^ If you borrow a friends dvd and copy it or swop dvds with him I doubt whether anyone is likely to complain but when organisations set themselves up offering stolen content to the public at large for "free" and then profit from someone elses work by advertising or charging then how can that not be blatant theft on their part. Therefore by taking advantage of the "free" content you are in fact contributing to that theft by being a receiver of stolen goods. Its not a lot more complicated than that.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 24 2010 : 12:32PM
I do believe what will happen to fight torrent and tube sites, is to fight free is with free. I think you will see studios putting up content and selling advertising and traffic. This will of course ruin a good portion of the dvd business, except for a very few. Then you have the argument that the guy who is stealing content doesn't buy anyhow. So it may not effect the dvd market.
So you are a cowardly thief with no honor by your own admission. Read what melt says above. We have all explained it to you, you pretend we have not (cowardice again) and continue to spew disgusting rhetoric that insults us all, especially you. This is work created by someone else. They want to be paid for it. They have a right to be paid for it. It is not subjective, it is indeed property that belongs to them, and it wouldn't exist without them. You continue to ignore this and the obligation you've burdened yourself with to explain how intellectual property is not property. Failing to do this makes your point "wishful thinking" at best. You need to back it up. Everyone who disagrees with you has backed it up. You have yet to do more than offer rhetoric or vague, meaningless arguments such as the one quoted here "it's just your opinion, it's still up for grabs". No, it's not up for grabs. The ultimate authority on this is the law, and the law at this time says you're a thief.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 24 2010 : 4:45PM
They weren't trying to protect the profits of pornographers, who are, of course, held in low regard by most people. Wait a minute there pal. WTF does that mean? I am not some guy sitting in a dimly lit office, chewing on a cigar, watching porno and beatin off. I think that is a bold statement to make. A generalization that is just about as wrong as can be, More people hold lawyers in low regard than pornographers in low regard.. I have many friends in the community, who know what I do, and have no problem with it. From teachers to doctors, parents on my kids football team. Parents at my kids karate class. That is a fucked up thing to say, and I think inaccurate. Do people hold you in low regard for watching porno? I have always been proud of what I do. Anyone who asks me what I do, I say I work for Vivid. Do you tell people you watch porno? Porno you don't pay for. Doubt it. I pay taxes, probably more than you do, i get up every morning and go to work everyday, I don't steal from people. Can you say the same? If you are watching "free" content on sites, you cannot say the same. I think more people hold thieves in low regard than hold people in the adult business in low regard.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 24 2010 : 4:59PM
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, copying material that is copyrighted is a felony, for profit or not. Stop your moronic argument. You have been enlightened here on more than numerous occasions. You can buy a dvd or cd and watch it for your own use. You can give that cd or dvd to a friend. When you copy it you just broke the law. If you upload it, because you don't hold the copyright to it, you broke the law. If you download it from some asshole who uploaded it, you broke the law. This is all according to federal law. Get it? You may not agree with it, but that is THE law. Again, please just be a man and stop all the nonsense, just say, I am a thief, I will steal your content as long as I can, before I get caught. You would earn more respect for being honest, I and many others would still think you are an asshole for doing it, but at least you'd be an honest thief.
That's an oxymoron. Thieves are never honest especially ones who have to justify their theft. He will never admit it as he has convinced himself that he is doing nothing wrong. Until he is shown by way of example (as the music industry had to do with music theft), he won't change his mind.
Also, To continue in agreement with Mr. Wood (holly that is, not mark): I have to agree that it is more respectable to MAKE porno than to WATCH porno. First off, I have A LOT more fun MAKING PORNO than I do WATCHING PORNO. And if I did it for a living (I don't, just for fun), I'd be real fucking proud of it and frankly, I think I'd turn into a braggard on the issue (hmm, it says that is not a word, but I'm pretty sure it is). I would never go around bragging that I watch porno however. And only a complete moron not only sit on a moral high horse on a porno talk forum, looking down his nose at porno and pornographers.... but on top of this, actually claim copying "copyrighted work" is not stealing you, zael or zare or whatever, are completely fucking priceless.
Producer, Director, HBO/Cinemax, International Award Winner. 75 Posts 2/10
Posted - Mar 24 2010 : 5:53PM
With respect to those such as Zaer who are snubbing those who make porn let me just say this; I have more talent in a single hair on my arm than you will ever have. I am both a mainstream AND porn director/producer/cinematographer/editor/Photoshop expert/After Effects Expert/ Writer/Interactive DVD authoring expert/expert rock climber, mountain biker, canyoneer, surfer, alpine skier, nordic skier and a whole bunch of other things. So your little pretend pedestal is a house made of cards. I shoot porn because the censorship in the Mainstream world is disgusting. I've shot huge family shows and walked away feeling more violated than any given day EVER shooting porn. So pretend to be greater than those who shoot porn all you want... the truth is you're a particle of dust in a universe of wind. Sorry to go off subject so much it just fires me up when morons take "high moral ground", and then say stealing is okay. Now I'm going to go ride my bike!
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 24 2010 : 7:21PM
Yes it is. I always have said, "better an oxymoron, than just a moron." What I was saying to him was, as opposed to being a thief who makes excuses for his stealing, just be honest and say I am a thief. Instead of all this what is really someones property if you cannot hold it in your hand, bullshit. I just bought a copy of Sherlock Holmes, let's just say, and now I own the rights to a multi million dollar movie, I can open my house as a theater, charge admission and play it. No you can't. I can make copies and sell them to my friends. No you can't. I can make copies and just give them away. No you can't. Well surely I can upload it to a share site, ummmm , no you can't. Ok, then I can download it from a share site because someone else uploaded it. Do I even need to say, once again, no you can't?
Hollywood Woody - I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to say that there are some people who will never agree with you no matter what. The term "lost cause" comes to mind.
Nonsense. After this, me and Holly are gonna go convince Archie Bunker that Lesbians, Blacks, and other "Pinko" types are all equal to the white male protestant.
Actually, as far as I understand, making a copy of a dvd you legally purchased is considered fair use, while the breaking the law part would be true if the title had been encrypted, by way of the abomination called the DMCA, however most porn dvd's do not pay the licensing fees to apply css encryption, and therefore there is no circumvention of "technical protection measures" and no law broken. Obviously, if the person then shares the copy, this would be distribution and against current US law.
Finally, something worth talking about in this thread. Which show was it?
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 25 2010 : 9:58AM
It's covered under fair use.Convincing is unnecessary as what is considered property appropriation is highly subjective and decided by ones own opinions which has already been proven. Because as we've seen TV executives would consider skipping commercials on one's dvr to be theft, which shows just how subjective this discussion is. And if the number of mp3's on the web is any example the music industry hasn't succeeded in convincing most. However, what has worked in some cases is to give people what they want via itunes. Which should demonstrate to the industry what they need to do. Edited by - Zaer on 3/25/2010 10:04:40 AM
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 25 2010 : 10:30AM
You know what it means, it means quite obviously that your profession is held in low regard by the public. It's just the way it is. It might be subjective, but that's how it is. And if you have a problem with that then you should probably get in another line of work. And as for lawyers, they have more value in society than pornographers. And most parents don't mind if their kids grow up to be lawyers, in fact many of them want them to. As for parents wanting their kids to grow up to be pornographers? Absolutely not. Edited by - Zaer on 3/25/2010 10:32:22 AM
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -William Shakespeare, Henry VI Obviously this kid hasn't dealt with a lot of lawyers... pornography is definitely more valuable to society.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 25 2010 : 10:41AM
Using that absurd logic, figure out a way to run a society with laws without lawyers. As I said, lawyers have more value than pornographers. Edited by - Zaer on 3/25/2010 10:44:56 AM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 25 2010 : 1:40PM
I find it humorous that you addressed what only you want to address. You failed to answer about how people view thieves. Which you have openly admitted too being on this thread. I am in an honest business, I pay my taxes. I could give a rats ass less what anyone one thinks, it is none my business what they think. If I am doing the right thing, paying my bills, and raising my kids to be good citizens, your opinion of me, or anyone else opinion of what I do for a living is really irrelevant. By the way, I have 2 kids, 20 and 16, neither do drugs or drink, both are A students, and both hold black belts in Karate, my daughter has a second degree black belt. My son is on varsity football. So I must be doing something right. That is all that matters. I also find it funny that you can take it upon yourself to speak for society. Who are you to speak for the parents of the world? My parents didn't raise me to be in the adult business, they raised me to be a good person, and provide for my family, they raised me to be honest and not steal, obviously mine did a better job than yours. They were very happy that I got into sales and make a very good living. Don't try and pull splinters out of my eyes, when you have logs in yours. With all your psycho babble about what is and what is not stealing, bottom line is you are a thief, you steal, and justify your actions with pure nonsense. You believe your own bullshit. That my friend, is dangerous.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 25 2010 : 1:49PM
The Anti-Piracy Warning Seal Antipiracy Graphic The graphic you see on this page--the FBI's Anti-Piracy Warning Seal--was specifically created to deter illegal practice and to increase public awareness of the penalties associated with piracy. Why? Because piracy of media and other commercial goods causes huge losses to the U.S. economy each year…and it's American consumers who are paying the price. Where will the seal (and all statements that say "FBI Anti-Piracy Warning") appear? On a lot of different kinds of goods…subject to the terms of licensing agreements. But right now, we're just getting started. As of August 2006, the FBI has authorized use of the FBI Anti-Piracy seal and warning by members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), subject to each member entering into a formal Uniform Authorization Agreement. Association members should contact the MPAA, RIAA, SIIA, BSA, or ESA for more information. Now we are evaluating the licensing arrangements we have with members of these associations with a view towards permitting the broadest possible public use of the seal by all individuals and businesses with a copyright interest. Please check this webpage periodically for updates on the status of this initiative. In the meantime, it is perfectly fine for anyone, without FBI approval, to use the following generic language on material protected under U.S. copyright law: "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000." A last word to the wise: Unauthorized use of the FBI seal, name, and initials are subject to prosecution under Federal Criminal law, including Sections 701, 709, and 712 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
"Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000." Read it. It is there in black and white. Unauthorized reproduction. that means making a copy. Illegal! Including infringement without monetary gain. That means you cannot copy it and give it to your friends! Making a copy is not fair use. It is illegal. If you hold lawyers in such high regard, maybe you should contact one and ask him to clarify this for you. As a pornographer I provide this service for free, he may charge you.
When I make a backup copy of a DVD I purchased, is that unauthorized reproduction? You get (essentially) no warranty and no promises with porn DVD's. I don't trust the distributor or producer to make good on it, or even still be around, if the disc goes flakey months or years from now. When I copy it to my harddrive in order to integrate it into my video jukebox, is that unauthorized reproduction? It may be written in black and white, but there still is gray area. Is that because the writers are lazy? If they're not lazy, why are they intentionally/knowingly leaving wiggle room, with the use of the word "unauthorized"? It would be 1000% clearer if that word were left out. And why use the word "reproduction"? Another word which clouds the issue. Why not say "copying"? Or why not use both words "reproduction or copying" ? And...if they went the extra effort to include non-profit language, why use the open-to-interpretation language regarding "unauthorized reproduction" ? Either a bunch of idiots wrote it, or they are knowingly leaving these loopholes, for a reason. That's how I see it.
I don't think copying is illegal. Distribution is, and it doesn't require a profit-any distribution is illegal. So I do think there is confusion here, but I think we all agree (except for zere) that what he does is indeed thievery and against the law.
I guess I don't want to run into your daughter in a dark alley anytime soon, then Woody! One question on raising kids. How would you feel if your daughter came home one day (after she turns 18 if she hasn't already) and tells you that she just signed a three-year contract to do ten movies a year for Wicked Pictures? Or New Sensations, Evil Angel, etc., it doesn't matter what one as long as it isn't Max Hardcore (I know you would lose your lunch if your daughter did a movie for Max). That is the ultimate question for a pornographer. Another one -- what if said studio is kink.com and she plays a submissive?
Again that is an old argument. In the past, I know some in the various medium's tried to stop the sale of blank media's like audio cassettes, VHS tapes, and early blank dvd's. They simply felt no one had a right to copy anything on film, lp/cassette/cd/dvd, radio or television. They clearly lost or stopped that argument, since blank media is still sold today. My guess is that they were simply willing to live with it since people, more or less, were simply making back-up copies for themselves and weren't (hopefully) selling them on the side or sneak. Sure you run across some thieves selling bogus copies on the street or at flea markets, but the cops eventually catch up to those people. Far as I know, it's always been illegal though. One person making one or two copies on his own film that he actually bought, certainly doesn't compare to the guy selling hundreds or thousands of bonus copies on the street. And it certainly doesn't compare to an online thief offering unlimited illegal free downloads online.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 25 2010 : 3:49PM
I will be as honest as I possibly can here. I would not be very happy about it, but it would be her decision, it is her life. My daughter makes good decisions because she was raised very well. She does work in the industry, she does international sales. I have no problem with that. She would never be a submissive, believe me. She can kick the shit out of me. Porno stars come from all walks of life. Some were raised poorly and some were raised privileged. Let's take paris Hilton, although not a porno star per se, but a girl with one of the biggest selling pornos ever, or Kim kardashian, these kids made a porno. Life doesn't get any better than they had it. first of all, I don't think sex is a dirty thing, and porno doesn't have the stigma it had 15 or 20 years ago. sasha grey did very well, Jenna did very well, and that list goes on. I wouldn't let my dog do a movie for max, btw.
I've always been told that you can make up back-ups, copies, rip to your computer, but hold on to your original. All of my music is on my computer. Original CDs they were ripped from sit in a box in my attic.
If I had to choose between a lawyer and a pornographer who was more important to a civilized society, I'd definitely go with a lawyer. If you think pornography surpasses law, then you're pretty retarded. And I like porn, so don't call me a porn hater. You can always jack off to a JcPenny's catalog but you can't replace law and order with gangbangs. That is just really, really retarded.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 12:20AM
Thought i'd keep my hand in. The Founders, many of whom were lawyers, envisioned a country in which understanding the law was possible for every literate citizen. People who've never seen the Constitution (school students, for example, with whom I've had personal experience) are commonly surprised to learn that the entire Constitution is only four pages long (in the original), and that its language is completely void of that "party of the first part" shit that is so prevalent in legal matters today. The Founders had indeed figured out a way to run a society without lawyers. It was the lawyers themselves who obfuscated the Law in all that semantic gobbledegook that makes them so necessary today. Why do you go to a lawyer at all? So he can explain what all that legalese that his ilk put in the law means. And, after he translates it, do you have trouble understanding it? No. It usually boils down to ,"you can do this, but you can't do that." If a lawyer can explain it to you, why can't the law explain itself in plain language? Because if the law was simple and clear, we wouldn't need lawyers. That's why. Don't forget that the most common former profession for legislators at every level of government has been the law, when, in the Congresses that presided over the establishment of this nation, even many of the founders that had law training joined with the majority in refering to themselves as 'planters' or 'farmers.' In short, the law was quite deliberately intended by the Founders to be understood by all the citizens, not requiring lawyers and not full of 'small print' to entrap the unwary. Lawyers, for good or ill, have created their own necessity. Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and other luminaries of the founding, say in writing that the law was intended to be accesible to the people without requiring intermediaries or interpreters except in the most complex and serious cases, in which one is constitutionally guaranteed adequate counsel without charge. Instead, today, we are compelled to admit the truth of the saying that the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer. So obfuscated has the law become, that folks like Zaer believe that stealing is not stealing, that law is not law, that the law is what he says it is BECAUSE he says it is. Lawyers, Zaer, are valuable only when you need them, and, if you act upon your delusion that downloading without compensating is not theft, I suspect you may indeed need them before long. As for me, I find pleasure and beauty FAR more necessary to this life than lawyers, and therefore, far more valuable. And where in nature is there more pleasure than in sex, and where in human nature is there more beauty than in the female form? And Z., you old hypocrite you, if you didn't basically agree that porn was more valuable, you wouldn't be here rationalizing its theft, you'd be downloading free legal advice and rationalizing THAT. Take your lawyers and welcome, Zaer. And good luck being aroused and transported to sexual ecstasy by your attorney. Edited by - duefuss on 3/26/2010 12:30:04 AM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 12:37PM
No one said who is more important to society, the debate was who is more hated, lawyers or pornographers. I would have to give that one to the lawyers. Check out the big brain on Duefuss! This guy is my new hero. Edited by - hollywood woody on 3/26/2010 12:42:14 PM
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 12:43PM
The founders also believed that owning slaves was right, and that oppressing Blacks and women was acceptable. Also they believed that the Native Americans should have their land taken outright, because in their opinion, their culture was superior to that of the indigenous population. So I'm not sure you want to use them to buttress your argument. And perhaps in your world we shouldn't need lawyers, but we live in the real world, and in that world we need lawyers. So as was said previously, lawyers have more value in society than pornographers. As for theft, you can say it till you're blue in the face, but you still can't explain how sharing purchased content is equivalent to property appropriation or the appropration of the original copy from the content producer. Edited by - Zaer on 3/26/2010 12:47:42 PM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 2:01PM
One last time. Stealing is taking another person's property without permission. I make a movie, I pay all the costs associated with that movie, I own the rights to that movie lock, stock and barrel. It is my property. I decide to market the movie, I pay all the costs associated with marketing that movie, replication, advertising, printing of box covers. So far you have no cost with any aspect of my investment. Agreed? I now distribute MY movie. Under the law, and according to the FBI, if I hold a copyright to MY work, you, the consumer, can buy a copy of my movie. You can watch it, you can give it as a gift, you can burn it, but you cannot copy it. It is the law that you cannot copy, for profit or not, my movie, or my property, for sale or distribution in any way shape or form. That is the law. Look it up. The minute you copy MY movie, you have broken the law. The minute you upload to a share site MY movie, you have broken the law. The minute you download it from a share site, you have broken the law. It is called stealing. I really wish you would make the $20k investment and make a movie, then distribute it through the proper channels, and the day it is released, find out that someone uploaded it to a share site. I think if you did that, you would change your tune, to something like, hey wait a minute, they are stealing my content! Because now thousands of people are able to see the movie you made, after paying for all the production and time, and editing, for free. Which means you lose money. Which also means people are stealing from you. I know you are not really stupid, and I know you perfectly understand that you are stealing. You are using semantics to play the fool. The bottom line here is, and let's be honest, you know darn well if you copy, download, whatever something for free, you are stealing. Justify it any way you want, you know it is wrong. The end result here is that the ones who will suffer at the end of the day, are consumers, your friends, your family, and even you yourself. I am also sure that if and when you ever get busted for it, get slapped with a $250k fine, maybe do 5 years in the slammer, you would not do it again. I for one, will prosecute the first person we catch to the fullest extent of the law. I know that day will come. That person will be made an example. Vivid has the money to do just that. Hopefully it will be you.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 3:28PM
how much you want to bet he is a lawyer? or a lawyer groupie.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 3:29PM
And as I've already said, sharing copies of purchased content is not property appropriation.That's great and who pushed to create the law? Well the same people who, if they could get away with it, would make it illegal to skip ads on a dvr or tape songs of the radio. Demonstrating of course that what is considered property appropriation, in the context of content, is subjective and determined solely by opinions and beliefs.Not really. Because I would know it wasn't property appropriation. And you would be more likely to make money by investing $20,000 in the stock market instead of making movies. And there are other content producers who don't complain about their content being shared because they understand: 1. It's not a serious issue. 2. It's going to happen anyway. 3. They don't lose much money because of it. 4. It brings them fans and customers.You assume erroneously. Many don't think as you do, and even other content owners don't think as you do. But since you wish to talk about what someone "knows". I "know" that copies of purchased content being shared is ok and you "know" it's not. Edited by - Zaer on 3/26/2010 3:31:37 PM
[Link]
Stalag Deactivated User
476 Posts 1/10
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 3:36PM
A loan is the same thing as stealing in many parts of the world, sometimes even in the USA, so the use of the word "loan" is problematic at best. Every time I've ever been ripped off, it was due to a loan. Breaking the law DOES NOT occur when copies are made. It has to be with malicious intent. Name the law...very difficult.
The conversation went from what you said to what he said then to what I said. That's why I commented on the importance of lawyers over pornographers. And I'm sticking with my saying the civilized law > porn.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 6:16PM
Zaer, you have proven here that you are completely full of shit. It is property appropriation if it is not your property. It doesn't matter who pushed it to make it law, what is important and applicable is that it is law. And there are other content producers who don't complain about their content being shared because they understand: 1. It's not a serious issue. Bullshit! 2. It's going to happen anyway. doesn't make it right! 3. They don't lose much money because of it. Bullshit, why should they even lose 10 cents. 4. It brings them fans and customers. How do you figure? fans that don't pay? a customer is someone who pays. You are not a customer, you are a hypocritical fan. You look down your nose at the adult industry, yet you are ok stealing and watching porn, which i am sure you jack off too, because frankly, that is what you do. You jerk off with your mouth, you watch "free" porn, then come on here and say how porn people are low lives. I am done. You are a moron, a thief and a liar. I doubt anyone disagrees with me there. Even you. Sharing content is ok if you believe you have the right to steal from people, you obviously have no problem with that, which makes you a thief. Just go ahead and admit you take property without paying for it, and it is ok for you to do that. Just say I am a thief. "I "know" that copies of purchased content being shared is ok " your quote. Please provide me with your personal information so I can turn it over to the FBI. If you "know" it is ok to do what you said, you should have no problem providing that information. Just email me at howard@pulsedistribution.com. I will bet a $100 to a donut you don't have the balls to do it.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 9:08PM
Zaer pontificated:Some did, from the South, but even most of THEM regarded slavery as an immorality, but could not see a way to sustain the Southern ecconomy without it.
Read your Constitution. The Founders intended slavery to be phased out after 1808. If you think that they smugly accepted slavery as right, read Madison's diary of the Constitutional Convention and tell me if you find anybody -- even pro slavers -- saying that it was right.
They may have been hypocrites, but they were too intelligent not to recognize, in slaveowner Jefferson's famous phrase that slavery was " like having a tiger by the tail. You can't keep him, but you can't let him go either." As for their treatment of women, they were creatures of their time. Certainly, women then had no vote and were considered very much inferior to males officially. But look at John & Abigail Adams' correspondence and tell me if she is being treated as an inferior. Read a biography of Martha Washington, the amazing Dolley Madison. Read Cokie Roberts' "Founding Mothers." Try READING history for a change, instead of INVENTING it.George Washington was an advocate of peaceful co-existence with Indians, and on several occasions as President favored them over the claims of white settlers to their land; this in spite of the fact that he fought and lost badly to Indians in the French and Indian Wars. He, in fact, knew and respected their ways and they respected him.
The derogation of Indians as savages and their genocide as official policy did not begin in this country until the Westward migration created the coveting of their land, long after the time of the Founders. Indeed, as late as the war or 1812, some Indian Nations were embraced as vital allies of the fight against the British and the Indians were acknowledged to be a sophisticated and politically savvy bunch whose cities and farms rivaled for size anything in the white nation.You wouldn't be, since you seem to have gotten your History from TV shows or from your imagination. Me? I like using them just fine. They were great men and the fact that they did what they did in spite of being the same flawed and weak humans that we all are makes WHAT they did even more remarkable.Find me where I said we didn't need lawyers, will ya'? I said,"today, we are compelled to admit the TRUTH of the saying that the man who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer" To me that's an admission that they ARE necessary.
The point of the response you've so typically misrepresented was that the Founders INTENDED the law to be understandable to all and the clarity of the Constitution itself evinces that.
All of which was in response to YOUR challenge: ".figure out a way to run a society with laws without lawyers." My point was that the authors of our Constitution HAD figured that out already, but that the laws became complex and baffling because the lawyers ended up making most of them. I EXPECT you not to read my stuff very closely, but now you aren't evem reading your OWN stuff.And, as was also said previously, try whacking off to an attorney. Lawyers are valuable for getting us off a jail sentence. Pornographers are valuable for getting us off. When you need one, the other one won't do. Saying one's more valuable depends on what you need at the time.You mean that we can't stop you from ignoring the explanation. We HAVE explained it. We've quoted the law that explains it.
And you KNOW we've explained it. The evolution of your own arguments, for example, clearly demonstrates to all but yourself, apparently, that we HAVE explained to you. From vague references to law and a court decision that you claimed supported you, you went on to the repudiation of that very law as the crooked creation of the media industry for its own benefit, and the fact that you never again referred to that court decision after I pointed out what it REALLY said, makes it undeniably plain that you knew what you were saying was false. We'll go on saying theft, not until we're blue in the face, but until it stops being fun watching you fool nobody but yourself. Edited by - duefuss on 3/26/2010 9:16:23 PM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 9:14PM
No! That guy is the most fun we've seen here in a long time. After a while, I think he'll say something too out of line, but I have to admit he's been remarkably civil and polite so far. We don't agree with him, of course, but that's no reason to zap him.
[Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User
781 Posts 12/08
Posted - Mar 26 2010 : 9:48PM
Are you kidding me? 1. Serious does not apply to porn. Just look at music, or sports. 2. The fact that it is going to happen disproves your entire argument. Almost like kinetic energy which you don't understand, but so what? 3. Those losses are built into the price, so the concept becomes irrelevant. 4. Fans and customers are ultimate buyers, even tho they may steal several times yearly. It's still good for the industry. 5. Billions are being made and the profit margins are higher than any industry on earth, so what's not to love?
