Grooby Legal Action against Piracy ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

This is from the Jordan Capri site: Look like shemale porn to you?
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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

hypocrite

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmyDaly

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/sho...242#post751242

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.

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?

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.

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~

too heavy and complex to sort out but i can try and lighten the mood................... YouTube- Amazon Women On The Moon - Video Pirates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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~

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

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.