Printable View
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
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.
Ahoy Matey! Pardon me, but would ya mind if I fired me cannon through your porthole? :geek:
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~
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.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...p-attorney.ars
Please tell me this was the moron you had suing people.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by werwt22
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.
Pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
Whom? Me? Absolutely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tika
A couple of points to consider before you start making a lawyer rich:
1. The amount of software and media illegally downloaded far outstrips what would normally be sold to to the people that download it. If not available, they simply would not and could not buy most of it. The same applies to Web sites. How many users can afford to subscribe to more than one $30 Web site a month?
Claims of lost revenue do not always reflect this reality.
2. The market is saturated and much of the content being produced is sub-par. In other words, you have a lot of producers and performers vying in a limited market that offers an overwhelming number of choices--many of which are not up to snuff.
3. There are always a pricing and packaging options. If a scene that interested someone was available individually for a couple of bucks, you might find that the inconsistent but immediate nature of attraction works to your benefit.
In other words, you can probably make a lot more money being creative and finding a formula that attracts more business rather than becoming litigious.
Can you do both?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghbryans1
I just cant believe how dumb people are. Have you ever heard of a library? They give you a book, CD, DVD, newspaper whatever type of media you want and all you have to do is return it when they say. Now the time I have it in my possession I can do whatever I want with it. If I destroy the item I pay for it. If I want to copy a book via writing it out or photocopy then I can, and that goes for the DVD’s and CD's or audio books. Here is the thing, if I paint an exact copy of the Mona Lisa and say that I came up with it when I sell it... well that is wrong and that’s why there are copyright laws. However If I give it to someone then there is nothing wrong. Cause if everyone is so worried about stealing and losing money then let’s all just close every library in the world. After all they are sharing copyrighted material.
Ahhh this is why I wont be going back to any grooby websites you will NEVER ever get rid Piracy your fighting a lost cause you take down one website how many others go up b4 the day is over
I think you just solved the internets. That is astounding 10/10.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobhutt46
I just cant believe how dumb people are. I would agree with you, but it's because most people don't understand the law, not because they're bad people.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobhutt46
Have you ever heard of a library? They give you a book, CD, DVD, newspaper whatever type of media you want and all you have to do is return it when they say. No, they simply loan you a book for a limited period of time for you to read.
Now the time I have it in my possession I can do whatever I want with it. Where the fuck did you get that idea?
If I destroy the item I pay for it. So far I'm with you.
If I want to copy a book via writing it out or photocopy then I can, and that goes for the DVD’s and CD's or audio books. No, you can't. That's called infringement. Seriously, trust me on this. That's why DVD's CD's and audio books have anti-copying mechanisms incorporated into them. And it's one of the reasons that print media is dying on the vine.
Here is the thing, if I paint an exact copy of the Mona Lisa and say that I came up with it when I sell it... well that is wrong and that’s why there are copyright laws. Well you're not exactly right here. The copyright on the Mona Lisa is long expired, you can make whatever copy of it that you desire. And you can even say it's an original to you, but you can't say it's the original or that it's a Leonardo da Vinci. That would be wrong because, among other things it's a lie.
However If I give it to someone then there is nothing wrong. Oh yes there is, if you give someone a copy of a book or a CD or DVD that you copied, there is something wrong with that. Basically, you've deprived the author, performer or studio of revenue based on a lost sale of the work. On the other hand, if you gave someone the original of one you actually bought and didn't retain a copy, it'd be ok.
Cause if everyone is so worried about stealing and losing money then let’s all just close every library in the world. After all they are sharing copyrighted material. Here's where your logic falls apart. A library actually BUYS books for lending (not copying), NetFlix does the same thing, they charge you for renting a movie to view (not to copy); Yes, you are correct, libraries (and rental places) do share copyrighted materials but for the limited purpose of the borrower reading or viewing it and returning it to the library. Do you think if rented a car you could strip it and sell it for parts or simply resell it? I mean, after all, the rental companies are just sharing cars, so let's just close every car dealership .
I get your frustration but you're misinformed about the law.
I don't think Grooby(unlike Time Warner & Motion Picture Association of America, etc) are trying to get rid piracy,they and their lawyers are just trying to shakedown a few Joe Blows,who would rather pay up than have their names publicly associated with 'deviant' tranny porn.Quote:
Originally Posted by bart87
If you are the kind of person who won't submit to legal blackmail or you just don't give a fuck about being 'tarnished' with the stigma of wacking off to sicko tranny porn.You would probably not end up in court or paying them anything.
Intellect of the Year!Quote:
Originally Posted by bobhutt46
Hmmm ... if it's a lost cause then how come we're WINNING! ?Quote:
Originally Posted by bart87
You've not idea how many sites we've taken down ... but don't let your idiotic posting stop you from taking a stand ... go back to other sites, not grooby websites.
Oh no, we'd LOVE to get rid of piracy. In the few days the file lockers have been down we've seen traffic rise and since we've started a very aggressive approach against piracy, DMCA'ing over 30,000 links a month and making it as difficult as possible for people to find our content, sales have held as well as we could expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by timxxx
The end-user litigation we've brought against people is just part of our legal action - we've served papers on a number of US individuals directly whom we have overwhelming evidence of sharing our files and if they don't appear in court, they will have the judgement ruled against them automatically (watch this space).
As I stated though, we'd love to get rid of piracy so we could concentrate on what we like doing best which is producing and marketing TS porn and all that goes with it.
Hmmmm isn't ashemaletube spankwire xvideos and shit load of forums still up were you can go watch and download shit yea really winning and just cause you take down one site or a few sites like I said how many go up when you take those down ?? You can't answer that can you but keep fighting your lil fight against free speech and freedom cause it's going nowhereQuote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
How much of our content do you see on those tube sites you mentioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by bart87
I'm all for free speech and freedom, so don't be a douche trying to bring that in. Theft has nothing to do with limiting free speech.
What's your address? I want to use my freedom of speech to come around and steal your property.
Hmmmm ALOT you also gotta ask your self when someone puts a video of your stuff up on those tube sites how many people download it and put it on forums or share it with there friends b4 you have those tube sites take it down ???Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
And yea you really can't answer how many sites go up when you take down a few of those site there already is another site like megavideo and oh okay your for freedom and free speech your just not for internet freedom I get it.
And no you can't come steal my shit cause I never stole any of your videos or pics I downloaded them all when I WAS a member of your site.
I like that, who wrote it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
Kinda like saying using a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.
Yes of course. It would certainly be better to try to come up with new business models that provide revenue than to rely solely on litigion. I think sites that make money selling stolen stuff should be taken down and the owners prosecuted, and I'm never going to argue against that. What I fear is that the sheer scale of the issue, in terms of the numbers of people who download copyrighted material for their own use, will mean that again and again we'll see the mushroom effect, that the more sites are taken down, the more will spring up, and as I said before, people will end up paying fortunes to lawyers to play whack-a-mole. The obvious comparisons are with the drug trade and prostitution; in both cases huge amounts of money are invested in criminalising both the purveyors and the users, to very little effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Basically, copyright is a print-era way of thinking. In the internet era, people are growing used to getting content for free. Quite often, as in the case of the web browser I'm using, this is quite legal and the intended use of the designers of the software. But the culture of free access is promoted on the back of that, and it is not a tide that can be turned back.
I don't know what the solution is, or are, since there will have to be many. But the quicker we start coming up with them the better.:shrug
You know what this is gonna sound crazy as hell but maby just maby if you didn't give people the option to download videos off of your site they wouldn't turn up on tube sites or forums
Umm so what would he be selling, exactly? A watchable stream can be saved to the local computer and subsequently redistributed. This may take a little bit of know-how when protection is in place to stop that, but it can always be done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16658923
I'm not sure this thread--since it deals specifically with Grooby's actions--is the best place for this, but WTF. This article carries a lot of sense.
Why shouldn't members be able to download and enjoy the content? In principle I'd support a DRM system where only the downloader could watch the content and it would be impossible to share but there isn't a good system that fits the bill right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by bart87
That people were ever allowed to download content just because they had a subscription was always ridiculous. You should've never had that option to begin with. You should be logged on with your membership every time you get to see the content. Period. Wanna see it again a month from now? Stay subscribed or rejoin. But it's a bit to late to adopt that mentality now, after years of everyone handing over their site's content on a silver platter for a measly $30.
Actually, I wrote it, so thank you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
~BB~
Probably... ;-) But generally speaking, but it might a bad idea from a PR standpoint to sue the fans, whether they're ripping you off or not. You'll see it as defending your rights, many will attribute it to greed and feel even less inclined to pay you money.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
The entire entertainment industry is struggling with this, but I think the sheer number of users on the Internet can support much lower prices and a per video format. Google and the iTunes store have made billions with that model. Why don't you try it with one site or one video on a site and see how it works out? You might even try a percentage of sales deal with the models.
I truly believe there is a sweet spot where the majority of users will say "Well, I really want to see this and it's only $2 so I'll buy it rather than waste my time looking for it elsewhere." But it has to be quality, and it has to be the right price. Sadly, I have no idea what the actual price would be. I also think the per video model will give you much better idea of what's selling and where to put your money.
But I'm no expert. These are just thoughts.
So religion states that having sex with another man is wrong. Does that stop you (or me) from doing so. After all fucking someone with a dick is againts any religion. Does that stop anyone from doing so. Religion and laws are created by man. Are they right or wrong? It doesnt matter. Do as you want and you shall be free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobzz
Wow ... what another intelligent and well thought out argument. So anybody can do as they want?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobhutt46
Brilliant.
You are either an idiot savant or just an idiot.
Name calling is just the result of a feeble intellect.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
At least you have managed to post a rational point. Well done, give yourself credit. What's your excuse for the other rubbish you've posted?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobhutt46
Years ago, when I was in the travelling book business (You didn't know they had legs, did you? Just like clams.), we had a mantra:
People are stupid.
They will buy anything for a buck.
Buy now, buy low, buy lots.
As crass as it sounds, this formula worked rather well, not just in books, but in other commodities as well.
I've been guilty of file sharing, as have we all (The ones that say they haven't will lie about masturbation, too). I've seen the error of my ways, reformed, and moved on. I've also suffered the effects of it as I have a hand in a dotcom that has its fingers in the VOD download model. As 'free' interweb video viewing became prevalent, our revenues slid downward.
We don't have all that much to lose as most of the content we pimp is previous or existing product that was legally licensed for the VOD model. Still, we feel the pinch. The same cannot be said of the producers/providers/talent of that content.
Then come the creators. I attended a talk by Cory Doctorow, a science fiction author/editor that is very in tune to what is happening on the interwebs as far as content and legal/illegal sharing is involved. While he is certainly concerned as to the whereabouts and distribution of his own intellectual property, he is also concerned about the various shotgun responses and bows-and-arrows-against-the-lightning (Reference: Jeff Wayne's "War Of The Worlds") defenses that are waged in the anti-piracy fight. Doctorow's adamant opposition against SOPA/PIPA and his detailed reasons for it, show that there is still a great deal of work to be done to develop a fair balance for both producer and consumer.
"Free. That's the best price." - Gary Cogdell, musician, producer and potential victim of bootlegging/piracy.
When does it become 'right'?
Best answer: It doesn't, and laws and regulations make it impossible as an option. In real life, however, the threat remains and is epidemic. The best that we can hope for is that our respective creation, be it written, acoustic, visual, or whatever is so unique, so original, so high quality that we can depend on a certain number of people to support us in all of our endeavors to the point that we can profit, or at the very least, be fulfilled.
People should have the option to download content. When you buy a DVD, you own it. You can watch it as much as you want in private without always buying the same movie to view over and over again. No is going to rejoin a site to watch one video again. One video is NOT worth $30 to view every few months when you are in the mood to watch it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre
l wish porn producers would concentrate on finding ways to make buying porn easy & affordable like itunes.
I could pirate songs almost as easily as buying them from itunes but l still choose to buy 'most' of my tracks from itunes.Why ? Because the price is reasonable and the purchasing mechanism is easy.And I don't have to buy an whole CD,just the songs l want.
An itunes type Grooby site would be great,where you could buy a single scene for £5.99 & £1.99 for the photo set.I'm sure there's plenty of good reasons way it's not possible to do.But that would be great.