that they should pursue different business models that incorporate free distribution not that only one person should pay so that is merely a straw man.

I know what the Constitution says, that's why I posted earlier that I take issue with copyright going beyond the life of the author (and that was done to comply with European demands).

My other point was certainly not a straw man because I have yet to see anyone else here describe what this alternative business model might be. If you know of one then expound upon it, but right now what you have been posting would effectively create a situation where they would only make money from the first customer.

[Nicole Dupre]

And, Bella, you still have a misleading "Ashley George blog" up, only there to snag a few affiliate bucks. You're as much of a petty thief and a pirate as anyone. It's stuff like that which puts you and your sad little agenda into perspective. You are a pariah and a leech.

[BellaBellucci]

I already said that they should pursue different business models that incorporate free distribution not that only one person should pay so that is merely a straw man.

You're talking about a model like broadcast television then? That's all fine and dandy, but then we'd all have to get into the tangible product business or take on advertisers in order to have something to sell if the content is going to be reduced to being used as promotional material and no longer generates revenue on its own. Those are two lousy models that more than likely wouldn't generate enough revenue to justify the expense and would lower content quality dramatically. That means that only Playboy, Penthouse, and a few other companies with branded product lines would even stand a chance to survive an industry paradigm shift like that.

~BB~

[SmashysmashY]

I know what the Constitution says, that's why I posted earlier that I take issue with copyright going beyond the life of the author (and that was done to comply with European demands).

My other point was certainly not a straw man because I have yet to see anyone else here describe what this alternative business model might be. If you know of one then expound upon it, but right now what you have been posting would effectively create a situation where they would only make money from the first customer.
That's not up to me. But even if there is no valid business model to adopt, then find another business and don't infringe on the right and privacy of others. Some things become obsolete, you can't punish others in the pursuit of profit when it happens.

[BellaBellucci]

You probably don't think the best way to insure that artists are paid is to remove existing right and sue people even if you believe that it is important. Personally I wouldn't mind just being taxed for it. Artists could be paid that way. Everyone is already downloading anyway. Almost nobody thinks it's immoral. Why criminalize everyone to guarantee profit for distributors who aren't even necessary anymore?

A government solution to a corporate problem? That'd be a first! :lol:

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

Ultimately you have nothing beyond theory and opinion to bring to the discussion, because you can't relate to having a pay site. And you've said countless times that some people have "too much", "plenty" and "enough" money, so of course you don't care if they're getting robbed. Why don't you just admit it? lol

Ashley started that blog with me. Don't act like I just decided to poach her out of nowhere. Again, you have no credibility or objectivity in dealing with me anymore.

~BB~

[Nicole Dupre]

This is comedy. Seriously. Ashley is not happy with having this weirdo use her pics to keep that misleading piece of shit blog up. lol

You're such a fucking hypocrite, Bella.

[SmashysmashY]

A government solution to a corporate problem? That'd be a first! :lol:

~BB~Well, maybe dinosaurs shouldn't have gone extinct and your car should tip over when the drive through waitress puts food on it like in the opening credits to the Flintstones.

[Nicole Dupre]

Ashley started that blog with me. Don't act like I just decided to poach her out of nowhere. Again, you have no credibility or objectivity in dealing with me anymore.

~BB~

What are you saying? That's you have a right to poach her from anywhere? lol

And I'm sure there are all kinds of thieves who I lack "credibility" with. I guess you have to take it from where it comes. lol

But the fact is, Ashley is not cool with that blog, you thieving goon.

[deepthroater]

The fact that potential customers know that pirated material can be easily found online is enough to dissuade them from actually joining a site so yes stolen material does equal loss in income for the owners of the material.

No.

Technically yes, everyone is a potential customer, but you're wrong if you think that 1 x Pirate Download = 1 x Potential Customer Getting Product Free = 1 x Loss Of Paying Customer.

Have you ever downloaded pirated porn sets from anywhere? As a delivery method it absolutely sucks! Trying to find anything relevant is difficult and disjointed, there's no real way of knowing what you're getting or previewing content to see if it's what you actually want, you have to hunt around numerous different sites and it's actually pretty hit and miss as to whether you get anything you were actually looking for. Throw in the shemale niche and relying on pirated content is hugely frustrating and pretty useless.

They isn't some bunch of secret pirate sites with a full catalogue of every photo set ever taken, ready to browse and download at your convenience. In fact a quick visit to ThePirateBay, arguably the largest torrent site on the internet, and a search for 'shemale' brings up a massive, industry bankrupting 9 pirated files:

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4884/picture4fn.png

The stark fact of the matter is, if someone wants shemale porn they're going to subscribe to a paysite, if they're able to. It's far easier, and actually worth the subscription fees (well maybe not ALL sites are worth the subscription fees but whatever).

Downloading a pirated file simply does not equate to a loss of revenue.

(Hypothetical explantion - Not actually my actions!)
If there was a file there called "Shania TitsMcCock - Latest Set!" I'd probably download it and have a look. But that doesn't mean Shania has lost out on a customer. If I had to pay for the file I wouldn't download it, not because I expect things for free but because I'm just not interested in her enough to pay.
(/Hypothetical explantion - Not actually my actions!)

If someone is able to pay for a product they will, they're your real potential customers and will only be convinced of paying for products by the quality of the product and their personal desire for it.

Someone downloading a pirate file is not a lost sale.

Want proof of this? I kept seeing photos of a fetish model around the net and really liked her. I wanted to see more and had a look on torrent sites to see if there was anything available. I found one or two sets, thought she was amazing and decided that I'd go and subscribe to her site.

http://www.themoshroom.com (http://www.themoshroom.com/)

The fact that there were pirated files of her sets available didn't stop me from subscribing to her site, in fact they actively encouraged me to find, visit and consequently give her money every month. (Should I be prosecuted for piracy after downloading her sets?)

[notdrunk]

For those who want to know the IPs and what they downloaded....

http://notatypewriter.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/documents-from-the-latest-round-of-bitorrent-lawsuits/

http://notatypewriter.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/ilnd-06708326036.pdf

http://www.archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.ilnd.247136 <--the filing itself

:whistle:

[NYBURBS]

That's not up to me. But even if there is no valid business model to adopt, then find another business and don't infringe on the right and privacy of others. Some things become obsolete, you can't punish others in the pursuit of profit when it happens.

I'm a bit lost as to what rights you're referring to. If this were a case where companies were unknowingly installing code on your computer to see what you browsed, then I would agree there would be a privacy issue. However, that is not the case here. There is a website open to the public with visible links to download the plaintiff's intellectual property, they are moving for disclosure of the identities of persons that used that site to download it. They can't prosecute their claim without that information, so nothing nefarious about that.

[deepthroater]

lol, for help with piracy call us now: 800 D-I-V-O-R-C-E!

[SmashysmashY]

I'm a bit lost as to what rights you're referring to. If this were a case where companies were unknowingly installing code on your computer to see what you browsed, then I would agree there would be a privacy issue. However, that is not the case here. There is a website open to the public with visible links to download the plaintiff's intellectual property, they are moving for disclosure of the identities of persons that used that site to download it. They can't prosecute their claim without that information, so nothing nefarious about that.
Torrent files don't contain copyright protected material.

[Ryz]

lol, paying for porn...

[GroobySteven]

Ah the typical smattering of intelligent thoughts and feedback along with the idiotic and ill-formed that you've came to expect from HA ... with the ramblings of a lonely lunatic thrown in.

1. I'm not getting into whether you think copyright law works or not. As it is, there is a copyright law. You steal, you get sued.

2. This is part of a multiple strategy against piracy. It's unlikely any of it will actually stamp our piracy until the DMCA laws are changed but we've already had success on some sites, having them stop posting Grooby content and we have taken successful action in the past, in different forms.

3. The original post went out on all Grooby sites two weeks ago to let people know what steps we were going to be taking to protect the content that they pay for.

4. Yes, this is a revenue generating venture as well as to warn people not to download our content. You have a choice, you can either do it - or not do it. There is no in-between. If you are stealing our content, then you have the potential to be sued. I've no interest in playing semantics with you.

5. To the poster, who claimed torrent sites (or tube sites) were good for our sites, as it would help promote them - you obviously do not work in this industry and have no access to the stats whatsoever. Tube/torrent sites have been the death knell for many sites so far. You are correct, 20,000 downloads does not equal 20,000 lost customers but if it only means 1 lost customer, then it is a problem. Furthermore, those 20,000 downloaders made the choice to steal that content for their own usage. Whether they cannot afford it, didn't like it or think it's shit content - is irrelevant.


Whatever your opinions are, I'm sure you all agree that theft is wrong. It's not about what you think of me or my company, it's not about our pricing structures, it's not about how much you think I make and it's not about if you think we're going about it the wrong way.
It is theft, the same as if you walk into a farmers orchard and steal apples from his tree, a few won't hurt - but if everybody does it, then when the farmer takes his apples to market, he cannot sell it - as everyone already has his apples.
Revenue raised from this part of our venture will directly go back into the site payouts so all models, photographers, site owners working with us, will help regain some of the profits that have been lost from piracy over the last few years.

[GroobySteven]

lol, paying for porn...


Yeah, well you should thank the people who have the honesty and ability to do so - because if they didn't pay for it, then what would you be jacking off to? The same recycled content from 10 yrs ago ... and no new models coming up.
ROFL at the jackass.

[Castor_Troy05]

I concede that I have in the past "stolen" content from Grooby, however this in turn did lead to me subscribing to yum and other sites which i do on rotation each few months as waiting for the best content to hit the net is just not worth it. I'd never however use bittorrent as it's just a horrible horrible way to get content.

I traditionally have a quick look on usenet, see if certain models have sets, and if so, go to the site and download the full set and any associated video's and previous sets.

I realise my actions are rare, but I wanted to let it be known that while I have stolen before, I have repeatedly paid for the content I liked.

More than happy to confirm usernames with steve if required to back up my claims.

As long as there is usenet, theft will continue and there aint anything that can be done about it. However I will continue to pay for any content I am interested in using the same model I have done before.

[shemale-411]

Right message. Wrong messenger. If you pay out $700,000 a year for models, then you're obviously pocketing much more than that. Not to mention that in your case, your business is your lifestyle as well as your job which means you also get tax write-offs for pretty much just living. And like Wal-Mart, you profit from exploited labor yet you complain about shrinkage, specifically because the thieves are reselling the content for profit. On the one hand, you state that it's these thieves that are the true enemy, but then you go on to say:
You may have banned me on HD because of your petty ego, but at least you still keep me entertained. From the bottom of my heart: thank you. :) xoxo
~BB~

I almost shuddered when people started responding to her posting, and did shudder when the OP finally came on. This could go on for days now, she is nuts.

Will everyone please just look at the crazy hysterical shit that spews from this poster? She attacks the OP for spending $700,000 a year on model fees and attempting to protect his investment. Now we are talking several sites with 12 month's a year updates, do the math... Then attack him for trying to make a profit after all that. I mean what does this really sound like? The OP gave her one of her first shoots, refuses to shoot her again, end of story.

I loved hearing that someone on the other board dropped the hammer...can we get that here?

Regarding piracy, everyone has a right to protect their investment. As someone who sells affiliate programs, I would love to see the industry get back to the olden days. But the industry does hold some of the blame. About 12-13 years ago one of the founders of the present adult website business model, Danni Ashe, pleaded with her fellow business owners to stop giving free content out, (promo galleries, etc) as it was driving prices down. I honestly believe if there had been some business unity back then alot would be different now. Would it have stopped the little geniuses coming out of college with adult napster ideas in their heads? Probably not, who knows? It was a gold rush back then and very much every man for themselves.

[dc_guy_75]

The IPs are listed here:
http://notatypewriter.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/ilnd-06708326036.pdf

[Nicole Dupre]

I almost shuddered when people started responding to her posting, and did shudder when the OP finally came on. This could go on for days now, she is nuts.

Will everyone please just look at the crazy hysterical shit that spews from this poster? She attacks the OP for spending $700,000 a year on model fees and attempting to protect his investment. Now we are talking several sites with 12 month's a year updates, do the math... Then attack him for trying to make a profit after all that. I mean what does this really sound like? The OP gave her one of her first shoots, refuses to shoot her again, end of story.

I loved hearing that someone on the other board dropped the hammer...can we get that here?



I think what's really sad is that so many people gave her a chance, and in one way or another she's burned each bridge. Generally, I don't like seeing people get the ban hammer, but she's proven herself to be treacherous at each and every opportunity. Much like "Michelle Sabrina" being doted on by HD's original mods, I think permitting her to stay here and behave this way is a form of enabling a sociopath.

[deepthroater]

Ah the typical smattering of intelligent thoughts and feedback along with the idiotic and ill-formed that you've came to expect from HA ... with the ramblings of a lonely lunatic thrown in.


Not sure if I'm the lonely lunatic or not, but anyway, thanks for a refreshingly honest post.



1. I'm not getting into whether you think copyright law works or not. As it is, there is a copyright law. You steal, you get sued.


I agree. Can't argue with that at all really.


2. This is part of a multiple strategy against piracy. It's unlikely any of it will actually stamp our piracy until the DMCA laws are changed but we've already had success on some sites, having them stop posting Grooby content and we have taken successful action in the past, in different forms.


I don't think anyone is ever going to be able to stamp out piracy, that has both good and bad repurcussions that aren't all about the money. I see no problem in you trying to safeguard your business at all and definitely think that sites operating with piracy as a business model (hosting stolen content as their own etc etc) need to have action taken against them and completely support you in that. What are you doing other than suing individual filesharers though?



4. Yes, this is a revenue generating venture as well as to warn people not to download our content. You have a choice, you can either do it - or not do it. There is no in-between. If you are stealing our content, then you have the potential to be sued. I've no interest in playing semantics with you.

Glad you're willing to admit this is a revenue generating venture. I don't think there's any other reason to go after individual filesharers at all. It's certainly not going to have any effect on piracy, either as a deterrent to download (other than for those sued and maybe a handful of others) or as a way of reducing the amount of pirated content available.


5. To the poster, who claimed torrent sites (or tube sites) were good for our sites, as it would help promote them - you obviously do not work in this industry and have no access to the stats whatsoever. Tube/torrent sites have been the death knell for many sites so far. You are correct, 20,000 downloads does not equal 20,000 lost customers but if it only means 1 lost customer, then it is a problem. Furthermore, those 20,000 downloaders made the choice to steal that content for their own usage. Whether they cannot afford it, didn't like it or think it's shit content - is irrelevant.

I'm sure tube sites have a far bigger impact than any torrent filesharers, why aren't you taking on the sites themselves with the same amount of aggression? I really don't think the people you're hoping to sue account for any lost revenue at all. I know that doesn't really matter to you as they're still on the wrong side of the law, and I completely understand that you have to do something, anything. But I'd really like to know what kind "stats" you're going on to prove that torrenting has "been the death knell for many sites". Shemale porn is a niche that really can't be properly catered for from torrent networks (even in Exhibit A for your court case there's only maybe 10 different files mentioned that have been shared, surely not even a couple percent of your available catalogue). I can't help but strongly believe the defendants took those files simply because they were there, 'free' and available, NOT as an alternative to subscribing to Yum. If they wanted access to the type and amount of content on Yum then they'd happily pay for it, there's no comparrison between the 10000s of files available from a subscription and the meager handful of randomness available via filesharing.

I don't think a single one of those defendants can seriously be classed as lost revenue. I know, that's irrelevant semantics to you and immaterial because no matter the outcome they stole your copy protected content. I can't really argue with that at all, but I just feel as if you're trying to do something to stop piracy and protect your site, without actually doing anything to stop piracy or protect your site.



Whatever your opinions are, I'm sure you all agree that theft is wrong. It's not about what you think of me or my company, it's not about our pricing structures, it's not about how much you think I make and it's not about if you think we're going about it the wrong way.
It is theft, the same as if you walk into a farmers orchard and steal apples from his tree, a few won't hurt - but if everybody does it, then when the farmer takes his apples to market, he cannot sell it - as everyone already has his apples.

Going on with the famer and his apples analogy; You're making mistakes by assuming a few things:

1. That everyone can get to every apple on every tree for free. In reality they can only grab the odd few apples that hang out over the wall.

2. That everyone wants to buy your apples. Just because they take them for free does not mean they'd be willing to buy them. Suddenly find a way to force them to pay for every apple they take and they'll just walk down the road to were apples grow at the side of the road for free and take whatever they want. Your apples don't get stolen anymore, but you don't sell anymore than you did before either.

3. That people who managed to get a couple of apples for free one day didn't get a taste for your particularly juicy breed of apples and want more. They liked those apples so much that they couldn't stand only getting the ones that dropped over the wall, so they keep coming back to you to buy more apples.

4. You think that people aren't buying your apples at market because they've taken enough from the overhanging branches and don't want more of the same. Actually they never managed to get many apples themselves at all. Instead another farmer keeps walking into your orchard, takes as many apples as he wants sets up a stall right next to yours and gives those apples away for free in wrappers with adverts on. He gets paid everytime someone opens a wrapper to eat an apple. You see this and do nothing about it becuase he's bigger than you and has a gun. As soon as someone unwraps the apple you accuse them of stealing money AND apples from you. You threaten to take them to court unless they pay for a years worth of apples.



Revenue raised from this part of our venture will directly go back into the site payouts so all models, photographers, site owners working with us, will help regain some of the profits that have been lost from piracy over the last few years.

That's great and actually pretty straight-up of you. So every model featured in any of the content listed in Exhibit A will be getting a fresh cheque. Girls start looking for new shoes, those settlements are normally outrageously large!

[Nicole Dupre]

Not sure if I'm the lonely lunatic or not, but anyway, thanks for a refreshingly honest post.


I think he's referring to Bella aka She Guevara, now also known as "~LL~". lol

[deepthroater]

I think he's referring to Bella aka She Guevara, now also known as "~LL~". lol

Ah ha, I wondered why I'd be a lunatic!

I am lonely though ;_;

[Trans-Promo]

Ahh, the old, 'if you're not doing anything wrong, then why can't I invade your privacy' argument. Wow Danielle, you really know how to recycle a classic! :Bowdown:

If you didn't sign the agreement, would you have service? Talk about a captive contract! ALL of the ISPs make you relinquish privacy rights as a condition of service. I don't think that's fair, do you?

~BB~

I don't think it is but in the long run this keeps us safe from child predators and thieves so I don't see anything wrong with giving a little of my privacy so that others are safe. It's a fair trade in my book.

Nothing wrong with your way of thinking - we just have different opinions that is all.

[Trans-Promo]

Agreed, there is a difference, but as I said we don't always think people should be paid. I may do many things that I believe I should be paid for, others may not agree.


Our understanding of these things may change as technology develops. When the VCR was invented people started recording television programs even though it was considered theft at that time the fair use doctrine evolved to accommodate that.
No, by my logic creative work does not give one the right to be paid indefinitely. The US constitution even acknowledges this. You probably don't believe that an architect should retain copyrights and receive royalties but I'm sure they wouldn't mind. I already said that they should pursue different business models that incorporate free distribution not that only one person should pay so that is merely a straw man.


Recording a television program for your personal use does not violate IP laws, when you start selling that tape or having public showings where you charge money for tickets and making merchandise is. There is nothing wrong with recording anything for your own personal use.

[Trans-Promo]

I have some issues with current copyright law also, namely the fact that it continues on after the author's death (can thank Europe for that lol). However, I am very much in favor of protecting someone's rights to their creation. How would you feel if you spent 5 years of your life writing a book and then I come along and seed an e-version of it on the internet for free? I'm willing to bet that you'd feel robbed.

Why would you have an issue with Widows and the family of an author benefiting from what is rightfully theirs through the death of the IP owner? 70 years after death or 120 if it was work for hire.

[SunshyneMonroe]

oh my this got messy fast!

[Nicole Dupre]

Just curious. Who banned Bella?

Personally, I can't see her quasi-socialist rambling going over well with the good ol' boys club on Vicki's knock-off HD forum.

[Trans-Promo]

What damage exactly? If someone downloads one of your sets it does not mean you have lost money. If 2000 people download your photos it does not mean you have lost the income from 2000 potential subscribers. A download does not equal a lost sale!

Are we talking about legal download or braking and entering here?


In the vast majority of cases you won't have lost any money at all, in fact you'll have attracted many more potential subscribers, as long as your content is of sufficient quality or fills a missing niche.

Not true, saturation makes something undesirable.


I'd actually suggest you experiment and shoot a set that you'll solely release on P2P via torrent sites. Release it (anonymously) and I gaurantee you'll see an increase in site visitors and completed subscribers. Go a stage further and do some A/B testing, using a different url watermark on the photos so you can track visitors coming directly from typing in the url they see.

We already do that - it's called affiliate pages. we release tons of free content so to lure people in.

Surely we are not expected to do this for free??? LOL Ridiculous argument.

That is all we want. People to pay for fair use. Just because one is hiding behind a computer screen doesn't make it legal or right.



I'm not being greedy at all. I'm not trying to make money from anyone here under the guise of combating piracy. I subscribe to pay sites.

That is all we want. People to pay for fair use. Just because one is hiding behind a computer screen doesn't make it legal or right.


All I'm trying to explain is that if you want to combat piracy, great. If you want to root out the causes of piracy and act on the torrent sharing sites then that is admirable. Extorting money out of people is wrong.

That is not what is going to happen. First they will send a letter, a warning for say. If you continue to do it... well... there are consequences to being a scum!


You have to get out of the mindset that just because someone downloaded something it means you've lost money. Whether the file was there or not, if they wanted to subscribe they would have.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING ! GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD!

I need to get payed, I need to get through school! In other words, there are girls who do this because they have no other choice, or feel as if they have no other choice.

You like porn right? You like to pleasure yourself? Then pay for it and we can continue to produce it - if you don't - you won't get any!

[Faldur]

oh my this got messy fast!

Ya, wanna go grab a bite to eat?

[Niccolo]

Ultimately you have nothing beyond theory and opinion to bring to the discussion, because you can't relate to having a pay site. And you've said countless times that some people have "too much", "plenty" and "enough" money, so of course you don't care if they're getting robbed. Why don't you just admit it? lol
So the solicitors who are representing Grooby have nothing to bring to the discussion because they're not shemale porn stars with websites owned by the company they're representing?

Or is someone expressing 'theory and opinion' what these boards are actually for?

[GroobySteven]

Ah ha, I wondered why I'd be a lunatic!

I am lonely though ;_;

Bella Belugosi.

[GroobySteven]

Just curious. Who banned Bella?

Personally, I can't see her quasi-socialist rambling going over well with the good ol' boys club on Vicki's knock-off HD forum.

From HD? I did, I've no reason to give a forum or a soapbox to someone who owns sites in which she spreads her mad theories and so-called propaganda against me or my company. She's completely irrelevant and it's sad to see a handful of people buy into her, compared to the majority who just see her as the sad clown she is. She's entitled to her freedom of speech but I'm not going to help her with that.

[GroobySteven]

I concede that I have in the past "stolen" content from Grooby, however this in turn did lead to me subscribing to yum and other sites which i do on rotation each few months as waiting for the best content to hit the net is just not worth it. I'd never however use bittorrent as it's just a horrible horrible way to get content.

I traditionally have a quick look on usenet, see if certain models have sets, and if so, go to the site and download the full set and any associated video's and previous sets.

I realise my actions are rare, but I wanted to let it be known that while I have stolen before, I have repeatedly paid for the content I liked.

More than happy to confirm usernames with steve if required to back up my claims.

As long as there is usenet, theft will continue and there aint anything that can be done about it. However I will continue to pay for any content I am interested in using the same model I have done before.

We have a fail safe for situations like this. IF you did get an intention to sue, it would have a specific note for members. I don't want to get into the specifics of the notice but we have thought of this.
You lost the beard? Looks good.

[Niccolo]

No.

Technically yes, everyone is a potential customer, but you're wrong if you think that 1 x Pirate Download = 1 x Potential Customer Getting Product Free = 1 x Loss Of Paying Customer.

Have you ever downloaded pirated porn sets from anywhere? As a delivery method it absolutely sucks! Trying to find anything relevant is difficult and disjointed, there's no real way of knowing what you're getting or previewing content to see if it's what you actually want, you have to hunt around numerous different sites and it's actually pretty hit and miss as to whether you get anything you were actually looking for. Throw in the shemale niche and relying on pirated content is hugely frustrating and pretty useless.

They isn't some bunch of secret pirate sites with a full catalogue of every photo set ever taken, ready to browse and download at your convenience. In fact a quick visit to ThePirateBay, arguably the largest torrent site on the internet, and a search for 'shemale' brings up a massive, industry bankrupting 9 pirated files:

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4884/picture4fn.png

The stark fact of the matter is, if someone wants shemale porn they're going to subscribe to a paysite, if they're able to. It's far easier, and actually worth the subscription fees (well maybe not ALL sites are worth the subscription fees but whatever).

Downloading a pirated file simply does not equate to a loss of revenue.

(Hypothetical explantion - Not actually my actions!)
If there was a file there called "Shania TitsMcCock - Latest Set!" I'd probably download it and have a look. But that doesn't mean Shania has lost out on a customer. If I had to pay for the file I wouldn't download it, not because I expect things for free but because I'm just not interested in her enough to pay.
(/Hypothetical explantion - Not actually my actions!)

If someone is able to pay for a product they will, they're your real potential customers and will only be convinced of paying for products by the quality of the product and their personal desire for it.

Someone downloading a pirate file is not a lost sale.

Want proof of this? I kept seeing photos of a fetish model around the net and really liked her. I wanted to see more and had a look on torrent sites to see if there was anything available. I found one or two sets, thought she was amazing and decided that I'd go and subscribe to her site.

http://www.themoshroom.com (http://www.themoshroom.com/)

The fact that there were pirated files of her sets available didn't stop me from subscribing to her site, in fact they actively encouraged me to find, visit and consequently give her money every month. (Should I be prosecuted for piracy after downloading her sets?)

Absolutely. I made this argument too. If I hear a song on the radio, which is free, and I like it, then I'll shoot along to Amazon and download it; usually I'll get the whole album. But if I hadn't heard that song on the radio, and didn't even know that it had been recorded, then I wouldn't have bought that album on Amazon. By analogy then, I argue that it's simply not true to say that one free viewing of a porn scene on the internet equates inevitably to one lost subscription fee from the website that originally filmed the scene. Record companies and artists both want their product to be on radio playlists, because they know that this leads to an increase in revenue, since people are actually more likely to buy a new album (i.e. spend money on their product) after hearing a track from the album on the radio (which is free). I suggest that it's the same, at least to some extent, with tranny porn.

[SunshyneMonroe]

Ya, wanna go grab a bite to eat?

Sure where u wanna go?

[deepthroater]

This is going to be a bit messy, replying to replies of quotes, argh. The boards quote function couldn't cope so I just copied everything unformatted to a text editor.

Originally Posted by deepthroater
What damage exactly? If someone downloads one of your sets it does not mean you have lost money. If 2000 people download your photos it does not mean you have lost the income from 2000 potential subscribers. A download does not equal a lost sale!

DF: Are we talking about legal download or braking and entering here?

I'm talking about individuals and pirated downloads from P2P/Usenet etc.

Originally Posted by deepthroater
In the vast majority of cases you won't have lost any money at all, in fact you'll have attracted many more potential subscribers, as long as your content is of sufficient quality or fills a missing niche.

DF: Not true, saturation makes something undesirable.

Where is the saturation? You're acting as if every photo & movie you've ever been in has been stolen, neatly organised and conveniently placed in a folder by a villainous group of pirates and passed around everyone on the internet with the ease of one-click-sharing. That's just not happening, my whole point is that there's so little tgirl porn (I'm still grouping you in with tgirl stuff, idk why I'm worried that might offend you. If it does then soz, not intentional) available from filesharing piracy that it simply isn't a viable alternative to legally subscribing to pay sites.

People don't download a torrent with a couple video clips and a couple photo sets from a site and think, "Woohoo! I was going to pay to join that site, but why bother when I can see 0.5% on here for free?!". If someone is willing to subscribe to a site then they'll subscribe, so they can have 100% of the sites content. If they're not willing or able to subscribe then they're not going to subscribe, the fact that they looked at some of your content that was pirated isn't anywhere close to being what influenced them to not pay you for a subscription and you can't assume that a pirated download is a loss of a subscription. So, some people subscribe and some don't, either way it's not influenced by filesharing piracy. And if filesharing piracy isn't affecting subscriptions, which it's not, then you're not losing money and you're not losing potential money.


Originally Posted by deepthroater View Post
I'd actually suggest you experiment and shoot a set that you'll solely release on P2P via torrent sites. Release it (anonymously) and I gaurantee you'll see an increase in site visitors and completed subscribers. Go a stage further and do some A/B testing, using a different url watermark on the photos so you can track visitors coming directly from typing in the url they see.


DF: We already do that - it's called affiliate pages. we release tons of free content so to lure people in. Surely we are not expected to do this for free??? LOL Ridiculous argument.

Oh yeah, affiliate pages and ads, the utter bowels of the internet. So you're happy to give away not just content but actual cold hard cash to affiliates introducing people to your work. Yet if someone is introduced to your work for free, meaning that affiliate commission stays in your account, you're aghast and want them sued for stealing from you. I'm pretty sure grooby has inadvertently and unknowingly made more money from people being introduced to their content via filesharing who later convert to paying subscribers once their circumstances change, than they've lost via "filesharing copyright theft".

If you're actually getting significant new subscribers completing the sign-up from an affiliate landing page then stop and ask yourself why? All the affiliate does is distribute and publicize your content, he doesn't make it better or enhance the product in any way. He's literally just showing your content to people, people who without doubt are actively looking for your niche anyway and in doing so are highly likely to convert into paying subscribers. The affiliate just manages to get to them first, either making them think his landing page is actually your site, or just direct linking straight to your own landing page, either way it's your content that convinces people to subscribe, not any affiliate hoodoo (no matter what they say!). People who want to subscribe will subscribe!

So yeah, why not skip paying a few affiliates their referral and distribute material yourself. Seriously, try it. Shoot a model or a set, don't put it on the site, don't give it to affiliates, upload it as a torrent with a specific url watermark that you can trace as solely originating from that set.

Anyway, quite apart from all that crap: You're not seeing this properly. Piracy is never going away, in fact it's the new digital delivery model. Not so much the piracy/theft aspect of it, but the consumers sharing with/to consumers, without restriction and without the need for distribution and management by companies or agencies. Want to understand what that means to you? Probably at least a 90% reduction in your hosting and bandwidth fees.

Piracy isn't costing you money, stop saying it is. If it's not costing you money then it's not a negative, start looking at how to use it as a tool. You're never going to 'beat' piracy as it stands in this moment.


Originally Posted by deepthroater View Post
I'm not being greedy at all. I'm not trying to make money from anyone here under the guise of combating piracy. I subscribe to pay sites.

DF: That is all we want. People to pay for fair use. Just because one is hiding behind a computer screen doesn't make it legal or right.

Listen I'm not trying to say filesharing copy protected content is right or legal. I'm not saying that at all. It's illegal by the definition of the law and I'm not arguing against that. What I am trying really hard to say is all this talk like "piracy is costing me money" etc etc is complete rubbish. It's not costing you money at all. (and by piracy I mean the individual filesharers targeted by this proposed lawsuit, not clone sites or tube sites that are run for profit and making their own money from your content. But as none of those sites seem to be related in any way to this case I think that whole aspect is irrelevant)

Originally Posted by deepthroater View Post
All I'm trying to explain is that if you want to combat piracy, great. If you want to root out the causes of piracy and act on the torrent sharing sites then that is admirable. Extorting money out of people is wrong.

DF: That is not what is going to happen. First they will send a letter, a warning for say. If you continue to do it... well... there are consequences to being a scum!

No actually that's exactly what's going to happen. No warning letter, no "Hey, stop that!". Just straight in with the lawsuit as soon as they get the details from the ISP. Why? Because it's not about stopping piracy, it's just about making money.

Originally Posted by deepthroater View Post
You have to get out of the mindset that just because someone downloaded something it means you've lost money. Whether the file was there or not, if they wanted to subscribe they would have.

DF: THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE SAYING ! GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD!

No that's exactly what you're saying. You're harping on about money, getting paid for your content etc etc You're saying that these filesharers owe you money because they effectively withheld giving you their custom, therefore you lost money. Your whole argument is that you've lost money because if they hadn't downloaded the pirated content they'd be subscribing to your site and paying you money to see that same content. So yeah, that's exactly what you're saying(Also, on a side note, I don't think my head is particularly thick actually, certainly no more than average. But I do have a thick co.....never mind, probably not the best time to bring that up)

DF: I need to get payed, I need to get through school! In other words, there are girls who do this because they have no other choice, or feel as if they have no other choice.

Yes, everyone wants more money. But you're literally demanding cash by creating an entitlement to something that never existed and is intangible. You can't suddenly decide to demand payment from someone on the basis that they took away the potential possibility of choosing to subscribe to your site at some time in the future. It's ridiculous. Once again and for the last time, yes what they did was wrong, yes it's illegal but NO you haven't lost any money because of them and they certainly shouldn't be sued for whatever the inevitably ridiculous amount will be. Everyone is freaking out about piracy as if it's killing people, leaving photographers and trannys starving in the streets.

DF: You like porn right? You like to pleasure yourself? Then pay for it and we can continue to produce it - if you don't - you won't get any!

Srsly, I subscribe to pay sites.

[Trans-Promo]

Absolutely. I made this argument too. If I hear a song on the radio, which is free, and I like it, then I'll shoot along to Amazon and download it; usually I'll get the whole album while I'm at it.

If I hadn't heard that song, for free, and didn't even know that it had been recorded, then I wouldn't have made that purchase on Amazon.

By analogy, I argue that it's not true to say that one free viewing of a porn scene on the internet equates to one lost subscription fee from the website that originally filmed the scene. Record companies and artists both want their product to be on radio playlists, because they know that this leads to an increase in revenue, since people are actually more likely to buy a new album after hearing a track from it (for free) on the radio. Same with Tgirl porn.

When you hear a song in the radio you don't know when you will hear it again, you buy the song so you can hear it when you want it, at your discretion. Radio stations don't give you the time they will play it and usually unless you are a big station, have to pay royalties to the artist because radio stations unlike News Stations make money off their advertisements and endorsements.

When you see a free scene on the internet there is an address you can go to whenever you want to view it and get off.

I used to have a cock, don't need but one minute of something looped to get off.

You guys are never satisfied, do you read what you say? What is said in the web boards? You complain about small things like pubic hair and if a girl's boob is slightly misshaped.

We give you an arm and you want a leg, we give you the leg and you want a foot. Do you not see this at all, anyone else see this beside me?

In any case, there is a handful of you that are arguing this. But the rest of you could care less, you just pay for your stuff, jack off to it and go on about your day, so it isn't to my surprise that you are complaining about someone protecting his rights.

[Trans-Promo]

This is going to be a bit messy...


It's like talking to a brick wall

[GroobySteven]

I'll quickly answer some of your points as I'm not going to get drawn into the rights/wrongs too much. Basically, you are right, my attitude is that you steal (by choice) then you are a target. Whether these individuals would have became members/buyers if there wasn't stolen content sites, we'll never know - but they made that choice. Adult website sales (not just ours) have grown stagnant or dropped when tube sites and file sharing sites became rampant and worse so, when people could make money by stealing and posting our content - nobody is arguing on these facts, the same as the record industry has dropped because of the same issues.

Those were just a number of recent files we selected, every week our whole sites updates are ripped off and stolen - so it's not just a small sampling of our catalogue.

We're going after bit torrent users in this initiative. Tube sites are protected by the DMCA safe harbour and we personally, don't have the capital to begin those sorts of legal cases yet, unless we can prove the owners upload that content.





Going on with the famer and his apples analogy; You're making mistakes by assuming a few things:

1. That everyone can get to every apple on every tree for free. In reality they can only grab the odd few apples that hang out over the wall.

Not when people have removed the walls and the gates and give access to all the apples for $1.



2. That everyone wants to buy your apples. Just because they take them for free does not mean they'd be willing to buy them. Suddenly find a way to force them to pay for every apple they take and they'll just walk down the road to were apples grow at the side of the road for free and take whatever they want. Your apples don't get stolen anymore, but you don't sell anymore than you did before either.
There are no more of this type of apple. You can walk down the avenue and get a different apple but I've created these apples. You can choose to walk away and get different ones for free, or buy my specific apples. Whether they're willing to buy them or not is irrelevant.



3. That people who managed to get a couple of apples for free one day didn't get a taste for your particularly juicy breed of apples and want more. They liked those apples so much that they couldn't stand only getting the ones that dropped over the wall, so they keep coming back to you to buy more apples.
Anybody who comes to my front gate or to my friends stores in town, can get free apples which I give out from each season and each tree. I have to regulate how many apples I give out but more than enough to enjoy a good taste. I have free apples at http://www.tgirls.com and on this site.



4. You think that people aren't buying your apples at market because they've taken enough from the overhanging branches and don't want more of the same. Actually they never managed to get many apples themselves at all. Instead another farmer keeps walking into your orchard, takes as many apples as he wants sets up a stall right next to yours and gives those apples away for free in wrappers with adverts on. He gets paid everytime someone opens a wrapper to eat an apple. You see this and do nothing about it becuase he's bigger than you and has a gun. As soon as someone unwraps the apple you accuse them of stealing money AND apples from you. You threaten to take them to court unless they pay for a years worth of apples.
Ah, but that farmer has a sign up which says, these are farmer Steven's stolen apples but I don't care because I have a gun. You can have them for free but you do know, that they are stolen.
So fuck those people - they took their choice. It is no different from buying a stolen car from a thief, you are enabling that thief.



That's great and actually pretty straight-up of you. So every model featured in any of the content listed in Exhibit A will be getting a fresh cheque. Girls start looking for new shoes, those settlements are normally outrageously large!
That's not what I said. Anyone who is a partner in those sites where we are suing on, will get their split from any revenues. The settlements we're asking for are fairly small, in comparison.

This is the last time I'll answer your questions as I'm not here to debate the issue and I've been pretty open about it all.

[BellaBellucci]

I almost shuddered when people started responding to her posting, and did shudder when the OP finally came on. This could go on for days now, she is nuts.

Blah, blah, blah. You're as crazy and biased against me as Nicole, and you waited until the OP came on to talk, so now you're also a coward.

... and then I read this which pretty much seals it for me:


I think what's really sad is that so many people gave her a chance, and in one way or another she's burned each bridge. Generally, I don't like seeing people get the ban hammer, but she's proven herself to be treacherous at each and every opportunity. Much like "Michelle Sabrina" being doted on by HD's original mods, I think permitting her to stay here and behave this way is a form of enabling a sociopath.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but people should also consider the source of their 'information.' I've been 'permitted' to stay here because my opinion is as valid as anyone elses. You just don't like it. Well boo hoo for you.


along with the idiotic and ill-formed that you've came to expect from HA ... with the ramblings of a lonely lunatic thrown in.

Ditto. I'm a lunatic? You're the one that does a lousy job with first time models and then blames them when the shoots turn out bad. In my case, you even accused me of 'heavily' photoshopping which everyone knows I don't do. Then you banned me on HD, not because I broke the rules, but because you don't like things I've said. Well, that feeling's obviously mutual. You're a sorry, sorry man with an ego the size of Texas and a bully complex. Who can believe a word you say?


From HD? I did, I've no reason to give a forum or a soapbox to someone who owns sites in which she spreads her mad theories and so-called propaganda against me or my company. She's completely irrelevant and it's sad to see a handful of people buy into her, compared to the majority who just see her as the sad clown she is. She's entitled to her freedom of speech but I'm not going to help her with that.

A handful of people? You mean anyone you can't buy off? That's actually a pretty large group and growing everyday. Frankly I think it's funny how much time and money you throw at maintaining your dominance because you obviously know how fragile it is. Enjoy going broke to defend your 'empire.' Apparently you learned nothing from the politics of the Iraq War because you're making the same mistake. More power to you. :fu:

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

Nothing wrong with your way of thinking - we just have different opinions that is all.

The most enlightened comment yet. Thank you Danielle. I agree.

~BB~

[Trans-Promo]

" But you're literally demanding cash by creating an entitlement to something that never existed and is intangible."

§ 101. Definitions2 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

( 8 ) architectural works.

[Faldur]

Sure where u wanna go?

I know a great Italian joint in Bothell, authentic.. really cozy. Seeing how breakfast has past, we can do lunch.

[ELAGESE]

This can make a good scene:

Tranny knocks on door of geeky downloader and enters the his residence to punish him for downloading her work!

Now, who will be the first company to film this theme?

[BellaBellucci]

This is the last time I'll answer your questions as I'm not here to debate the issue and I've been pretty open about it all.

RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

YouTube- Holy Grail - Killer Bunny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg)

~BB~

[Trans-Promo]

The most enlightened comment yet. Thank you Danielle. I agree.

~BB~

We cannot forget what America is founded on after all. We give a little so that everyone gets a fair share. At least that is how it should work anyway.

Take North Korea for instance - they have no freedom or privacy at all. They have no choice as to watching porn or not - THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

Our PRIVILEGE of choice is based on everyone pitching in equally - it is unwise to think anyone will comply with the constitution, however it is also unwise for them to think there aren't consequences for their actions.

We must make examples, create fear and warn those who harm us. We must take legal action against those who break the law so that we can make better laws, so that we grow not only as business people but as humans as well.

Stealing is one humanity's oldest sins - it is immoral as immoral gets. You are taking from another to benefit yourself - and your selfish secretive escapades.

We must protect our business as our rights as artists so that we can continue to produce.

I do this as a business but I do it because I like to do it - all drama aside - which is a lot to handle at times, we all do it because we love to, and we make money off of it.

I got into adult work for many reasons, and I have been in the business since before the internet, as a boy... so that is quite a while. When we actually send in out pictures to Newspapers and magazines to place ads.

My reasons are very basic:

1- I am an exhibitionist
2- I like the attention
3- Easy money that allows me to focus on transition and getting a better education
4- It feeds every actor's psychological need of being loved and cared for.

I would do it for free if you all payed my bills, but above all this is my job.

[deepthroater]

Danielle, I'm sure I've come across as confusing throughout this thread and my rambling replies. I do actually support the fight against piracy, especially sites that just blatantly host stolen content for their own profit at the expense of the originators.

I just feel quite strongly that suing casual filesharers for dissproportionate amounts of money under the guise of anti-piracy while ignoring the people actually responsible for depleting revenue is not going to solve anything.

Sorry if I've somehow added to your problems and reinforced a belief that no-one gives a shit.

[SmashysmashY]

Recording a television program for your personal use does not violate IP laws, when you start selling that tape or having public showings where you charge money for tickets and making merchandise is. There is nothing wrong with recording anything for your own personal use.
It's not considered a violation of intellectual property rights now, but at the time it was frowned upon. I already said that in my opinion artists should be credited and paid but that's not to be elevated above guaranteed popular rights. You seem to think I believe that artists should make things for everyone to have free of charge but that's not what I'm saying at least.

The only way you can stop copyright infringement is to end all private correspondence and that's not fair either. I'm suggesting that people try to meet these challenges in innovative ways instead of suing people which doesn't seem to work very well anyway.

There might be ways to capitalize off free distribution. For example, there are torrent sites that distribute copyright material, and these sites generate revenue but there's not a system for them to easily share that revenue directly with the artists.

Until then people should probably use irc to avoid being sued I guess.

[Trans-Promo]

Sorry if I've somehow added to your problems and reinforced a belief that no-one gives a shit.

Not at all darling,

I always say this: There are people on this earth who just populate, kinda like an ant farm. There are also those who have a higher understanding of life and their own existence, no matter how small or big their action is, they know there is always someone on the other end.

I come across a lot of assholes while in my public persona, however I know many many more personally, people who actually give a shit, not only for their own selfish needs ( that is human ) but for others as well.

At the end I have a higher existence because I give a shit and I don't internalize other's problems.

Not that this has anything to do with what this thread is about but I do care about your misguided understanding of me as a person.

[deepthroater]

This is the last time I'll answer your questions as I'm not here to debate the issue and I've been pretty open about it all.

No worries, I don't think I have anything to debate anyway. (Plus I can no longer read or write any analogies about apples without breaking into laughter). I do actually agree with you and if I was in your position I'd probably be doing the same. It sucks that it's the 'little guys' getting the punishment rather than the scrapers and cloners, but you're right they knew what they were doing and have no excuses.

I've got to say, I'm pretty impressed at how straight to the point and no bullshit you've been in discussing everything. I think you may have even talked me onto your side, maybe. I'm glad you called it like it is and didn't just try to spout talking points that the defendants have actively and specifically cost you money that you're just trying to recoup.

I admit I underestimated your problems and thought you were just jumping on the anti-piracy band wagon to try and make some easy cash. Thanks for sharing the other side of the story.

[BellaBellucci]

I admit I underestimated your problems and thought you were just jumping on the anti-piracy band wagon to try and make some easy cash.

Gee. Even I never thought it was about that. Lawsuits against individuals are losing propositions financially, even if you win. If they're serious about stopping piracy they need to 'nut up or shut up.' Go after the guy enabling the illegal downloads, not the fans who will now never buy a Grooby product after being sued.

Grooby = Metallica, not only for attacking its own fans, but because Shemale Yum started pretty much right after Steven's own personal foray into content piracy on newsgroups, by his own admission. Metallica gained popularity after its fans were taping its live shows and spreading the word around - perhaps one of the earliest forms of viral marketing.

And of course Steven is the guy who first insensitively used the word 'shemale' for his own selfish internet marketing purposes, then later explained that he didn't know better. Well I'm sorry, but not even considering the feelings of his models or doing any kind of research on their lifestyles is a pretty good indicator of exploitation to me.

~BB~

[Trans-Promo]

Gee. Even I never thought it was about that. Lawsuits against individuals are losing propositions financially, even if you win. If they're serious about stopping piracy they need to 'nut up or shut up.' Go after the guy enabling the illegal downloads, not the fans who will now never buy a Grooby product after being sued.

Grooby = Metallica, not only for attacking its own fans, but because Shemale Yum started pretty much right after Steven's own personal foray into content piracy on newsgroups, by his own admission. Metallica gained popularity after its fans were taping its live shows and spreading the word around - perhaps one of the earliest forms of viral marketing.

And of course Steven is the guy who first insensitively used the word 'shemale' for his own selfish internet marketing purposes, then later explained that he didn't know better. Well I'm sorry, but not even considering the feelings of his models or doing any kind of research on their lifestyles is a pretty good indicator of exploitation to me.

~BB~

Oh drop it already - you are so bitter - Steven Steven Steven

[BellaBellucci]

Oh drop it already - you are so bitter - Steven Steven Steven

Can you really blame me though? I didn't get this upset at him for no reason, now did I? :lol:

~BB~

[sp fan]

I have already seen the reduced amount of material from the brazil scene. If support goes to zero how can you expect anything new. I think there was a blitz of content producers getting material from brazil but now after the smoke has cleared only the real sites are left.

[GroobySteven]

Oh drop it already - you are so bitter - Steven Steven Steven


Like I've said before, I'd be honored to have a stalker, if it wasn't this sad sack of shite.
If only I could be cited as the guy who created the word "shemale" - I've said, it was the only the word really used at the time a al "shemale club", "shemales xxx". I considered calling it "ChicksWithDicksYum.com" but it was a bit long.

Anyway,
"Let out the Daly!"
YouTube- The Rancor - "Jaws Theme" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88sGmZvzdaA)

[Nicole Dupre]

From HD? I did, I've no reason to give a forum or a soapbox to someone who owns sites in which she spreads her mad theories and so-called propaganda against me or my company. She's completely irrelevant and it's sad to see a handful of people buy into her, compared to the majority who just see her as the sad clown she is. She's entitled to her freedom of speech but I'm not going to help her with that.
LOL Well that makes sense.

But she was also on the bootleg version of HD, foaming at the mouth about... Well, you name it. lol

I know "Crimson Raider" barely tolerates the opinions just one tranny, and one tranny only, and that's Vicki. lol

[Trans-Promo]

There might be ways to capitalize off free distribution. For example, there are torrent sites that distribute copyright material, and these sites generate revenue but there's not a system for them to easily share that revenue directly with the artists.


There already is a system - It's called a Licensing Agreement

[Nicole Dupre]

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but people should also consider the source of their 'information.' I've been 'permitted' to stay here because my opinion is as valid as anyone elses. You just don't like it. Well boo hoo for you.

I'd say it's more like "Boo hoo for you, chinless Scooby Doo." lol

I give you 6-12 months to realize that porn and womanhood were not your destiny, and you go back to being a male lesbian, you fucking garbageman in a rancid muumuu. Your 15 minutes are almost up. :dancing:

[SmashysmashY]

There already is a system - It's called a Licensing Agreement
Great, then do that and keep your beak out of my private communications and maybe I'll be more respectful of your right to make money off of smut.

[Nicole Dupre]

Great, then do that and keep your beak out of my private communications and maybe I'll be more respectful of your right to make money off of smut.
"Private communication" is not so cut and dry when you're using it to "privately" break laws and rob people.

[SmashysmashY]

"Private communication" is not so cut and dry when you're using it to "privately" break laws and rob people.I'm sure you probably think your ability to acquire profit is more important than any silly thing like privacy or other people. Perhaps other people will begin to see the wisdom in that.

[Trans-Promo]

Great, then do that and keep your beak out of my private communications and maybe I'll be more respectful of your right to make money off of smut.

I am sorry Nicole, did he, the thief, just cop an attitude with me? That's just one of the funniest things on this forum so far.

I was keeping my mouth shut about your childish 5 year old analogies but after that one... you dug your own grave babe.

[Felicia Katt]

Its only "private communication" when you are expressing yourself with your own thoughts and ideas. When you are trafficking in stolen videos, you are using other peoples thoughts and ideas. If someone stops you from reviewing a movie, you can complain, not when they try to stop you from copying and sending the movie itself.

FK

[BellaBellucci]

Its only "private communication" when you are expressing yourself with your own thoughts and ideas. When you are trafficking in stolen videos, you are using other peoples thoughts and ideas. If someone stops you from reviewing a movie, you can complain, not when they try to stop you from copying and sending the movie itself.

FK

How does one know the difference without violating one's privacy to find out?

~BB~

[Nicole Dupre]

I'm sure you probably think your ability to acquire profit is more important than any silly thing like privacy or other people. Perhaps other people will begin to see the wisdom in that.
I'm not "acquiring" a damn thing. I invest effort, time, and money and I EARN my money. Profiting from one's own LABOR is a pretty basic concept. That's what we do.

The only ones "acquiring" anything around here are the pirates who are ROBBING our products.

[Instrumental]

I have a hypothetical scenario to put forth. I'm curious about everyone's input.
Say I buy an album, I'm sure you're all okay with that, but what if I rip that album to my computer? Some have argued that even that is unacceptable, but I think most everyone here would agree that since you own the album then it is okay to copy it to your own personal computer (and if not please say otherwise). So now I have the album on my computer and on a legit bought CD. Is it okay for me to give this CD to someone as a gift? If so, why is that okay but not letting that same person download it? Ultimately the result is the same, a person is getting an album free of charge and I would still have a copy of the album myself.

[SmashysmashY]

I'm not going to kiss the ass of someone who calls me a criminal several times now. You don't even know me lady. Respect is a two way street and I've only been polite to you and the other people in here but if that's going to be your attitude then don't bother because I'm not a sadist who came here to be insulted.

[SmashysmashY]

I'm not "acquiring" a damn thing. I invest effort, time, and money and I EARN my money. Profiting from one's own LABOR is a pretty basic concept. That's what we do.

The only ones "acquiring" anything around here are the pirates who are ROBBING our products.
Okay but what does that have to do with whether or not people can communicate privately? You said it's not cut and dry but either you can or you can't. You either have privacy or you have none.

[Felicia Katt]

an IP address, attached to a torrent file is not a sealed envelope. Its a fingerprint on a burglar's tool that can be traced to its owner and no one can claim leaving their fingerprints at a crime scene is somehow private communication.

FK

[Trans-Promo]

I have a hypothetical scenario to put forth. I'm curious about everyone's input.
Say I buy an album, I'm sure you're all okay with that, but what if I rip that album to my computer? Some have argued that even that is unacceptable, but I think most everyone here would agree that since you own the album then it is okay to copy it to your own personal computer (and if not please say otherwise). So now I have the album on my computer and on a legit bought CD. Is it okay for me to give this CD to someone as a gift? If so, why is that okay but not letting that same person download it? Ultimately the result is the same, a person is getting an album free of charge and I would still have a copy of the album myself.

Stop and read back your question...

*You BUY a CD, upload it to you computer or MP3 - that is not in violation

*You give that CD to someone as a gift - Giving gifts is not in violation

Making a copy with intent to distribute is illegal as well

*That person starts making copies and selling them - VIOLATION

[SmashysmashY]

an IP address, attached to a torrent file is not a sealed envelope. Its a fingerprint on a burglar's tool that can be traced to its owner and no one can claim leaving their fingerprints at a crime scene is somehow private communication.

FKEven if I was to grant you that (which I don't, there are private trackers) that's not the only protocol that people use to send files.

[Nicole Dupre]

I'm not going to kiss the ass of someone who calls me a criminal several times now. You don't even know me lady. Respect is a two way street and I've only been polite to you and the other people in here but if that's going to be your attitude then don't bother because I'm not a sadist who came here to be insulted.

Huh? lol I don't know anything about you, and I couldn't care less. But don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Look. It's pretty basic. If you rob something, you're a thief. If you're trying to justify stealing porn, I'm not absolving you of your guilt. The bottom line is, people are robbing the industry I work in and it's not ok. So "if the shoe fits..."


And wtf would you like from us now? A pat on the back and a cookie? lol

Btw I don't know if you're a sadist or a masochist, and I don't give a rat's ass. Just don't steal porn, and you won't have to feel guilty.

[Trans-Promo]

I have a scenario:

Say your mom goes into a porn shop and shuvs a fisting rubber hand up her ass w/out lube and walks out of the store without paying. When she gets home she takes the shitty hand out and slaps it on your dad's face ( he likes it even though she stoled it ) He then accepts it as a gift and starts sucking the thing unwashed. Only later to shuv it in his own asshole with some Crisco.

Now let's say your dad goes to his mom's house and takes out the fisting hand out of his ass and puts it on the dinner table in front of the whole family...

Would your grandma consider it stolen?

[Nicole Dupre]

What's not "cut and dry" is the excuse you're using.

Theft, on the other hand, is VERY cut and dry.

[SmashysmashY]

Sadist, masochist whatever that's not my interest obviously. The point is it's uncivil to address people like that when they didn't do anything to you first. So just like you think my privacy isn't cut and dry I don't think robbery is cut and dry in this situation.

[Nicole Dupre]

I have a scenario:

Say your mom goes into a porn shop and shuvs a fisting rubber hand up her ass w/out lube and walks out of the store without paying. When she gets home she takes the shitty hand out and slaps it on your dad's face ( he likes it even though she stoled it ) He then accepts it as a gift and starts sucking the thing unwashed. Only later to shuv it in his own asshole with some Crisco.

Now let's say your dad goes to his mom's house and takes out the fisting hand out of his ass and puts it on the dinner table in front of the whole family...

Would your grandma consider it stolen?
I have no idea, but the part about someone's "mom going into a porn shop and shoving a fisting rubber hand up her ass w/out lube" makes my pussy moist.

Wait. What was the question again? ;) lol

[Instrumental]

Stop and read back your question...

*You BUY a CD, upload it to you computer or MP3 - that is not in violation

*You give that CD to someone as a gift - Giving gifts is not in violation

Making a copy with intent to distribute is illegal as well

*That person starts making copies and selling them - VIOLATION

I'm not sure why you're asking me to re-read my question. I can't really tell if you have any qualms with the scenario I gave. Are you fine with it? And if so, are you okay with the person instead of receiving a CD as a gift, downloading the album from the person who did it. If not why? The end result is the same. If your only issue is in the person profiting from distributing the media that's fine, I don't agree with that either but then that leads to why one would persecute those that merely share the media with no profit involved (i.e. p2p networks). And why is copying with the intent to distribute to another person wrong if giving the album to someone as a gift is okay? The other person is getting the media for free, the artist receives no profit from it whatsoever and the original person who bought it would still have the album on their computer to use for his or herself.

And then you can go even further and get into people who buy a CD and when they grow tired of it, sell it to someone else. In that scenario and the aforementioned one, people are gaining access to the media without supporting the creator of it. Is that wrong? why or why not?

[Trans-Promo]

I'm not sure why you're asking me to re-read my question. I can't really tell if you have any qualms with the scenario I gave. Are you fine with it? And if so, are you okay with the person instead of receiving a CD as a gift, downloading the album from the person who did it. If not why? The end result is the same. If your only issue is in the person profiting from distributing the media that's fine, I don't agree with that either but then that leads to why one would persecute those that merely share the media with no profit involved (i.e. p2p networks). And why is copying with the intent to distribute to another person wrong if giving the album to someone as a gift is okay? The other person is getting the media for free, the artist receives no profit from it whatsoever and the original person who bought it would still have the album on their computer to use for his or herself.

And then you can go even further and get into people who buy a CD and when they grow tired of it, sell it to someone else. In that scenario and the aforementioned one, people are gaining access to the media without supporting the creator of it. Is that wrong? why or why not?

I have a scenario - Sit on an egg and wait for it to hatch

[Nicole Dupre]

I am sorry Nicole, did he, the thief, just cop an attitude with me? That's just one of the funniest things on this forum so far.

I was keeping my mouth shut about your childish 5 year old analogies but after that one... you dug your own grave babe.
Actually, Danielle, he was copping an attitude with you.

Usually they go for me first. My bad. lol

[SmashysmashY]

Well, since you obviously don't give a shit about privacy, can I ask if there is anything about copyright that you consider to be bad at all?

Did you know that in the last 99 years only 1 years worth of published material entered the public domain?

[BellaBellucci]

an IP address, attached to a torrent file is not a sealed envelope. Its a fingerprint on a burglar's tool that can be traced to its owner and no one can claim leaving their fingerprints at a crime scene is somehow private communication.

FK

Except that an IP address can't point to a particular person. Some are even dynamic so they may not even point to a particular household or business. With so much IP sharing going on, you don't think a witch hunt is a violation of privacy? And sometimes against innocent parties even?

You have to find stolen property in the possession of somebody to charge them in criminal court. Why should it be different in a civil suit? So you're saying that real criminals have more rights than casual torrent downloaders?

~BB~

[Instrumental]

I have a scenario - Sit on an egg and wait for it to hatch

O_o Wow. Not sure that was warranted.

[rockabilly]

Danielle your scenario should play before the start of all dvd's.

[Felicia Katt]

Its only a witch hunt if there is no one to find, since in reality, despite what personal opinions some may have of others, there are no witches. If an IP address is linked to a criminal act, that's probable cause to support a warrant or subpoena or further investigation. If the investigation clears you, that's the end of it. If your fingerprints are found at a crime scene, and can be traced to you, that's also probable cause for you to be investigated, and if there is an innocent reason for your prints to be there, that ends it. Its called clearing the latent prints. The standard of proof in a civil case is less than in a criminal one so it takes less evidence to make and support an accusation, but either way, there are facts reasonably supporting probable cause for further legal inquiry and no ones rights are being disrespected

FK

[BellaBellucci]

Its only a witch hunt if there is no one to find, since in reality, despite what personal opinions some may have of others, there are no witches. If an IP address is linked to a criminal act, that's probable cause to support a warrant or subpoena or further investigation. If the investigation clears you, that's the end of it. If your fingerprints are found at a crime scene, and can be traced to you, that's also probable cause for you to be investigated, and if there is an innocent reason for your prints to be there, that ends it. Its called clearing the latent prints. The standard of proof in a civil case is less than in a criminal one so it takes less evidence to make and support an accusation, but either way, there are facts reasonably supporting probable cause for further legal inquiry and no ones rights are being disrespected

FK

So you think it's OK to use a criminal investigative standard to find civil violations but you also want to exploit the lower standard of evidence that comes with a civil suit? Grooby has absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any one individual is responsible for any one theft. Are you implying that Grooby plans to clear all the 'latent prints' in search of the guilty? That's a lot of prints that don't really mean anything and a lot of accusations to be made against innocent parties.

I mean, this would be fine if we were talking about a murder weapon or another piece of tangible evidence because a) it's linked to a criminal act of which there is already evidence, b) the maximum number of latent prints possible is much, much lower than 'electronic fingerprints' and simpler to clear, and c) those fingerprints belong to actual individuals, not groups of individuals. Not to mention of course, that IP's are regularly spoofed by the real professional pirates (i.e. those who do the most damage to the industry), meaning that once again, it's the casual downloader in the cross hairs because they don't cover their tracks as well.

Furthermore, wouldn't the first IP addresses tracked in each piece of content belong to the paying site members who shared the content in the first place? Aren't those people your real culprits? Wouldn't it just be easier to go after those people since you presumably have their sign-up information? But even still, content is easy to steal. You wouldn't be able to prove that another individual didn't steal the content from the paying member.

So it sounds to me like you have no objections to Grooby planning to potentially sue entire families and businesses because one member or another may be guilty of a civil violation and only if the content in question is even still in their possession. That only works when you have evidence beyond an IP address, because without it, you're just bluffing.

That's not a witch hunt? How do you figure? And in the end, the easiest and most efficient defense will always be, 'it wasn't me.'

~BB~

[tsparisangelline]

No Shade but when grooby gained control of the site it seems the site lost alot of members

[Christastic]

Wow, not that I support piracy but I hope this "turnkey solution"* is more than just copying down IP addresses and looking them up, because IP addresses are not like fingerprints at all. And the Media Copyright Group website is the definition of fly-by-night.

I hope there's something more here than mass-mailed settlement letters hoping for a payoff. Google turned up another lawsuit, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/53-gay-porn-pirates-now-facing-p2p-lawsuits.ars, which just looks like some lawyers and techies willing to use homophobia to gin up a profit and cut porn studios in on it. I hope future anti-piracy efforts are a little more savvy than this.

*this sounds like empty buzz-wording to me, unless it's software, which Media Copyright Group makes no claim to be. All my googling can find is the website of John Steele, a divorce lawyer.

[Niccolo]

When you hear a song in the radio you don't know when you will hear it again, you buy the song so you can hear it when you want it, at your discretion. Radio stations don't give you the time they will play it and usually unless you are a big station, have to pay royalties to the artist because radio stations unlike News Stations make money off their advertisements and endorsements.

When you see a free scene on the internet there is an address you can go to whenever you want to view it and get off.

I used to have a cock, don't need but one minute of something looped to get off.

You guys are never satisfied, do you read what you say? What is said in the web boards? You complain about small things like pubic hair and if a girl's boob is slightly misshaped.

We give you an arm and you want a leg, we give you the leg and you want a foot. Do you not see this at all, anyone else see this beside me?

In any case, there is a handful of you that are arguing this. But the rest of you could care less, you just pay for your stuff, jack off to it and go on about your day, so it isn't to my surprise that you are complaining about someone protecting his rights.

I'm certainly not one for criticising someone because of their pubic hair or whatever. (Although I agree that there are people who do, & like you, I have to say that sort of thing doesn't impress me much.)

I must also say that I have subscribed to several porn sites, over the years. It kind of depends on what I'm into at the time. Right now I have a subscription to one of the Grooby sites, as it happens. I've never bothered with the whole torrent scene. Too much hassle, & I've never been too confident about the process, PC-security-wise.

The argument presented by deepthroater and myself is that one of the propositions used to support Grooby's argument appears to be false. So if they want to put forward a convincing argument, then they have some work to do. Which is a fair point.

Eastern European crime gangs were mentioned initially. Apparently they're responsible for stealing shemale porn and putting it up on to different websites for people to download. And apparently they're making money doing this. I suggest that these are the real criminals in this whole scenario. If Grooby wanted to do something to actually combat shemale porn piracy, then they should use the technical skills mentioned in the initial post to track down these Romanian/Bulgarian gangs, and get their websites shut down. That might actually make a dent. But if they leave these Bulgarian/Romanian crims alone, then nothing will really change. They'll keep on stealing Grooby's product, keep on putting it online, and keep on charging people to download it. What will this enterprise of Grooby's actually have achieved then, long term? Not a damn thing.

[tsbrenda]

you know if some one rats the pirate out ,do they get paid too?

[traLika]

Eastern European crime gangs were mentioned initially. Apparently they're responsible for stealing shemale porn and putting it up on to different websites for people to download. And apparently they're making money doing this. I suggest that these are the real criminals in this whole scenario. If Grooby wanted to do something to actually combat shemale porn piracy, then they should use the technical skills mentioned in the initial post to track down these Romanian/Bulgarian gangs, and get their websites shut down. That might actually make a dent. But if they leave these Bulgarian/Romanian crims alone, then nothing will really change. They'll keep on stealing Grooby's product, keep on putting it online, and keep on charging people to download it. What will this enterprise of Grooby's actually have achieved then, long term? Not a damn thing.


Makes me wonder if there’s a way of putting an ‘invisible’ water mark on each copy of a movie that would be directly tracable to the original buyer/pirater? Kinda like a secret serial number. I know some record companies are sending out water marked promo CDs of their new albums...

Also, why not put pressure on ISPs that host pirate sites? Surely they are hosting terabytes worth of illegal stuff on their servers (or at least facilitating illegal activity) and to some degree can be held accountable?

Just a couple of thoughts. Sorry if either or both have already been mentioned…

[Jericho]

YouTube- The Rancor - "Jaws Theme" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88sGmZvzdaA)

Erm....nah...nevermind. :shrug

[Faldur]

The genie is out of the bottle, it's going to take new and upward thinking to keep the porn industry alive. Ask the record companies about holding on to the old ways.

How many people have paid for sheet music in the last 5 years?

[Nicole Dupre]

you know if some one rats the pirate out ,do they get paid too?
OMG, you're a fucking rat too? Let the powers that be handle it, rat. No one needs a goon in a Halloween mask narcing them out.

[Fred30]

Ok, in advance im from germany, so my english isnt that good...
Never planned to write here, just wanted to find some nice pictures for free...
But somehow I felt forced to say something about this whole copyright issue

1. copyright is not a law of nature. First copyright laws were invented in europe around 1500.

2. Imho this discussion is about the wrong subject. It should be about what you want the internet to be - is it a tool of communication free to everybody or is it another way of commercial distribution of stuff.

As an IT professional I know that you can't have both - either you allow anonymous communication, then you will have ppl who use it to distribute content not in the way it was meant by the producers.
Or you restrict the communication in such a way that this is not happening - and there are possibilities for that - but then we will life in an Orwell-like time, where everything anybody ever 'says' on the net is trackable.

My conclusion: copyright laws as they are now are too old-fashioned. I'm not saying that ppl should not be payed for the content they produce, but I dont think that the way it is done atm is just not working. Plus: Imho it's hypocrytical from the technical point of view that some ppl want to use the net to transfer the data they want - aka offering content for money - but want to restrict the use for others.

And: by all these prosecutions goin on in the net, and believe me, we have these in germany too, they only get those who are too dump to obscure their origin. If I want to download something illegal, you will never find out where I do this from.

All said above is meant only for private use - or abuse, as some would say.

[NYBURBS]

Why would you have an issue with Widows and the family of an author benefiting from what is rightfully theirs through the death of the IP owner? 70 years after death or 120 if it was work for hire.

Because I think it is contrary to the original intention of the Constitution. It specifies for limited times to the author of the work. The current law makes a mockery of the term limited. Nothing that goes into copyright today will expire in our lifetime. The original copyright law in the US was for 14 years, with an option to renew for an additional 14. Granted, it could be longer than 28 years and still be limited, but extending it to a term that intentionally exceeds the actual author's life is problematic.

The intent of the clause was to promote creative expression and knowledge, but ensuring that someone's great-grand kids receive royalties is, imo, not what they had in mind. If 70 years after death isn't perpetual, then how about 200, or 500, or 1000? Where do you draw the line?

PS- There is a reason that the law that made it life plus 70 is nick named the "Mickey Mouse Forever Act."

[lerath666]

what's going to be very interesting to see is ih they are going to only go after current pirates, or past ones as well.

In addition, I'm willing to bet that a large number of the people who are pirating will be underage. I wonder how that will be handled.

[morty]

At the end of the day piracy is always going to be around and threatening people isn't the way also legal wise I don't think in a lot of other countries they have a leg to stand on.

Why not if it's such a big issue just drm all there stuff I know it's annoying and people don't like drm but it does ad security to files or as other have said go around sites and get them to remove the content (wont work for torrents but you can't control everything)

[GroobySteven]

At the end of the day piracy is always going to be around and threatening people isn't the way also legal wise I don't think in a lot of other countries they have a leg to stand on.

Why not if it's such a big issue just drm all there stuff I know it's annoying and people don't like drm but it does ad security to files or as other have said go around sites and get them to remove the content (wont work for torrents but you can't control everything)

Then obviously we won't be suing in those countries.

DRM is problematic. It's costly and time consuming to add to the videos. Further costs are ensued by the amount of customer service time we'd have to add for people having software/playability issues, this would in turn drive away members, causing lost revenue. The main issue though, is that it still can be hacked (stripped of the DRM) and shown.
I would however be in favour of this if it was an industry wide initiative. If the adult internet industry as a whole had embraced DRM when it came out, we may be at a different place now and I'd certainly open up to looking at it again.
Thanks

[Instrumental]

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6041/ih5xfs.gif

Yeah, all DRM does is cause an inconvenience for the people who don't pirate. I know in regards to videogames, slapping drm on it has caused piracy to increase greatly, like with Ubisoft and EA's game "Spore"

[morty]

Then obviously we won't be suing in those countries.

DRM is problematic. It's costly and time consuming to add to the videos. Further costs are ensued by the amount of customer service time we'd have to add for people having software/playability issues, this would in turn drive away members, causing lost revenue. The main issue though, is that it still can be hacked (stripped of the DRM) and shown.
I would however be in favour of this if it was an industry wide initiative. If the adult internet industry as a whole had embraced DRM when it came out, we may be at a different place now and I'd certainly open up to looking at it again.
Thanks


Fair points I think a lot of other American studios don't do the drm route because they know like i stated you cant get rid of piracy they accept it but try to reduce it by making sites pull there content if people post it up even hollywood has problems going around suing people it's very hard and expensive process.

It is a tough one

[Jericho]

I would however be in favour of this if it was an industry wide initiative. If the adult internet industry as a whole had embraced DRM when it came out, we may be at a different place now and I'd certainly open up to looking at it again.
Thanks

Even though you know it doesn't work?

[GroobySteven]

Even though you know it doesn't work?

If it was industry wide, then more money would be put into it, tweaking it and making sure it did work and then work better. If it was the norm, than the end-user wouldn't have the same complaints about the software than if a couple of companies were doing it, it would be seen as standard.

[Jericho]

If it was industry wide, then more money would be put into it, tweaking it and making sure it did work and then work better. If it was the norm, than the end-user wouldn't have the same complaints about the software than if a couple of companies were doing it, it would be seen as standard.

Yah...That still wouldn't work. Tweak it all they like, end result is the same.
DRM, Activation, shit like that...A slap in the face to honest end users, a minor inconvenience to dishonest ones. :shrug

[GroobySteven]

Probably. That's the problem, it just doesn't work very well. It needs to be seemless to the end-user.

[Jericho]

Probably. That's the problem, it just doesn't work very well. It needs to be seemless to the end-user.

Indeed,
That seemless to the end user would appear to be the difficult bit.
Though, i can't hep feeling everyone is running in the wrong direction.

[GroobySteven]

Would have helped if I'd spelled it correctly, seamless.

[Fred30]

That's the problem, it just doesn't work very well.
... and it never EVER will. The industry has put millions and millions of $ into BlueRay and HDTV technology and it took like 2 weeks before the content protection was broken.
There is no such thing like a perfect lock. And never will be. If a lock can be openend, then it can be opened - with or without a key. Period.

It needs to be seemless to the end-user.
So you want a better technology to boss around the end-user aka the money-cow, not to do something against professional copyright-violators? Thank u for that ;)

[GroobySteven]

So you want a better technology to boss around the end-user aka the money-cow, not to do something against professional copyright-violators? Thank u for that ;)

Ho-hum ... Mr.Twopost !?!
No I want the end-user to get a seemless experience of being able to watch, download and enjoy the content without annoying pop-ups/passwords or software needed. To get what they paid for without inconvenience. What I don't want is for someone to download it, copy it wilfully and post it whatever. So if there was a solution, I'd take it.

[Fred30]

The thing is that imho the end-user is not the problem. Professional pirates are - if at all. And for them, as other posters before pointed out before, DRM is a minor inconvinience.
If the whole copyright is something useful at all, or if it only helps the copyright holders is something that is yet to be proven.

Mr. Threepost ;)
(tbh I came across this board while looking for amateur pics - never planned to take part in this discussion, but this discussion struck a nerve, so I registered. Does that make my opinion worth less?)

[Faldur]

Anytime you allow the end-user the ability to download unprotected files your going to have what you have today. The choice is either prosecute the end-user which is a daunting task, or find a new way that protects your work.

If you look at the shear volume of copyrighted material on the tube sites, and this material gets re-posted daily there. The flood gate is open, I don't envy you in your task. But my own opinion, as feeble as it is, would be to protect my work at the source, my site.

[yosi]

A question to Seanchai :

I can understand your actions against piracy , if I were you I'll probably do the same.

BUT

if I want to join your site , and pay for your copyrighted site , like I should and want . I CANNOT do it.

CCBill and other companies block many countries in advance , treating me and others like potential criminals when in fact many ARE honest poeple who want to pay for what they buy.

1. YOU lose money because of less customers who cannot buy membership to your sites
2. what other option do these blocked members have?
I believe this piracy will not be there , and if it will , in much smaller size than it is today, if poeple will have the possibility to buy it legaly.

blame those who prevent many HONEST potentional customers from buying your material LEGALY.

do you do anything about it?

[GroobySteven]

A question to Seanchai :

I can understand your actions against piracy , if I were you I'll probably do the same.

BUT

if I want to join your site , and pay for your copyrighted site , like I should and want . I CANNOT do it.

CCBill and other companies block many countries in advance , treating me and others like potential criminals when in fact many ARE honest poeple who want to pay for what they buy.

1. YOU lose money because of less customers who cannot buy membership to your sites
2. what other option do these blocked members have?
I believe this piracy will not be there , and if it will , in much smaller size than it is today, if poeple will have the possibility to buy it legaly.

blame those who prevent many HONEST potentional customers from buying your material LEGALY.

do you do anything about it?



Thanks for the post Yosi - and you do pose a good question. Billing companies do block certain countries because many stolen cards are used by them and a certain amount of genuine revenue is lost because of this.

The most straight forward answer to your question, is YES. Grooby does do something about this by offering other payment options.

We have our own payments at:
http://www.grooby.com/paybymail.html from which we offer discounts and the ability to pay via mail (international money order or cash) or we can bill directly to your credit card via our own merchant account.

I hope this helps and I look forward to hearing from you - check out the options at http://www.grooby.com/tickets/ to get the sites HEAVILY discounted. If I can help you with anything directly, get me at admin@grooby.com

Regards

[sunairco]

How is the ACS debacle playing out on the other side of the pond? With the 4chan/Anonymous crowd distributing their internal files and copyright offender's personal information, what if any responsibility will the copyholder-clients of this company have for this privacy breach?

[SXFX]

Here is a dumb solution.....put your content in HD so that 1 video is 1 gig.
Provide a higher product to your customers which makes transferring these files harder to do.

[GrimFusion]

Seanchai, There's absolutely nothing you can do. This lawsuit really won't change anything. It might shut down a piracy ring or two, but four more will just pop up in their place. Suing individuals might set an example for six months, but people will eventually settle back into their porn pirating ways.

Should they be charged? Sure. They're breaking the law. Good luck, with the bad PR. I think it's a fat waste of time and money, though.

[Deege]

At the end of the day, if something can be viewed or listened to, it can be copied. Sad, but true.

[giovanni_hotel]

How were the defendants in the lawsuit chosen??

[GroobySteven]

Here is a dumb solution.....put your content in HD so that 1 video is 1 gig.
Provide a higher product to your customers which makes transferring these files harder to do.

It doesn't make it any harder, if it was too large for a customer to download we'd lose customers - with current cable speeds most people can download fast. The cable companies are the one group who have made money from illegal downloads with no responsibility, if you look at the amount they've grown in the past few years the correlation to piracy, is apparent.

[GroobySteven]

Seanchai, There's absolutely nothing you can do. This lawsuit really won't change anything. It might shut down a piracy ring or two, but four more will just pop up in their place. Suing individuals might set an example for six months, but people will eventually settle back into their porn pirating ways.

Should they be charged? Sure. They're breaking the law. Good luck, with the bad PR. I think it's a fat waste of time and money, though.

I don't think there is any expectation of shutting own a piracy "ring" (is there such a thing?) but by hitting individuals we hope to set an example and also bring in some revenue as compensation for our losses.

[GroobySteven]

How were the defendants in the lawsuit chosen??
Some files were identified, they used their software to find out who downloaded it.

[Niccolo]

So all that crap at the beginning of the thread when you cried about Russian and Eastern European crime 'rings' (is there such a thing?) was just bullshit. You know perfectly well that you won't achieve a damn thing in the long term, and you have failed to make the case that a download = a lost sale. So now, you say that you're doing this pour encourages les outres, and ... wait for it ... to make money. The former clearly isn't going to work. I'm sure you know that perfectly well. You're only doing this to make money. That was put to you several times earlier on, and you tried to weasel out of acknowledging that. Oh well, at least we all know now.

[kyoJecours]

i'm finding it hard to have sympathy for people in the porn industry. ok what's happening is legally wrong but it's not as if the porn world is some sort of moral highground. it's the same as people downloading music for free... yes industy people are missing out on income but the way they brainwash, exploit and manipulate the public i couldn't really give a fuck. plus i get free tunes :)

[GroobySteven]

So all that crap at the beginning of the thread when you cried about Russian and Eastern European crime 'rings' (is there such a thing?) was just bullshit. You know perfectly well that you won't achieve a damn thing in the long term, and you have failed to make the case that a download = a lost sale. So now, you say that you're doing this pour encourages les outres, and ... wait for it ... to make money. The former clearly isn't going to work. I'm sure you know that perfectly well. You're only doing this to make money. That was put to you several times earlier on, and you tried to weasel out of acknowledging that. Oh well, at least we all know now.

Where do you get this "crime ring" idea from? Let's get my quote right;

"Nobody is doing this for fun - it's an organised business, much of it originating in Russia, China and Eastern Europe."

The people either running sites showing links to stolen content, or posting the stolen content themselves for download ARE running it as a business, and most of them come from countries that it's hard to take criminal action against. It's an organised full time business for them, as they get an upsell percentage on people buying download accounts. It's no bullshit.

You might find this hard to believe but I'm in this to turn a profit as without that profit, I can't pay anyone or continue to produce. If someone has MADE THE CHOICE TO ACT ILLEGALLY AND STEAL FROM US - then yes, we'll take action against them in an attempt to raises revenue from otherwise losses. This should also discourage others doing it.

You should possibly read more - on my post on 9th Sept I clearly stated;

"4. Yes, this is a revenue generating venture as well as to warn people not to download our content. You have a choice, you can either do it - or not do it. There is no in-between. If you are stealing our content, then you have the potential to be sued. I've no interest in playing semantics with you."

I don't see anywhere where I "weasled out of it" - I'm not going to answer every single post, I made my statements and you can take from that what you will. We've always went after piracy where we can and if we can recoup revenue by doing that we will.

[GroobySteven]

i'm finding it hard to have sympathy for people in the porn industry. ok what's happening is legally wrong but it's not as if the porn world is some sort of moral highground. it's the same as people downloading music for free... yes industy people are missing out on income but the way they brainwash, exploit and manipulate the public i couldn't really give a fuck. plus i get free tunes :)

What's moral high ground got to do with it? My high ground is to ensure that all the people that work for the company (incl. myself) get paid well, get excellent benefits and enjoy working for the company. Without this company there would be a lot less money going into many pockets in all corners of the industry.
Exploitation? Maybe you should check your clothes/shoe labels? Which supermarkets to you shop at and which coffee chain are you drinking from?

You are an idiot.

[lisaparadise]

i'm finding it hard to have sympathy for people in the porn industry. ok what's happening is legally wrong but it's not as if the porn world is some sort of moral highground. it's the same as people downloading music for free... yes industy people are missing out on income but the way they brainwash, exploit and manipulate the public i couldn't really give a fuck. plus i get free tunes :)your a moron plain and simple,its people like you who give porn a bad rep,your like the dude who takes a candybar out of a store without paying and saying cool ill have to try that again.porn is no different than any other bussiness were all in it to make money from the owners to the performers cameraman etc the leak needs to stop period.

[kyoJecours]

you compare taking a candy bar from a store to stealing copyrighted material from a morally bankrupt industry... and i'm the moron? and by the way i don't watch pirate porn material anyway. and i'm not saying you're not right to try and recoup that money... but you should understand why 90% of people on the outside don't give a shit when you'll take advantage of anyone from any angle to get their money.

[Niccolo]

I don't think there is any expectation of shutting own a piracy "ring" (is there such a thing?) but by hitting individuals we hope to set an example and also bring in some revenue as compensation for our losses. - Seanchaihttp://www.hungangels.com/vboard/images/ca_serenity/buttons/report.gif (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/report.php?p=804609)

As I said, all your original bleating about Eastern European crime rings pirating porn movies is just a front to make yourself appear as if you're taking a stance based on morals/laws, when in reality, as you've said, you know perfectly well that the action you are actually choosing to take will have ZERO effect on these crime rings which YOU started crying about at the beginning of the thread. Instead you have elected to target an entirely different group: individual people, and you're doing that pour encourager les autres, which you've just admitted. And to make money. Which you've just admitted. Since the former won't work, you're left with the latter.

(Oh and compensation for your 'losses'? Don't make me laugh. It's been pointed out to you several times on this thread that some guy in Boise, Idaho watching or listening to a pirated piece of film/music on their PC does not inevitably equate to a loss for the artist/producer. You have yet to deal with that counterargument properly. And if one of the premises in your argument is obviously false, then your whole argument sucketh.)

[GroobySteven]

you compare taking a candy bar from a store to stealing copyrighted material from a morally bankrupt industry... and i'm the moron? and by the way i don't watch pirate porn material anyway. and i'm not saying you're not right to try and recoup that money... but you should understand why 90% of people on the outside don't give a shit when you'll take advantage of anyone from any angle to get their money.
It's EXACTLY the same. That stolen candy bar lowers my revenue, I then have to adjust my business possibly losing staff, I don't buy as much candy from the manufacturer (who may or maybe not, is exploiting his cacao workforce), who needs less raw product and less printing of his wrapper. As the manufacturers revenue is also lost, he can't spend as much on advertising and his transportation needs are minus one candy bar, so that needs adjusting also. It's EXACTLY the same. You are hurting multiple people on multiple levels - it is theft.


Why are we morally bankrupt? Explain? Explain the morals to me, so I can understand this. Why do you think we take advantage of "anyone from any angle to get their money" - we provide a good and honest service, with excellent levels of customer service?

[GroobySteven]

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/images/ca_serenity/buttons/report.gif (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/report.php?p=804609)

As I said, all your original bleating about Eastern European crime rings pirating porn movies is just a front to make yourself appear as if you're taking a stance based on morals/laws, when in reality, as you've said, you know perfectly well that the action you are actually choosing to take will have ZERO effect on these crime rings which YOU started crying about at the beginning of the thread. Instead you have elected to target an entirely different group: individual people, and you're doing that pour encourager les autres, which you've just admitted. And to make money. Which you've just admitted. Since the former won't work, you're left with the latter.

(Oh and compensation for your 'losses'? Don't make me laugh. It's been pointed out to you several times on this thread that some guy in Boise, Idaho watching or listening to a pirated piece of film/music on their PC does not inevitably equate to a loss for the artist/producer. You have yet to deal with that counterargument properly. The problem being that if one of the premises in your argument is false, then your whole argument sucketh.)

Again where are you getting this "crime rings" from? We are going after copyright thefts which is legally wrong (morally if you are that way inclined also), what don't you get about that? If we stop some people from downloading from them then we hit them where it hurts - we've got ongoing campaigns in different areas of piracy but you are correct, to go after those people in those countries is financially unviable for us to do.

Who has pointed out that the piracy doesn't equate loss? Certainly nobody of any significance and most likely, just people who steal themselves.
Frankly, I don't care what you think - I've made my perfectly clear statements. Your agreement or disagreement with them, speaks volumes yet ultimately, is irrelevant.

[Niccolo]

The people either running sites showing links to stolen content, or posting the stolen content themselves for download ARE running it as a business, and most of them come from countries that it's hard to take criminal action against. It's an organised full time business for them, as they get an upsell percentage on people buying download accounts. It's no bullshit. Seanchai
Why are you crying about this when your chosen course of action is against individuals, and when your stated goal is to get money from those individuals?

At least be consistent in your thinking. If you want to actually do something about Eastern European crime rings, who are making money from your product, then go right ahead and do so.

If you want to prosecute individuals who are not making any money from your product whatsoever, in the name of loss of revenue and pour encourager les autres, then do try to provide an argument which actually supports this. So far, you have failed to do so.

[GroobySteven]

Why are you crying about this when your chosen course of action is against individuals, and when your stated goal is to get money from those individuals?

At least be consistent in your thinking. If you want to actually do something about Eastern European crime rings, who are making money from your product, then go right ahead and do so.

If you want to prosecute individuals who are not making any money from your product whatsoever, in the name of loss of revenue and pour encourager les autres, then do try to provide an argument which actually supports this. So far, you have failed to do so.

How have I failed to do so? Here it is AGAIN simply. If you've stolen from us, you've committed a crime and if we find you we will take legal action against you.
That's all it is.

Why are you still talking about crime rings? This has NEVER been suggested? You refuse to acknowledge I never said such a thing yet continue to bring it up, in some way to derail the points. If we can find a viable way to go after any piracy, then we will.

[Ryz]

your a moron plain and simple,its people like you who give porn a bad rep,your like the dude who takes a candybar out of a store without paying and saying cool ill have to try that again.porn is no different than any other bussiness were all in it to make money from the owners to the performers cameraman etc the leak needs to stop period.

You're**** :wiggle:

[Ryz]

Look at video rental stores. Video game companies don't even see that money.

[Niccolo]

Who has pointed out that the piracy doesn't equate loss? Certainly nobody of any significance and most likely, just people who steal themselves. - SeanchaiThis blatant ad hominem attempt to make your own argument is obviously fallacious, as anyone who has been taught to think properly will tell you. You simply assume that anyone who disagrees with you 'steal themselves' when not only do you have no grounds on which to make that assumption, it is demonstrably false. For example, I have made that argument to you on this thread, and at the moment I have subscriptions to several websites, including one of yours. (Something I have already mentioned on this thread.) So your fallacious attempt to defend your assertion is not only irrelevent, it has actually been refuted.



Frankly, I don't care what you think - I've made my perfectly clear statements. - SeanchaiI don't care what you think either, so what? You've made perfectly clear statements? Well maybe you have, and maybe you haven't, but in any event clarity is not truth.

Again: you appear to be presenting an argument that would support any actions you might wish to take against these Russian/Bulgarian/Romanians you say exist, who are apparently setting up alternative websites and 'selling' your product. It may be difficult to take legal action against such people in those countries. However, that type of action would at least be supported by the argument you have put forward.

Making that argument though, and going on to prosecute an entirely different group of people, with no obvious benefits other than lining your pockets?

You might not care if someone points out to you that this is illogical, but that doesn't mean that it's not, and your indifference certainly won't prevent anyone from pointing that out to you.

[Niccolo]

If you've stolen from us, you've committed a crime and if we find you we will take legal action against you.
That's all it is. SeanchaiBut that wasn't 'all it is' now was it? You were bleating about Russians and mysterious Eastern European crime gangs ripping you off. (See link. (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=788149&postcount=2)) Now you're trying to pretend that you didn't? Come on. You were also trying to say that someone viewing a clip online equated to a loss of revenue for you. You have not shown that this is so, and when someone points that out to you (and several people have done so) you either say you don't care what anyone else thinks, or else you engage in blatant ad hominem attacks upon your own firm's customers, and accuse them of stealing from you.

Way to drum up trade, pal.

[GroobySteven]

But that wasn't 'all it is' now was it? You were bleating about Russians and mysterious Eastern European crime gangs ripping you off. (See link. (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=788149&postcount=2)) Now you're trying to pretend that you didn't? Come on. You were also trying to say that someone viewing a clip online equated to a loss of revenue for you. You have not shown that this is so, and when someone points that out to you (and several people have done so) you either say you don't care what anyone else thinks, or else you engage in blatant ad hominem attacks upon your own firm's customers, and accuse them of stealing from you.

Way to drum up trade, pal.


1. Show me on that link anything about crime gangs? I've already cut and pasted my exact quote.

2. A surfer who is able to find and download our content for free, who could have been a likely member, if they hadn't be able to get the content for free, is a lost sale. If this stolen content was not available for free, then some of the downloaders would be buying from the site. This equates a loss of revenue to us.

3. Why do you ignore my posts and make things up? I clearly stated the intent of this specific action much earlier in this thread.

4. Which of my customers have I accused of stealing from me?

Way to just make shit up, pal

[Niccolo]

Oh and just so you know, I've cancelled my subscription to your site.

See how well this little enterprise is working out for you?

[GroobySteven]

I don't care what you think either, so what? You've made perfectly clear statements? Well maybe you have, and maybe you haven't, but in any event clarity is not truth.


Yet it is. Everything I've stated is truthful and clear. If you disagree, then that's your prerogative to. I don't really owe you answers here but I have, you have just refused to listen to them.

I don't really have much more time I can waste on this one post as it's obviously becoming just a circle jerk.

[GroobySteven]

Oh and just so you know, I've cancelled my subscription to your site.

See how well this little enterprise is working out for you?

Send me your username or subscription number and I'll gladly refund you. I'd hate to see somebody that unhappy with what we provide.

[Niccolo]

1. Show me on that link anything about crime gangs? I've already cut and pasted my exact quote. - SeanchaiIs this really the best you can do? Nitpicking about your description of Russian and Eastern European groups of people who, according to you, are acting illegally and are apparently outside the reach of the law? Saying that these people, who are acting together in a co-ordinated and criminal manner with the clear aim of stealing money from other people, and who according to you are being successful, cannot be accurately described as criminal gangs? Really? You think this is going to be a fruitful avenue for you to explore? If you really want to, I have to tell you that I studied linguistics and philosophy at uni, and I'll happily talk about how human beings use language for days, or weeks. No problem. And in the end, you'll lose that debate. I can save you a lot of time though, and simply state the obvious right now: Your attempt to defend your own position is laughable. (If you're interested in how we use language, a book I'm reading just now on my Kindle, and which I can definitely recommend, is 'The Unfolding of Language' by Guy Deutscher. It's well written, and the author's theories are very interesting.)

You ought to reconsider your position. I suggest that instead of trying to insult the intelligence of your own customers, or accusing them of theft, you actually try to enrol them in your efforts against video piracy. You have a large group of people who sign up to your websites, and who by definition are interested in those sites continuing. Those people come from all walks of life. I suggest that you tap into that resource, and see if some of your members can come up with a new way of preventing video piracy. You never know - if you try to see other people as something more than walking dollar signs, you might just start to make some progress here.

Just a thought ...

[GroobySteven]

If you really want to, I have to tell you that I studied linguistics and philosophy at uni, and I'll happily go on about your use of language for days, or weeks. No problem. And in the end, you'll lose that debate. I can save you a lot of time though, and simply state the obvious right now: Your attempt to defend your own position is quite pathetic.

Ok well this answers a lot. So it's not about grasping my points, it's just about debating and arguing how I stated it. Yep, you will win on that one. Congratulate yourself. It really is quite pathetic how some people enjoy wasting time.



You ought to reconsider your position. I suggest that instead of trying to insult the intelligence of your own customers, or accusing them of theft, you actually enrol them in your legitimate efforts against the real criminals here. You have a large group of people who sign up to your websites, and who by definition are interested in those sites continuing. Those people come from all walks of life. I suggest that you tap into that resource, and see if someone can come up with a new way of combatting video piracy. You never know - if you try to see other people as something more than walking dollar signs, you might just start to make progress here.

Just a thought ...

We do, do that Niccolo, we do it all the time, as a member, I'm surprised you missed it on one of our sites. We engage all our members which is why we're consistently changing the sites to meet their needs. At no point, have I insulted the intelligence of our customers who we put ahead of all else or accused any of them of theft. No legitimate customer of ours, will be getting any sort of notification. Where do you get these ideas? We've been making great progress, thanks for the suggestion. Maybe you need to go and study something that has an application in the real world.
Just a thought :Bowdown:

[Niccolo]

Clarity and Truth.

Your name is Wilbur Smith.
You have written over thirty novels.
You live in Africa.

These statements are quite clear. But are they true?

No? You didn't write 'The Sound of Thunder'? Thought not ...

[Niccolo]

That particular degree was just one I took for my own amusement, p/t, at my own expense, while working at my day job. I happen to have several pieces of paper up on the wall, that's just one of them. But hey, you never insult the intelligence of any of your customers, right ... and you didn't say that any customers who disagreed with you (i.e. me) must also be stealing from you, either ... okay, whatever. Anyone can read your previous posts. There they stand, for any potential customers to see. They can decide for themselves if they want to line your pockets, or if they'd rather go elsewhere.

[GroobySteven]

Clarity and Truth.

Your name is Wilbur Smith.
You have written over thirty novels.
You live in Africa.

These statements are quite clear. But are they true?

No? You didn't write 'The Sound of Thunder'? Thought not ...

Genius!
Totally Brilliant.
Let me take that to the pub and make a twat out of myself.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CCQ-IiZpWio/SiYUE7NPeFI/AAAAAAAAAYM/ikukHd_go4o/s400/mrlogic1.jpg

[Niccolo]

Well I had to keep it very, very simple, considering who I'm talking to. You go right ahead and keep it up; it won't make any difference to me, I have no websites for anyone to subscribe to and I'm certainly not waiting on anyone to send me their money. I'll just get a good old laugh at your adolescent behaviour. After all, for a grown man to behave like that ... well, it is quite amusing. You don't seem to realise that all you're doing is letting everyone else see what you're made of. And that's all you're doing. As I've pointed out to you already, any potential customers will now be able to read your comments, & decide if they want to pay out any of their hard earned to someone like you.

If someone reads your comments on this thread and decides not to subscribe to one of your websites, does this mean that you'll sue yourself for loss of earnings?

[GroobySteven]

If someone reads your dishonest, evasive and insulting comments on this thread, and decides not to subscribe to one of your websites, does this mean that you'll sue yourself for loss of earnings?

There has been absolutely no dishonesty or evading comments in any of my posts on this topic. I'm happy for any prospective member to read them.

[Niccolo]

Who has pointed out that the piracy doesn't equate loss? Certainly nobody of any significance and most likely, just people who steal themselves. - Seanchai


This blatant ad hominem attempt to make your own argument is obviously fallacious, as anyone who has been taught to think properly will tell you. You simply assume that anyone who disagrees with you 'steal themselves' when not only do you have no grounds on which to make that assumption, it is demonstrably false. For example, I have made that argument to you on this thread, and at the moment I have subscriptions to several websites, including one of yours. (Something I have already mentioned on this thread.) So your fallacious attempt to defend your assertion is not only irrelevant, it has actually been refuted. - N



Which of my customers have I accused of stealing from me?

At no point, have I insulted the intelligence of our customers who we put ahead of all else or accused any of them of theft. - Seanchai
You assert that if someone watches a video online, then that equates to a loss of earnings for you, and when anyone disagrees with this assertion (and several people have done so in the course of this thread alone) you label them thiefs. You have no way of knowing if any of the people on this thread who have disagreed with you are subscribers to one of your sites, or indeed to any others. They may be, or they may not. In my own case, I was a subscriber to one of your websites. Given that this is a TS porn forum, there is at least a chance that one of the other posters who adopted the same position as I did are also subscribers to various TS porn sites. (Possibly yours.)

You trotted out those ad hominem remarks and if you wish to be intellectually honest about it, you will acknowledge that you can't now say that you have never accused any of your firm's clients of thieving. You have no way of knowing that to be true. There may be several people who disagree with your statements about viewing porn online equating to a loss of earnings. Some may be subscribers to your own websites.

You are aware that I was a subscriber to one of your websites. I disagreed with you. According to you then, I was someone 'of no significance' who was 'likely' stealing TS porn online. This is how you describe your own customers?

Who'd want to be one?

[lisaparadise]

It's EXACTLY the same. That stolen candy bar lowers my revenue, I then have to adjust my business possibly losing staff, I don't buy as much candy from the manufacturer (who may or maybe not, is exploiting his cacao workforce), who needs less raw product and less printing of his wrapper. As the manufacturers revenue is also lost, he can't spend as much on advertising and his transportation needs are minus one candy bar, so that needs adjusting also. It's EXACTLY the same. You are hurting multiple people on multiple levels - it is theft.


Why are we morally bankrupt? Explain? Explain the morals to me, so I can understand this. Why do you think we take advantage of "anyone from any angle to get their money" - we provide a good and honest service, with excellent levels of customer service?there not just stealing from steven there stealing from me and everybody else who benefets and its not right period.

[Jericho]

Not for nothing, but, i don't think anyone cares about the character of the pornographer when they're buying pornography!
Just a personal opinion! :shrug

[dgs925]

Not that I'm gonna read 20+ pages of this discussion before I throw in my 2 cents, but here it is:
I don't feel like I'm stealing from anyone, I download and jerk off. If I wasn't able to download it for free, I'd jerk off the old fashioned way - with my imagination. Before the internet I never spent a dime on porn, and I think my imagination was better.

[Jericho]

Not that I'm gonna read 20+ pages of this discussion before I throw in my 2 cents, but here it is:
I don't feel like I'm stealing from anyone, I download and jerk off. If I wasn't able to download it for free, I'd jerk off the old fashioned way - with my imagination. Before the internet I never spent a dime on porn, and I think my imagination was better.


If i had rep (whatever the fuck that is), i would give it some! :Bowdown:

[Tepres]

We use to have reps but they took them away from us.
Some people must have cried about it and they took it away.
There was so many people I wanted to neg. lol

[mbf]

We use to have reps but they took them away from us.
Some people must have cried about it and they took it away.
There was so many people I wanted to neg. lol

Exactly the scenario I was thinking about.

[boyblue]

http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Smack-Down-in-Court-as-Judge-Eviscerates-Mass-Copyright-Lawyer-429121.html

[BellaBellucci]

http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Smack-Down-in-Court-as-Judge-Eviscerates-Mass-Copyright-Lawyer-429121.html

YouTube - Nelson haha (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDxlf9bMYU&feature=related)

~BB~

[giovanni_hotel]

Whatever.

My two favorite torrent sites are no longer in existence, directly related to these bundled lawsuits against illegal DLers of porn.

Sometimes firing a handgun above a crowded room has the same impact as pointing at one individual and firing.

Grooby etc., at least temporarily, put the fear of God into interweb leeches.

[BellaBellucci]

My two favorite torrent sites are no longer in existence, directly related to these bundled lawsuits against illegal DLers of porn.

How do you know that? :geek:

~BB~

[giovanni_hotel]

How do you know that? :geek:

~BB~

Because they were two of the defendants in those lawsuits.

Legal expenses were too much of a hassle, their sites were repeatedly hacked and they closed down.

[BellaBellucci]

Because they were two of the defendants in those lawsuits.

Legal expenses were too much of a hassle, their sites were repeatedly hacked and they closed down.

You don't think they'll start up again using different names? You don't think there are more sites in line behind them? These lawsuits aren't like firing a gun in a crowd; they're more like pop-pops on the 4th of July. :?

http://www.houseofrave.com/media/fireworks/pop-pops-big.jpg

Seanchai said he was trying to re-coup money lost to piracy. Lawyers are expensive and the cases keep getting thrown out, so in that regard, all efforts have been abysmal failures. It's logic, Spock.

~BB~

[nonnonnon]

I only like snakes and sparklers

[kaiser1one]

Whatever.

My two favorite torrent sites are no longer in existence, directly related to these bundled lawsuits against illegal DLers of porn.

Sometimes firing a handgun above a crowded room has the same impact as pointing at one individual and firing.

Grooby etc., at least temporarily, put the fear of God into interweb leeches.

Yeah that didnt stop anything. Rule of torrent sites, you take down 1 or 2, 3x the amount are around or surface.


http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/comic-book-artist-finds-increased-sales-after-4chan-piracy/

I find that this guy's example is a good way to see piracy. It can have a good effect on your sales.

[boyblue]

kaiser, that is a good article! I am not sure that video, especially porn, can benefit in the same way. From a pure volume standpoint, there is so much more porn produced on a weekly basis than there is an anime book.

It will be interesting to see how these shake out. The lawyer in the story I linked is not winning.

[GroobySteven]

It will be interesting to see how these shake out. The lawyer in the story I linked is not winning.

Interesting you choose this as your very first post :loser:

That lawyer has aleady won, you've no idea how much money his firm have made from this already.

[kaiser1one]

He won? I hadnt heard anything else outside of he got owned in court. Actually, last I heard the judge had thrown out all but 3 "john doe" defendants and dismissed the rest. THEN dismissed those 3. So either way.....

[GroobySteven]

He won? I hadnt heard anything else outside of he got owned in court. Actually, last I heard the judge had thrown out all but 3 "john doe" defendants and dismissed the rest. THEN dismissed those 3. So either way.....

I think this was just one group of disclosures. They've been doing them since Sept for 100's of websites.

[BellaBellucci]

I think this was just one group of disclosures. They've been doing them since Sept for 100's of websites.

Methinks the lady exploiter doth protest too much. :geek:

~BB~

[kaiser1one]

Well the lawyer won't win anytime soon, if at all. Jack Thompson failed at his video game endeavors and got slammed for it. This guy may be the next one.

[Paladin]

I'd like to know how they expect to do this:
"We have the technical ability to track stolen downloaded content and we will have no choice but to instruct our lawyers to take that action, in an effort to recoup lost revenue."

What did they put a serial number on the files? Do they expect people won't sanitize the headings, etc? What if i (legally) DL something and get tired of it, and the give it to a friend. He didn't pay to DL it (and he didn't DL it either!), but you're going to go after him? Not sure this one passes the smell test...

Tracking users by their IP address is also humorous, I'm in a hotel much of the time, with different machines. Even a home IP will only get you to a block most of the time and never to a specific machine. Good luck with that.

That said, I can't stand the mass pirate sites any more than seanchai / steven, and i don't use them, don't like them, don't want to be a part it / them, and i'm too busy fixing my computer every time the HDD goes out to lunch. :(

[Paladin]

lol, paying for porn...

Keep laughing when you find yourself at the top of their shit list :dancing:

[Ryz]

Keep laughing when you find yourself at the top of their shit list :dancing:
http://sapientology.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/smerk.jpg

[Paladin]

When you hear a song in the radio you don't know when you will hear it again, you buy the song so you can hear it when you want it, at your discretion. Radio stations don't give you the time they will play it and usually unless you are a big station, have to pay royalties to the artist because radio stations unlike News Stations make money off their advertisements and endorsements.

When you see a free scene on the internet there is an address you can go to whenever you want to view it and get off.

I used to have a cock, don't need but one minute of something looped to get off.

You guys are never satisfied, do you read what you say? What is said in the web boards? You complain about small things like pubic hair and if a girl's boob is slightly misshaped.

We give you an arm and you want a leg, we give you the leg and you want a foot. Do you not see this at all, anyone else see this beside me?

In any case, there is a handful of you that are arguing this. But the rest of you could care less, you just pay for your stuff, jack off to it and go on about your day, so it isn't to my surprise that you are complaining about someone protecting his rights.

1: I used, (but don't much anymore) tape songs off the radio. I had (still have) quite the collection. But i don't sell them. I also recorded parties that my friends and i hosted. Again I don't sell them.

2: I like feet, especially yours Danielle, quite yummy! And i buy DVDs of what i like (including many with you dear!)

This whole thread is really out of hand. Grooby will attempt to rein in pirates, and they are going to piss of people - mostly those who who are too lazy / cheap / broke to pay atention - let alone pay for any content.

[Paladin]

I have a scenario:

Say your mom goes into a porn shop and shuvs a fisting rubber hand up her ass w/out lube and walks out of the store without paying. When she gets home she takes the shitty hand out and slaps it on your dad's face ( he likes it even though she stoled it ) He then accepts it as a gift and starts sucking the thing unwashed. Only later to shuv it in his own asshole with some Crisco.

Now let's say your dad goes to his mom's house and takes out the fisting hand out of his ass and puts it on the dinner table in front of the whole family...

Would your grandma consider it stolen?

Now THAT was funny! :Bowdown:

[Paladin]

from seanchai:
Ah, but that farmer has a sign up which says, these are farmer Steven's stolen apples but I don't care because I have a gun. You can have them for free but you do know, that they are stolen.
So fuck those people - they took their choice. It is no different from buying a stolen car from a thief, you are enabling that thief.
Pretty well said, and lets not get into the apples vs oranges thing, while we're at it, because i prefer peaches

[tsmandy]

I'm down. lets sue every single one of the mother fuckers. Oh shit bet ya didn't know that stolen movie would cost ya 5grand ! Fuckers.

[irvin66]

Ahoy Matey! Pardon me, but would ya mind if I fired me cannon through your porthole? :geek:

[Instrumental]

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

[BellaBellucci]

When those who champion failed paradigms lose their dominance, they always resort to force instead of new thinking. In this case, it's legal force, but it's force nonetheless.

Don't hate the player, hate the game... and change it.

~BB~

[werwt22]

Ehhhh I dont agree with suing the users. I agree with shutting down the website, or pursuing the people that post it not the ones that download it.

[Tika]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/judge-blasts-unlawful-invasions-of-privacy-by-rogue-p2p-attorney.ars

Please tell me this was the moron you had suing people.

[MacShreach]

Ehhhh I dont agree with suing the users. I agree with shutting down the website, or pursuing the people that post it not the ones that download it.
That is what will happen, indeed, is happening. However in doing so what is being created is the classic recipe for a prohibition-style black market. There are many examples of similar areas where authorities have attempted to target the suppliers and not the consumers, and the result has always been that the effort is ineffectual; while some big drug-dealers or internet pirates may go to jail, the market remains, and its lucrative nature means that new dealers and pirates spring up to take the place of those who have been challenged.

Of course, this is the only thing that can happen, because sovereignty resides with the people, and some estimates suggest that 25% of internet users have downloaded material illegally. Since there are 272 million internet users in the USA ALONE, 85 million of them would therefore be liable. (source: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) What do you think all those millions of moms and pops are going to do if they see their kids dragged off to jail? That's right, they're going to give their politicians a real roasting, and the laws will be changed. That's if they don't break out the shotguns and storm the jailhouse. And if you take the same stats globally, there are over 500 million people who might be liable. ANYONE who thinks prosecuting them all is viable needs their head looked. Public--and that means voter--pressure simply will not permit it. Case in point: the UK gave the US some pretty draconian rights to extradite UK citizens after 911, in order to help fight terrorism, which was quite right. However the US authorities have been using these rights--in a handful of cases--to drag people accused of non-terrorism offences to the US for trial, and as a result of resulting media furore the UK Prime Minister has publicly stated that the rules are 'under review'. That's a warning shot saying, 'any more of this and we'll rescind the extradition treaty.' Well if that's what happens after a handful of cases, what do you think will happen if a few hundred extraditions for internet piracy are attempted? And the UK is a strong ally of the US--most other countries won't let them get even as far as the UK has.

Copyright is very important to me and I have spent years defending mine; theft is wrong and it should be punished. However, the simple fact is that the copyright model is broken, and we will have to come up with a new way of getting paid. The only people who are going to get rich playing whack-a-mole with internet pirates are the lawyers, and that not for long. Meantime, siding with the people who are increasingly being seen as the real villains, the RIAA and the MPAA, looks increasingly like a shortsighted move.

[MacShreach]

When those who champion failed paradigms lose their dominance, they always resort to force instead of new thinking. In this case, it's legal force, but it's force nonetheless.

Don't hate the player, hate the game... and change it.

~BB~

Pretty much.

[GroobySteven]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/judge-blasts-unlawful-invasions-of-privacy-by-rogue-p2p-attorney.ars

Please tell me this was the moron you had suing people.

Whom? Me? Absolutely not.