I bought porn for the first time! :o

[Instrumental]

I got the DVDs in the "My Daughter Has a Dick" (http://www.cduniverse.com/sresult.asp?HT_Search=ALL&HT_Search_Info=%22My+Daughter+Has+a+Dick%22&style=ice) series by Trans Erotica. I saw two of them on a tube video website and was actually impressed enough to get it.

My whole mantra of all things media is, that even if I can find it for free, I'll buy it if I like it enough. That often holds true for music and film, but up until now not for porn.

Anywho, I'd rather this not turn into a discussion on the ethics of downloading media so why not list the last vids/scenes you all have bought! :D

[RallyCola]

You'll buy it if you like it enough....so you are willing to watch/steal porn that you don't like enough to buy.

I realize that you don't want this thread to be about the "ethics of downloading media" but i'd bet many people here DON'T pay for their porn but would never own up to it.

[Instrumental]

:\ You could at least entertain the question I intended this topic to be about jeez.

And yes, I consume media that I deem good, but not good enough for a purchase. I personally have no problem owning up to it because I think it is an ethically sound way of going about things.

[Newcastle_86]

Ive just signed up to TS Seduction and love it after a long time of just looking at the previews and on the tube websites.

[scuderia]

i think its a normal progress lol

i first started watching porn of tubes, then i got pissed by the quality and started downloading them.

after i watched 5 star bitch or whatever it was called with Jane Marie i bought it, simply for feeling guilty and how good of an product it was.

now i signed to Tranny Access and couldnt be any happier. occasionally buying scenes such as the next shemale idol

[DeliaTS]

Thank you for buying porn and supporting something that makes you happy! As a struggling small independent I'm always curious what the tipping point is for people who steal content to turn around and actually invest in it. I have found it varies from person to person and how they typically consume their porn but I always appreciate hearing it. I hope you enjoy the dvd! ;)

[RallyCola]

i wrote a rather long and detailed reply to this...either it was deleted or perhaps i never hit the 'post' button.

i'll just keep it short and sweet...i don't buy dvds anymore...i only subscribe to 3-4 sites per month. most dvds are available as VOD in better resolution anyway. i do have quite a few dvds but it is just easier to keep porn on a hard drive the actually load a disc.

my original point still stands though...downloading essentially stolen porn is not a good thing to admit to. put yourself in a producer's shoes and think about not receiving any benefit for your efforts. do you steal cheese in the supermarket to see what it tastes like? do you steal cars to see which one you will buy?

[scuderia]

i wrote a rather long and detailed reply to this...either it was deleted or perhaps i never hit the 'post' button.

i'll just keep it short and sweet...i don't buy dvds anymore...i only subscribe to 3-4 sites per month. most dvds are available as VOD in better resolution anyway. i do have quite a few dvds but it is just easier to keep porn on a hard drive the actually load a disc.

my original point still stands though...downloading essentially stolen porn is not a good thing to admit to. put yourself in a producer's shoes and think about not receiving any benefit for your efforts. do you steal cheese in the supermarket to see what it tastes like? do you steal cars to see which one you will buy?

pirating is a crime but its still different to stealing tho

[The Piper]

pirating is a crime but its still different to stealing tho


pirating IS stealing.

[Jericho]

Strange how this argument never crops up on the, "What are you listening to now", thread. :shrug

[trish]

Buy porn? I just look in the mirror and masturbate.

[LilyRox]

pirating IS stealing.

Pirating isn't always stealing. If someone pays to download a clip and then redistributes the clip, it isn't stealing. A closer description would be plagiarizing or reproduce illegally.

A lot of people use the word pirate wrong. Saying something like "I pirated X last night" does not mean you downloaded a copy of something illegally, it means you uploaded a copy of something illegally for redistribution.

[scroller]

Stealing strips the item from the original owner's possession. Unauthorized copying does not. For most of history this was called "sharing ideas" and in many cases was considered a virtue. Definitely different levels of offense.

[LilyRox]

Stealing strips the item from the original owner's possession. Unauthorized copying does not. For most of history this was called "sharing ideas" and in many cases was considered a virtue. Definitely different levels of offense.

Yeah. The way I view it is that stealing is connected to taking someones work illegally without paying for it while pirating is redistributing some else's work without permission.

The uploader is pirating

The downloader is stealing

Since the birth of the pirate you-know-what-site. There has been a confusion of people saying that anyone downloading content is "pirating", which isn't correct.

[RallyCola]

pirating is a crime but its still different to stealing tho

wtf? i can't wait to hear this one explained. if you are splitting hairs between what the uploader does and what the downloader does...that's one thing but the OP clearly stated he steals porn.

[RallyCola]

Strange how this argument never crops up on the, "What are you listening to now", thread. :shrug

i don't post in that thread because music is not important to me and i have very fickle tastes, but since you brought it up....i don't buy any music or download any music. between good ole FM, xm and pandora...i don't see the point of having music archives. i realize i am absolutely in the minority on that one but the last cd i ever bought was in the 2000 and it wasn't even for me and i have never bought any mp3s or aacs. what's on the "radio" is good enough for me

[Tapatio]

Stealing strips the item from the original owner's possession. Unauthorized copying does not. For most of history this was called "sharing ideas" and in many cases was considered a virtue. Definitely different levels of offense.

What a weak justification, if oft repeated.

[RallyCola]

Stealing strips the item from the original owner's possession. Unauthorized copying does not. For most of history this was called "sharing ideas" and in many cases was considered a virtue. Definitely different levels of offense.

would you go to barnes and noble and photocopy the entirety of a book?

[Instrumental]

Guess there's no hope of this topic staying on topic so I'll just embrace it.


What a weak justification, if oft repeated.
Actually it's an entirely valid justification that completely destroys the argument that downloading is equivalent to stealing. You simply saying it's weak doesn't make it so.

Stealing requires two things, that a person take possession of an item and that the owner of that item lose possession of it. Not only am I not taking possession of the item - I'm making a copy - but when an item is downloaded, no one has lost anything, only a copy has been made. People who only download stuff they would otherwise buy are reprehensible and I feel their actions unjustified, but scolding people for downloading stuff they wouldn't have bought anyway is just as ignorant as scolding them for not downloading or buying it at all.

People with this archaic view of anti-piracy are just dinosaurs. Almost all of the music albums I bought today I originally found out from downloading them. Same with film, same with the porn this topic is about. Downloading digital content is a very effective means of advertising your product to users. The music industry is figuring this out with all the free streaming services, other media industries need to follow suit.


would you go to barnes and noble and photocopy the entirety of a book?
No, because it's not practical. I would and have downloaded e-books though. I've also bought some of those e-books that I downloaded if they were good enough.

I also wonder when copying becomes a reprehensible crime to you all. If I burn a CD for a friend is that stealing? If I make a mixtape for a friend is that stealing? If I record tracks I like off the radio? If I rip a copy of an album and then give the physical copy to my friend is that stealing? What if they then do the same for his or herself and another friend? How many people do I have to share an item with before it is stealing? Just one? More?

[Instrumental]

my original point still stands though...downloading essentially stolen porn is not a good thing to admit to. put yourself in a producer's shoes and think about not receiving any benefit for your efforts. do you steal cheese in the supermarket to see what it tastes like? do you steal cars to see which one you will buy?

Your attempt at an analogy fails. No, I wouldn't steal cheese, that would deprive the store owner of their item. I would make a copy though. No I wouldn't steal cars to try them, that would deprive the owner of their item. I'd make a copy if I could though. Also most content that is uploaded comes from a person who bought it from a vendor. Not from hacking a website or some such nonsense to obtain it. Almost all the music that I share with others for example I bought on CD somewhere or from Amazon MP3 or iTunes.

[bluesoul]

Actually it's an entirely valid justification that completely destroys the argument that downloading is equivalent to stealing.

actually i disagree. if you're making copies of something, then you're making a duplication. and that's one of the things that violates the terms of copyright.

where you're arguing that the original copyright holder still retains "the original item" i'd argue that what you have stolen is the information- because now you have something you didn't have before. it would be similar to getting into someone's computer and duplicating all their pictures. you can't argue it wasn't theft just because you didn't physically "take" the pictures. i'd argue it was theft because now you have information you didn't have- and you acquired this information without the owners permission

[Instrumental]

actually i disagree. if you're making copies of something, then you're making a duplication. and that's one of the things that violates the terms of copyright.
The argument wasn't whether it violates the terms of copyright; the argument was whether it is stealing. If you want to argue that it is copyright infringement, that is fair enough, but the word steal already has a meaning, one that is separate from copyright infringement, one that has two aspects that I've presented for you. The fact that the copyright owner didn't want you to obtain it in such a manner doesn't change the fact that he is still in full possession of the item and thus hasn't been deprived of their property. (i.e. stolen from)

Your example of getting into someone's computer tries to slyly add in the context of unwanted access to someone's computer and files in order to slant the argument. In reality most media originates from a person who bought the item and decided to upload it via file sharing methods done willfully and openly between the uploader and downloader. Even if a person had consensual access to a person's files and decided to make a copy of them when asked not to, it would still not be stealing because the files weren't removed from the owner's possession. At worst, a breach of trust.

And I ask to you, the same questions in my previous post: "I also wonder when copying becomes a reprehensible crime to you all. If I burn a CD for a friend is that stealing? If I make a mixtape for a friend is that stealing? If I record tracks I like off the radio? If I rip a copy of an album and then give the physical copy to my friend is that stealing? What if they then do the same for his or herself and another friend? How many people do I have to share an item with before it is stealing? Just one? More? "

[bluesoul]

instrumentals: i think you are missing my point that just because something tangible isn't being taken there is no theft. remember, everything on the internet is just 1s and 0s (ones and zeros)- but it's the combination, amount and complexity of these that gives us the information that either makes up music, images, films etc

when i say "copying is stealing" what i mean is that you're getting this information (the ones and zeros) without the consent of the owner (which the copyright protects) i.e. from an illegal site, without paying etc.

even when you download something legally, you're technically only downloading a copy of the information- but the reason why it's not stealing is because you're getting this information how the author agreed for you to get it (with their consent)

i'll try and answer your other questions later

[RallyCola]

the answer is simple...can instrumental be fined or arrested for infringing copyright law...which is legally defined as theft of intellectual property.

the answer is yes.

no effort to explain away blatant theft is acceptable because it remains illegal.

should the laws ever agree with your POV, then i will yield to your point. until such time, you are a criminal just the same as a shoplifter. there are millions of people like you so its not that i really care what you do...it is just that your argument is self-serving and counter to the laws of our land.

[bluesoul]

"I also wonder when copying becomes a reprehensible crime to you all. If I burn a CD for a friend is that stealing? If I make a mixtape for a friend is that stealing? If I record tracks I like off the radio? If I rip a copy of an album and then give the physical copy to my friend is that stealing? What if they then do the same for his or herself and another friend? How many people do I have to share an item with before it is stealing? Just one? More? "

imo, it depends the "worth" of what is being copied.

let me give you an example. if i was to steal your credit card, what do you consider more valuable? the card itself, or the information on it? so, i can steal someone's credit card online, by copying the information it has (name, credit card number, expiration date, 3 numbers on the back, card type)

so you still retain your card (the physical credit card) but your information has now been compromised. would you still argue this isn't stealing because you're still in possession of your card?

as for your example of burning cds/or ripping albums: whilst still illegal to duplicate, this is the equivalent of jay-walking. nobody really cares until you're doing it on a chinese sweat-shop bootlegging operation where you have an entire store carrying nothing but illegally copied+burned cds to replace the genuine article (btw: some discs carrying warnings that specifically say not to lend or make illegal copies. legal copies are actually made by schools that purchase some discs with the purpose of installing them on multiple computers for learning/teaching etc. so the information on the disc is "copied" multiple times or libraries)

[Instrumental]

instrumentals: i think you are missing my point that just because something tangible isn't being taken there is no theft...

I don't disagree with anything here except the last bit. Violating what the copyright owner wants dictates that it is copyright infringement, not the same as physically depriving someone of an item (i.e. stealing)


the answer is simple...can instrumental be fined or arrested for infringing copyright law...which is legally defined as theft of intellectual property.

the answer is yes.

no effort to explain away blatant theft is acceptable because it remains illegal.

should the laws ever agree with your POV, then i will yield to your point. until such time, you are a criminal just the same as a shoplifter. there are millions of people like you so its not that i really care what you do...it is just that your argument is self-serving and counter to the laws of our land.

Oh, you're one of those people who thinks law dictates morality. No arguing with you then. Surprised to see someone like that here though. Fortunately this country isn't absurd enough to treat file sharers like burglars even though some folks would have it that way.


imo, it depends the "worth" of what is being copied...

If you're going to be logically consistent, the value can't matter. Stealing one cent or one billion dollars, the act of stealing doesn't change, the amount of money? Yes. The penalty? Yes. The fact that it was taken and deprived from the original owner? Nope.

No, your example with the credit card is not stealing. Until someone uses it to actually deprive me of money, it isn't stealing. And this is excusing the flawed premise of your example because unlike my credit card information which is private between me and vendors for one time transaction, free or not, digital media is put out for public consumption.

I'd agree that burning and ripping CDs is on the level of jay walking. I'd say the same about downloading media for the same reasons as well, just because it's a more convenient way about doing it doesn't change anything. And unless you're profiting, it's the same sharing amongst music/film/porn enthusiasts.

[RallyCola]

morality? please don't confuse morality with legality. what you are doing is illegal....that is all.

i don't give a fuck about morality...most of the board will tell you that...do what you want but please stop inventing bullshit self-serving arguments that stand in opposition to the law.

copyright infringement is illegal. there is no morality associated with that statement.

[Instrumental]

I never argued nor implied that copyright infringement wasn't illegal. You have quite the habit of avoiding the points of discussion.

[bluesoul]

No, your example with the credit card is not stealing. Until someone uses it to actually deprive me of money, it isn't stealing. And this is excusing the flawed premise of your example because unlike my credit card information which is private between me and vendors for one time transaction, free or not, digital media is put out for public consumption.

but someone doesn't have to deprive you of money when they steal you're credit card information. they could just pretend to be you. this is called identity theft. this information doesn't even need to be used to profit them, it can be used to damage you. so again, nothing is being deprived from you and/or gained by them

there is also theft of ideas, which is why companies copyright and patent their intellectual property: again, nothing psychical is being taken. in fact, nobody needs to see the schematics of a particular idea or product. they just need to know what you're working on and "copy" this. it doesn't even have to be accurately copied: eg trade secrets

i think a lot of the reason why people don't see a problem with downloading music and/or movies online is because of how easy it's been made and how "normal" it's been made. so it becomes a part of "being online"

[Instrumental]

but someone doesn't have to deprive you of money when they steal you're credit card information. they could just pretend to be you. this is called identity theft. this information doesn't even need to be used to profit them, it can be used to damage you. so again, nothing is being deprived from you and/or gained by them

You are again trying to change the subject by adding on additional things after the credit card info has been copied. None of what you have said changes the fact that copying the credit card info in and of itself isn't stealing. Furthermore, by damaging my credit score and gaining purchasing ability they previously didn't have via my credit, they are taking and gaining things respectively. That is all irrelevant to the discussion though; we're not talking about fraud; we're talking about copying things.


there is also theft of ideas, which is why companies copyright and patent their intellectual property: again, nothing psychical is being taken. in fact, nobody needs to see the schematics of a particular idea or product. they just need to know what you're working on and "copy" this. it doesn't even have to be accurately copied: eg trade secrets

Again, you're using an example of something not (yet) put out for public consumption. And on top of that, you're using an example where an individual or company takes the idea to profit from it thereby gaining income while depriving the originator of theirs. It's not remotely comparable to file sharing. If someone came upon trade secrets and documented their findings, that in and of itself isn't stealing and the only way you can turn it into a negative is by adding on additional context where they then try to capitalize on their findings, but that isn't the argument.

I would agree with your last line though. People also don't have a problem because the nature of the action doesn't require that one remove property from another person's possession. (i.e. it's not stealing).

[RallyCola]

i'm surprised no one "official" has weighted in on this thread yet

[bluesoul]

You are again trying to change the subject by adding on additional things after the credit card info has been copied. None of what you have said changes the fact that copying the credit card info in and of itself isn't stealing.

i disagree. copying credit card information (without the owners consent) is stealing, and thus illegal. and credit card fraud is theft

the reason i'm giving this example is to show you that theft doesn't necessarily mean something tangible has been stolen, but rather that it can extend to information eg. digital media or personal information

[Instrumental]

i disagree. copying credit card information (without the owners consent) is stealing, and thus illegal. and credit card fraud is theft

the reason i'm giving this example is to show you that theft doesn't necessarily mean something tangible has been stolen, but rather that it can extend to information eg. digital media or personal information
The reason you're giving this example is because it skews the argument from something benign like music or porn which can't be used to compromise one's identity to something that can like CC info. CC info is not analogous to digital media in its function or use and is thus irrelevant to the discussion of file sharing.

[Tapatio]

Almost all the music that I share with others for example I bought on CD somewhere or from Amazon MP3 or iTunes.

You derive some utility from sharing or you wouldn't do it.

You've stolen at least one utile.

[Instrumental]

Unless you would include, "likes to share things with others that I myself enjoy" a "utility" then no, I haven't. And if that would be included, that still wouldn't have any relevance to it being stealing.

Also utile is an adjective, not a noun.

[Tapatio]

Unless you would include, "likes to share things with others that I myself enjoy" a "utility" then no, I haven't. And if that would be included, that still wouldn't have any relevance to it being stealing.

Also utile is an adjective, not a noun.

Just a test. You obviously didn't take Econ (or learn anything, if you did.)

Utility includes precisely what you described.

And a "utile" is a base unit of utility that the cool Econ profs reference.

And then there's every other rationalization you've posted in this thread. Those were clues, too.

The problem is that we're entertaining this bullshit.

Thieves, anti-choice folks, theocrats- somebody starts in with this, the only answer should be a stern "No."

If that doesn't work, maybe a rolled-up newspaper.

[Instrumental]

Unfortunately nothing in that post or the previous addresses my actual argument or even attempts to refute it. As I already said, "if that would be included, that still wouldn't have any relevance to it being stealing."

All you've made is a smarmy self-aggrandizing post trying to flaunt Econ 101 trivia. In fact by saying "just" a test, you even acknowledge that it was not an attempt to challenge what I said, and nothing more than an attempt to catch my lack of knowledge on something I have no problem admitting I did not know.

[Tapatio]

*sternly* No.

[Instrumental]

Good to know your already flawed and irrelevant contributions to this discussion have been minimized to two words. Perhaps we can make it even less next time.

[JackBeLittle]

I don't think the "try before you buy" argument is a valid justification to going to free streaming sites. Irregardless of the semantics, the performers lose out on being compensated fairly for their livelihood. Frankly, I don't understand how all the tube sites are even allowed to exist? Do they pay to put the content up and stream it? Do any of my favorite performers get any of the revenue this tube site or that tube site generates? Personally, I think it sucks. And why not pay? It's cheaper than ever and you can download all you want legally and in good conscience. So what if you get a klunker every now and then? For 20 bucks a month I see all the porn I can saturate myself with and can know that I'm not stealing, infringing, pirating,.... <insert your own chosen verb>....