Go after them? That would pretty much be a lost cause IMO. Thats like taking on the entire world wide web. I was just having this conversation with a friend of mine about how Youtube was only intended for users to post videos of themselves. However, a good 90 percent of the videos on there break all copyright laws. Being that majority of the stuff uploaded on the site is from tv, movies, media, etc. Thing is......that 90 percent is the stuff that makes youtube so popular, bringing in large amountS of traffic, generating more income for the site. edit, edit, HELL! pretty much every porn site out there that allows users to upload material is made up of all stolen content. 4chan is just the tip of the iceberg. Quick question! How do you know that it was 4 chan specifically that attacked hustler? It seems like any kind of trolling, bullying, or cyber attacks whatsoever is ALWAYS blamed on 4 chan, as if that site is a organzanized mastermind of cyber bullies. I go on there often and all i see is random images with random comments. No big plots, plans, set-ups to attack anyone the way people always portray that site to be like. [mod edit: names of tube sites removed. We don't need to advertise for them. Thx.] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 2/2/2011 8:58:54 PM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 3 2010 : 7:44PM
Harri he didn't buy anything, he stole it. The collection agency is already in place are going after it. You have to understand, if someone knows they illegally downloaded something and gets a bill, let's say 2 out of 10 will pay. When they receive a second notice threatening collection, another 3 out of 8 will pay. That leaves 5 guys that still haven't paid, but 5 have. When you think that they just sent out 125,000 letters a month, the numbers are staggering. I get it, people do not like it, they think it is heavy handed by the studios, but again, they have been backed into a corner, the pirates have forced their hand. I also think that you may be incorrect about action that can be taken, if you download a mainstream movie illegally, or burn copies of one, you can be held accountable. Ok let's say they can't bill you, but they surely can press charges against you, which would cost you a lot more than the $35 to $65 they are seeking.
Hello everyone! Just thought i'd drop a positive comment on how to fight piracy. Let me assume that piracy = downloaders + uploaders + technical intermediates If you take down any of those parameters, you solve your problem. I think that technical intermediates are like a hydra: cut one service like limewire, ten new alternatives will spring up. Downloaders are for the most part an enormous herd that goes where grass is greener. Finally, uploaders are the leaders. I like the Dale Carnegie approach: what's in it for those people and how to get them to change? Tech intermediates: they're mostly here for the business, and they don't care about who does what. YouTube is a good example: they don't care people using licensed content as long as it brings visitors in. How to help them make money by fighting piracy or at least not participatingnin it? No idea.
Downloaders: they want the easiest way to get the most diverse, quality content for the cheapest price. You got 5 ways to fight piracy: easier way to access porn, more porn than they could find by illegal means, specific fetishes, best quality, lower marginal prices. 1) as someone said earlier it can be easier to illegally download from the Internet than to rip a DVD for personal use. When legal content is more difficult to access than illegal downloading, you've got a problem. 2) many of the sites I subscribe to completely screwed the encoding of DVDs: it's interlaced, bad codecs, low resolution... When amateurs do things for free better than professionals for a wage, you've got a problem. 3) offer them a quality product they could not copy and share illegally: integrated forums with links to content, some sort of interactivity, best search engine, user generated content... Uploaders: they're in it for the fun, pride, money or fight for freedom. And they're the ones leading the pack. Studies say there are 15% of Interrs contributing with their own content, remixes or someone else's content. Trying to attack them directly might not prove a successful strategy, you may scare away the ones that are in it for the money, but the rest of them have the tech knowledge and determination to fight back. E.g. 4chan. What can you offer them to stop uploading? Maybe offer them a fun and open way to share content (maybe even a way to make money with it). I'm thinking a simplified digital distribution license might ease things a little bit. It's only a speck, so give your ideas if you care ! Kink.com turns to live format with members participating: http://www.xbiz.com/news/127013 Hey, great initiative! Let me know your thoughts on this one. If you hesitate between trashing my ideas and bringing some of your own (except dragging thousands of punks' asses to court which has already been discussed at length with little results), well go for the latter! Edited by - Jambavant on 11/3/2010 9:11:09 PM
For those still interested in the question "are illegal downloaders potential customers or plain ass punks?", go read this http://www.xbiz.com/news/127061 Edited by - Jambavant on 11/3/2010 9:11:59 PM
You could be right, but billing to 7000 people sounds more like an automated process. With lawyers to pay I don't see them being likely to care about someone with Windows infection issues.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 3 2010 : 10:51PM
Agreed, but content providers in the industry don't appear to care. They're going to stick with their flawed business model and sue anyone that deviates from it until they learn many years from now, after wasting many millions of dollars, that a different approach is more effective.
Woody, I think you're awesome, man...and I really hate the pirates... BUT there's a legit way to do things and a half-ass way to do them that has a good chance of crashing down around one's ears when it's put to the test. Sadly, I think that this will likely fall under the latter category. There's very little that's legit about it (in my opinion), and it really smacks of a "two wrongs don't make a right" situation. Edited by - fu_q on 11/3/2010 11:13:47 PM
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Nov 4 2010 : 2:16AM
yeah, but if two wrongs don't make a right, what do two rights make? An Airplane!
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 4 2010 : 1:02PM
Please don't misunderstand me here, I don't like the idea of bills and lawyers, I think this is a last ditch attempt at fighting something that is not ever going away. I am all ears about a new business model, but it has to make economic sense, for everyone. I had a long conversation with someone who steals content everyday of his life last night. He doesn't like to do it, so he says, but he doesn't have the income to be a consumer. He admitted he is not a potential customer as long as he can get it for free. He liked the idea of iporn, he could see a clip, buy a scene or buy a movie, without the download time, and potential virus threat, but again he pointed out, he would need some disposable income to do that, which he doesn't have. I think the answer is to make the content more attractive to buy, bonus scenes. I am the guy who would love to find a better business model. So far no one has offered that solution that makes economic sense.
I think theres bigger fish to fry. While stealing content as a consumer maybe wrong. Theres websites out here thats not only stealing content, but they're using it as their own. Then charging a monthly fee to view it. A guy that I use to talk too ran a website like that for years. He would simply go around, collect photos from different sites. Upload them to his own and charge 20 bucks a month to be a member. It wasnt until he was threatned with a lawsuit that he then started to produce his own material.
This girl certainly regrets she didn't pay the first fine of 5000$: Her trial is still going on after three years, she has been fined for 222.000$, then upped to 1.920.000$, then reduced to 54.000$, then upped to 1.500.000$, and it's not finished yet. What a joke... Can't they agree on a consistent number ? How could a mom ever pay a 1.500.000$ fine ? She's not a company for god's sake. It's exactly the kind of trial the RIAA has been wasting time and money on, while getting a terrible image for themselves. They certainly regret they brought her to court, but it's too late to stop, they would make fools of themselves.
Wow. Over 10,000 comments. I read about fifty of them, with about 40 against the RIAA for bringing the case or the courts for allowing such a huge dollar amount. One thing was really clear: plenty of people sincerely believe that "It's not illegal if you're just sharing stuff". They even think it would be illegal if they were charging, but not if they just give copies out as they like. There's definitely an education problem out there.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 5 2010 : 1:31PM
She won't end up paying but a fraction of the amount. They are clearly using her as an example. It is not about the money, it is all about the message.
[/quote] Wow. Over 10,000 comments. I read about fifty of them, with about 40 against the RIAA for bringing the case or the courts for allowing such a huge dollar amount. One thing was really clear: plenty of people sincerely believe that "It's not illegal if you're just sharing stuff". They even think it would be illegal if they were charging, but not if they just give copies out as they like. There's definitely an education problem out there. [/quote] I agree. I read about 100 comments and most people were using the "It's not stealing it's a sharing website" LOL. This is a huge problem itself.. People think these companies make too much money and they don't deserve to have credit for each download someone takes. I read one good point on there though. Someone was saying that stealing files on the internet is like speeding on the highway. Almost everyone speeds on the highway, some people speed a lot faster than you but when you get pulled over don't cry because YOU ended up getting caught even if people everywhere were speeding right along with you. A cop can only pull one person over at a time, same with RIAA. It's the mentality people have in this world that always catches up to them "It will never happen to me". I think 1.5 million is way too harsh but something like 10,000-15,000 seems like a good fine for downloading, depending on the frequency and amount of downloads.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 5 2010 : 6:47PM
There's not an education problem on this matter. People understand quite well what's going on because it's common sense. They know morally and logically there's a world of difference between walking out of a store with a cd without paying for it and buying that same cd from the store and making and sharing copies of it with your friends
Regardless of the methodology, etc. ... in reading all of this stuff about suing and "billing", I'm glad that I never partook in any of the piracy stuff.
Solar, You stil need Brick and Mortar stores. Just because you can wait a week for your DVD, or are willing to watch it on a computer does not mean everyone feels the same way. I sell thousands of dollars in DVDs everyday between 3 stores, and you would not believe how many people tell me they have no interest in using the internet for porn. Whether it's viruses, or the fact they don't want to put sensitive information out there, they still come in and buy from me. People still want to walk in and hold the DVD in their hand. Also, when a couple watches a movie, I'm sure they'd prefer to watch it on their TV than on a computer monitor. And thank you for repeating what I said about Digital Playground. You stated no new info there. As for Toy Story, I guess you can't believe every website you read. I posted a URL to a site that said it cost under $100 million with advertising, you posted one saying it cost $190 million. Which do you believe? Either way, they atleast doubled their money just on the box office, something adult doesn't have. Fergus was kind enough to point out that both our links are shady, so there you go. I would venture out and say it cost maybe, at the most, $20,000 to make a standard gonzo movie. That would mean they would have to sell 2,000 dvds to break even if sold at $10 per piece (we aren't including other avenues distribution yet). Are you starting to see the math here? Certain studios are lucky to sell 1500 pieces and they pray for reorders. This does not include DVDs that are returned either as unsold or defective. You complaining about pricing is pretty ridiculous. You have no idea on cost, how much VOD or cable/hotel distribution makes for these companies, or really anything else. You're just saying they should be cheaper because you either don't have the money to pay for each movie you want, or you're just cheap. That sucks either way, but there is a certain amount each studio/distributor/retailer needs to make per DVD, otherwise it's not worth it to make/stock new DVDs. And right now, if there is no reason to make/stock new DVDs, then there probably is no reason to make new content. If the pirates paid for their movies thru Hotmovies or Adult Dvd Empire, then maybe you could make new content without DVDs. But as of right now, I don't think that's the case.
I'd say people are not as smart as you think, which might include your good self as well. There is certainly a difference between walking out of a store with a cd and buying that same cd from the store then sharing copies of it with your friends, but I doubt most people sharing on the web understand the difference very thoroughly, and your response suggests you don't, either. Do you understand that when you buy the cd in the shop you've bought the media - the cd material itself - and the right to use *one* copy of the content in limited ways? That's it, one copy, just the copy on that cd. And it's for private use unless you buy a license for broadcast. You want more copies, you buy more cds. That's the law. Now, for many years companies have understood and accepted that people like sharing music and other art with their friends. For many years there has been little attempt to pursue people for single infringments of the 'one cd, one copy' rule, or even for a few. There have been good reasons for this. There has been the argument that people have the right to make their own backup, for instance, in case they lose the original cd or it gets damaged. Fair enough. There has been the argument that when a fan makes a few copies for friends they increase the fan base of the band (or whatever), and that most fans probably don't make such copies. Fair enough, a few copies from every tenth fan probably won't hurt too much, even if a few of those friends then share with a couple more people. And if someone uses the cd in a cafe to entertain customers, well, it probably isn't worth employing people to sit in every tiny cafe in the country just to find the ones using your cd. But when you talk about buying a cd from a store and 'sharing copies of it with your friends' and it refers to rapidshare or torrent - or any web-based distribution - then you're not talking about a few copies for friends. You're talking about tens of thousands of copies, maybe even hundreds of thousands. And of those people, maybe a tenth of them will propagate through other sites than the one they got it from, and another ten thousand or hundred thousand will get it from that source, and maybe a tenth go to yet another site etc. In the old scenario, without the web, 'sharing copies with your friend' meant that one in ten fans might be responsible for maybe ten copies being made. With the web, if a legit buyer shares through rapidshare, torrent, tubesites, 4chan, easter egged youtube clips and all the stuff I don't yet know about, they could be responsible for a few hundred thousand copies. Yes, there's a difference between stealing a cd from a store and buying it then sharing it through copies on the net, but I don't think it's the difference you were thinking of In the first case all you've done is stolen the cd media and one copy of the artwork on it. In the second case you might have been the source of hundreds of thousands of instances of copyright infringement, and potentially liable for every one of them.
To me, comparing porn revenues to major motion picture revenues is like comparing single malt scotch to popular soda. Not that porn is high quality - most demonstrably isn't - but it's 'adults only', an acquired taste, and only available in limited ways. You cannot buy single malt scotch at MacDonald's or most of the stores at which you can buy soda. You can't buy it at most of the events where you could buy a soda - the movies or a sports event or a theme park. It's illegal to buy single malt scotch under a certain age, which doesn't apply to soda anywhere in the world, as far as I know. And of course, only a small proportion of people who can buy single malt scotch do so in a lifetime, let alone a year or a month, where a very large proportion of people buy soda, either for themselves or their kids or for a bbq or party, at some point every month, certainly every year. No doubt that porn production is cheaper than mainstream movie production, which is the reverse of the scotch/soda analogy, but the comparison fell down before we got to that anyway. Different revenue opportunities and different production costs; no comparison.
^ Well, the trick is that someone would have to want to download and share that work. If it's crap, no one will do so. It's only the good stuff (i.e. the stuff 'worth paying for') that someone is going to bother getting in the first place, and sharing with others. That person may then claim that it's no good and they wouldn't have paid for it if they couldn't get it for free, and that may be true; but it's also true that they do see some value in it, otherwise they wouldn't bother keeping it on their computer.
Wow, so this person can't see the difference between the copyright holder posting it and a non-copyright holder posting it. Nice. Glad our educational system is working.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 7 2010 : 6:59AM
I was wondering when the ad hominems were going to come out to buttress an argument that can't stand on its own merits. It's understood quite well by most that when you purchase a copy of some digital media you have the right to use the copy in limited ways. However what you may not be aware of is that in many cases the rules on what one is allowed do with the media once its purchased are so byzantine that in many cases one can't even copy a dvd or cd for personal use because the software to do so isn't allowed to be distributed. Furthermore, the notion that one can be told not to share with friends or family copies of digital media that one has purchased is highly counterintuitive and thus not taken as seriously as the self-evident issue that it's morally unacceptable to walk out of a store with a cd/dvd without paying for it.That's really all this strategy is. Because they erroneously believe that they can extort and blackmail potential customers as a way of increasing their profits instead of modifying their business model.
Yea all this reminds me of a new drug commercial on TV. A remedy where there's a million potential side effects. Turning anti-piracy into a business doesn't pass the smell test. Do these shady lawyers REALLY want an end to piracy as much as we do?
And apparently you don't understand what ad hominem is. In fact, your own comment is ad hominem, since you attempt to link behavior with invalidity of argument. My comments are not ad hominem; when you think someone doesn't understand something it isn't ad hominem to say "You don't understand". You still don't seem to understand that being the source of copies of an artwork is definitely different to stealing a cd, but not necessarily in a good way. You suggest that it's all about sharing copies with friends and family. If that was the case we wouldn't be having this conversation. You've repeated the 'friends and family' thing and ignored my comments about wider distribution. When it really is just a matter of a few copies among friends and family the industries involved have generally let it ride. But if you think your 'friends' means everyone who can access 4chan or rapidshare, and the 'few copies' becomes twenty thousand copies, then you're in a new league and the companies are going to get pissed. If you're the source of five or ten copies, not much of a problem. If you're the source of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of copies, big problem, and a bigger one than a single cd being stolen. If you want to continue this discussion and be taken seriously, don't pretend it's about a few copies between friends and family. It's about thousands of copies, in some cases tens of thousands, and if you're talking about the whole shebang including mainstream music and movies then in some cases hundreds of thousands or millions. I'm not anywhere near as unfamiliar with the byzantine nature of copyright law as I'd like to be. I use a suite of design programs that is only licensed for one computer. If I want to use it on my laptop I have to de-register it on my desktop before starting it up and re-registering on the laptop. I know how much copyright law can suck, and I'm talking about a $1600 suite where I have to pay another $1600 just to have a copy permanently available on each computer rather than this de-register/re-register crap. You're complaining about $20 cds and $40 DVDs, try $1600 a pop.
That's really all this strategy is. Because they erroneously believe that they can extort and blackmail potential customers as a way of increasing their profits instead of modifying their business model.
Click to expand
Yep, you are correct. A company putting their material on a tube site and then suing downloaders is exactly the same as a person deciding, without any permission from the company, to put their material on a tube site and then downloaders being sued. Just like you putting all your stuff on your lawn with a free sign on it and then calling the cops when people take it is exactly the same as someone else coming by your house when you are gone and deciding for you to put all your stuff on the front lawn with a free sign and you calling the cops when you found out on the people who took stuff.
Something else is missing from this thread: booty, as in what pirates seek. What they forget is booty ain't free.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 7 2010 : 5:14PM
It wasn't about saying someone doesn't understand it was about the old debate tactic of using an ad hominem by stating that someone whom one disagrees with isn't intelligent because they don't agree with them. Well on the issue of copyright that would be a substantial percentage of the world's population. And the entire problem with ad hominems since you don't seem to get it, is that it makes rational debate impossible as someone inevitably gets offended once such a tactic is used and the debate degenerates into insults. So if you want to be taken seriously, lose the ad hominems, and stick to the matter at hand.Actually it is you that doesn't seem to understand that if one is on a trusted network limited to say 30 people who are friends of someone, the RIAA/MPAA will still want it shut down because if you had taken the time to learn about their byzantine and in some cases blatantly illogical policies (e.g., saying fair use is fine, but banning the software to make copying for personal use possible) , they don't want any cd or movie copied and distributed to any private citizens without their explicit authorization, which is of course almost never given.If you don't wish to take the discussion seriously that's an issue you'll need to work out because the RIAA/MPAA policies, if you had taken the time to research them, don't make allowances for sharing digital content between friends and family on trusted networks, to them it's an all or nothing proposition and all those who fileshare are equally wrong in their eyes, which is primarily why no one takes their policies seriously, among other reasons. Edited by - Solar4 on 11/7/2010 5:38:45 PM
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 7 2010 : 5:25PM
It's actually nothing more than a shakedown because the industry isn't creative enough to see that changing their business model would be more profitable than extorting and blackmailing potential customers to pay them, which if they ask the Mafia doesn't work too well for long. Furthermore, in your example it would actually be equivalent to someone having a yard sale, selling their items to a number of people, then getting upset when those people made duplicates of those items after they already purchased them. Then proceeding to threaten them because they don't like their items being copied after already being paid for and telling those people to pay up or be sued. Edited by - Solar4 on 11/7/2010 5:28:42 PM
No, you've convinced me it's all fine. It's the same as you offering to buy the night's drinks at a bar for everyone there on your credit card, and filing fraud charges and the bartender deciding to charge everyone's drinks at the bar to your credit card and filing fraud. Copies has nothing to do with it since the actual item of value is the movie. Using a copy of your credit card number must be acceptable too. Since it's just a copy. You still have the original card number.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 7 2010 : 6:56PM
False comparison. You're comparing a sequence of numbers (in this case a cc#) that aren't supposed to be used except to purchase items and then only by the person who the number was given to with CD's and Movies that are sold to millions, and can be copied in some cases, but aren't "supposed" to be copied and distributed to a subjectively ascertained and changing number of people.
Wait, so a copy of a credit card number, that doesn't deprive you of the original credit card number isn't acceptable since it was only intended to be used by one person, but a copy of a DVD or CD, that doesn't deprive you of the original DVD or CD is acceptable even though it was was only intended to by used by one person? Now you've wrecked it for me. You had convinced me that this whole "sharing" thing was acceptable. But now you keep changing the rules for each different object. If the copy of one object that was intended for use by one person that doesn't deprive you of the original item is okay and the copy of another object that was intended for use by one person that doesn't deprive you of the original isn't okay then there must be something wrong with your logic. Either they are both okay, and you are okay with "sharing" your credit card numbers or neither is okay.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 7 2010 : 10:56PM
Your attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding, as you well know, or should know, cd's and dvd's can be copied and shared in limited circumstances, credit card numbers on the other hand, are not to be used by anyone but the person they're given to. Edited by - Solar4 on 11/7/2010 10:59:47 PM
So can credit card numbers. In fact, you can even request extra copies from the credit card company that you can share with your spouse, over 18 year old child, aunt, room mate, etc and they will send them to you. Free I believe.
@Flash: come on, I'm sure you feel your point is a little awkward. Your interest in CDs comes from the CD itself, whereas the CC# has only interest because of the bank account it's linked to. The CD has value in itself, not the CC. If you still have interest in the CC# itself, I'll gladly send you a couple copies of my old cards. There are some very good ideas in this debate, but the trolling has to stop. Furthermore , no one should think content can be free, those who do are plain silly. So stop considering that those calling for a new business model are secretly wishing content were free. Everyone can see it's not possible. Edited by - Jambavant on 11/8/2010 1:07:41 PM
No, actually I don't. DVDs, CDs etc have notices on the packaging and on the screen that state that it is illegal to duplicate them. Credit cards don't. If one can be "shared" then why can't the other be "shared". It's the same set of circumstances.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 8 2010 : 3:25PM
^ send your new ones to make him really happy. Flash, good point. I agree.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 8 2010 : 5:09PM
And of course only one person is suppose to use the credit card #. Which you already know. And I know you're trying desperately to equate credit card numbers with copying and sharing cd's and dvd's, but with even a cursory examination of the differences between such entities, such an attempt falls apart.And cd's and dvd's can be copied and shared by multiple people, it's called fair use. Credit Card numbers however are not to be copied and shared by multiple people. You know that. So at this point you're really just trolling. Edited by - Solar4 on 11/8/2010 5:14:56 PM
No, it's not. Fair use is when you make multiple copies for your own use. Ergo, back before cars had CD players, if you bought a CD fair use allowed you to make a tape copy so you could listen to the music in your car. That's because the courts determined it was the music that you were paying for, not the medium. The courts did not grant you a license to make copies to give your friends. sp Edited by - hardware on 11/8/2010 5:35:15 PM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 8 2010 : 6:03PM
cds and dvds cannot be copied under fair use if they are copy righted works. Read the warning. Fair use means YOU can load them into itunes, or listen to them in your car, or listen to them at your computer at work, it does not mean you can make copies for your friends or upload them to a share site, or download them from a share site. even the share site have a disclaimer, if it is copy righted works do not up or download, though no one listens, doesn't make it right. As for me, if these share sites don't comply, they should be shutdown. They don't police themselves, they expect the copy right holder to do it. Which is just plain out horse shit on rye bread.
