Grooby Legal Action against Piracy ...

[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.