Grooby Legal Action against Piracy ...

[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!

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.