Reviewers Recommend Working Girls 3 (Reality Junkies) - review by Captain Jack Director: Mike Quasar Starring: Danny Mountain, Derrick Pierce, Anissa Kate, Codey Steele, Adira Allure, Elizabeth Skylar, Taylor Wild, Jay Romero. Read review
Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com 1390 Posts 7/05
Posted - Feb 26 2010 : 6:50PM
Considering the way you tore into me in another thread you'll likely not appreciate me responding to you here, although I'm chiming in to agree with you. Not only have I discovered "reviewers" ripping and uploading scenes from our DVD screeners (especially ones that we are able to rush out ahead of the street date), but doing so and then attempting to sell off the hard goods as well. My favorite example came from a certain high-profile reviewer while I was Wicked's in-house publicist. In addition to freelancing for several magazines, he also published a newsletter, to which I subscribed. Upon receiving it one day, I opened it up to see that he was having a "WICKED PICTURES DVD SCREENER BLOW-OUT" featuring virtually every title I'd sent him over the previous two years (and yes, they were identified specifically as screeners).
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Feb 26 2010 : 7:38PM
I must give a big shout out to duefuss especially here who has intelligently answered every question with the correct answers. Really good job. Even though you may feel like you're banging your head against the wall, please continue to respond, you are doing a real service for the industry. If you make one person aware of what they are doing, and they stop, you did a great job, although I doubt that person will be Len. Len, no offense, but your arguments are not very good, they are all justifications for plain out stealing, which I know you know is just plain wrong. Again no offense to you, but you should really know better.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Feb 26 2010 : 7:41PM
If it is copyright infringement, that means someone is taking something that is not theirs. If someone is taking something that is not theirs, they are stealing. If they are stealing that means there is a loss to the owner. You can put lipstick on a pigs ass, but is still a pigs ass.
Long and Cursive road to the Ivory Pagoda in the province of Loraine 4076 Posts 12/03
Posted - Feb 26 2010 : 7:52PM
Example 1 is a crime. What is copyright? It is protection for the owner or creator of the media, which gives them specific and legal rights to control and distribute it as they deem necessary. However, some owners will give permission for free and legal distribution by anyone. A good example of free distribution would include shareware and freeware software programs. These are software applications built and designed by any person and permission granted to distribute freely for the benefit of many people. Typically, this occurs when the owner is not seeking monetary gain for that product. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me both of your examples are illegal. Example 2 is also a crime. Its a legitimate download from the producers site thru purchase I am assuming. You are watching illegally ripped content that does not belong to the rippers to give away. And yes, you are depriving the producer of real money and/or profits.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Feb 26 2010 : 9:06PM
What is someone taking? Digital Content? Because if it's digital content, which is infinitely copyable, that has been shared by someone that has purchased it, then the original content producer is not deprived of the content they originally produced, ergo property deprivation has not occurred as it would with physical property.
Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com 1390 Posts 7/05
Posted - Feb 26 2010 : 10:25PM
As Hollywood Woody wrote, the greater action taken was altering packaging so you were no longer sending finished goods for review. As you can imagine, a guy selling his screeners is not the problem (although, if you want to pick nits, our screeners, just like ones sent out from Universal or Paramount, forever remain our property and are designated as "not for resale"). The real issues, are of course, tube sites and the large scale piracy. I remember walking into an adult shop in Australia years ago and virtually the entire stock were bootlegs, right down to photocopied sleeves. In cases like those, Wicked and other companies most certainly have taken action, with positive results. Roads To Moscow / Twitter: @roadstomoscow
All of this talk of screeners leads me to one question. What are you supposed to do with a screener once you have reviewed it? Are you allowed to keep it for your collection or are you supposed to send it back? If you are supposed to return it, how many don't do so? Obviously different companies have different policies, and I am interested in input from all -- either from screener (ADT has many screeners here and operates a screener distribution system itself for many of the studios) or from a corporate representative. I know a couple of Academy members (mainstream film, not porn) and they were (evidently) allowed to keep their screener movies. They was even (apparently) allowed to show some to me to get my opinion. No copies were made and the originals were not sold (in fact, one owned a small video store chain and bought based on the screeners). It was very interesting seeing movies on my VCR/DVD player when they were still in theaters, to say the least. The mainstream screeners even have a message encoded in some scenes and on the packaging that this copy is a screener and is not to be sold or rented. When they were on VHS, some had a counter on them and when it had been played five times, the tape was mechanically ruined and no longer usable.
Hi,I´d say that depends on where you live. If a broadcast company decides to air movies and does not take actions against recording of the air it´s their problem. What would be the reason to buy a harddrive recordingdevice if i can´t record what´s being aired or what comes via cable or dish ? What i do not like and what i will never support are any restrictions they (the broadcast companies, studios, etc) may take against the audience. If "they" choose to send "anti-record" bits i will not watch those channels ... on a technical side ... you would have to get special hardware anyway to watch those channels in the first place. But when i read about "anti-fastforward" pvrs during play (so you can not bypass the commercials) that´s something i wil never buy. And if they choose to only produce stuff like that than they fucked themselfes. No money from me :) Maybe the whole piracy stuff will get better when HD becomes more and more the standard (not that i need it or want it though) I mean downloading DVD iso files takes a lot of time but who want´s to download BD iso files ( i know there are crazy people who even do that) And another point ... quallity ... i know i´m in the minority here but if a guy from work offers me one of them camrips i tell him i don´t watch them. Not that i´m not interessted in the movie sometimes but people who watch camrips on their pc or phone or whereever have probably never been in a cinema and "felt" the movie they way it was supposed to be. What makes me wonder is ... we usually talk about movies that become available after their release. But what´s with those movies/scenes from websites that you find in the net before they are even on the site of the makers ? Has anyone thought about that ? Cube Edited by - cubesnake on 2/27/2010 5:11:54 AM
[Link]
Bluto Deactivated User
511 Posts 3/09
Posted - Feb 27 2010 : 5:42AM
I don't think that file sharing has anything to do with adoration or noteriety. It's eventually done for no other reason than profit, just like any other form of stealing, and should be dealt with in a similar way - jail time. If it take sgovernment intervention to put a stop to it, then so be it.
The only way for the government to stop decentralized file-sharing of copyrighted content is by severely restricting internet privacy and net neutrality which is not gonna happen. Tubesites are a different story.
Do you happen to have one of those self-destructing VHS tapes? I would love to take a look at one, to see how it works (yeah I'm a gadget geek).
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 27 2010 : 12:48PM
A lot of people have made a variety of comments in this thread, but you only have to shout out MY name. It seems to suit you fine. I am not advocating or encouraging theft or copyright infringement and how you wish to qualify it. I do not need morality preachings from Vivid, the porn or the mainstream industry (for past and present acts). I will leave it at that, except to say that by watching a scene on a tube site I have not deprived you of any actual future or potential income/revenue since I: (1) had no prior intention in actually buying it (2) I may not even have known what the scene is or that it was produced by you (the titles or usually a shambles). If you find fault with these tube sites, find legal ways to shut them down. The same goes for blogs or Torrent sites.
I would like to add that no one has ever been prosecuted in a criminal court for file sharing. The reason seems to be that it is difficult to impossible to prove a loss. I guess it possible that the industry can label file sharing as illegal in an attempt to use guilt as a deterrent. It doesn't change the fact that the courts, presently are unable to bring anyone to trial. Tubes site are another matter entirely. Edited by - ntfighter on 2/27/2010 1:35:57 PM
Sadly, the argument of no lost revenues, is just justification of the "entitlement" to look at whatever porn one wants, without ever contributing to the cost of production. But I don't see any way to get anyone to understand the reality when, I would estimate that less than 1% of those who view a particular porn scene, actually compensate the producer. It really is shocking how many various justifications people genuinely believe... I don't know...
Oh, and even sadder, Brazzers is also in bed with the major porn file-sharing forums, just like they are with the tube sites they operate. Go to any number of them and search for "Brazzers", nothing comes up. But every other producers' content is everywhere, and every page has a convenient bannar to Brazzers pay sites. Edited by - just_me on 2/27/2010 8:26:28 PM
i still prefer dvds, since my dvd player is connected to a better screen and sound system. i will eventually upgrade my desktop, but i would like to see sites offering dvd-ready downloads. i have youtube downloads that i want to play as dvds. that is partly why i chose dvd rent by mail instead of a download membership for my first online monthly expense. which site is most likely to do this first? i would like to say a site i want to subscribe to, but it's more likely to be a brazzers site.
[Link]
MikeSouth Deactivated User
511 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 27 2010 : 9:18PM
I have been offering DVD quality downloads for 3 years I now even offer HD downloads... the technology already exists to stream directly to your TV in HD...ever hear of hulu? netflix instant queue? it can even be done with no box in between
Pick up a copy of Nero dvd burning suite, it comes with a software called "Nero Vision", which you just put a dvd-r in the drive, select the video file you want, and hit "go" - the software takes care of everything else in creating a video dvd. Otherwise, I don't believe websites will be going to dvd-ready downloads on their own.
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 2:05AM
As to the question of "seeing" and "compensating" the producer, I would like to get clear in my mind how certain "celebrity" sites (like "MR. Skin" and others) operate, when they offer brief clips or pics lifted from american and foreign films where a certain perfomer appears nude (against a subscription fee of course). Do these sites actually secure permission (which I would find highly unlikely) from the numerous and various producers who have made/released those movies? If they do NOT compensate the producers/copyright owners are they operating illegally, or is such material considered "fair use"? And if that material is "fair use", would a 2 minute hc scene uploaded on a tube site considered illegal?
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 7:38AM
The POINT is that certain posters in this thread, for whatever reason, want to contend that the unauthorized uploading and downloading of copyrighted material is something other than theft, that if it is theft, it's okay because no one is hurt by it, and now, as I understand you, that the movie industry was, and/or is, a "rotten bunch of thieves" who, I guess, DESERVE to have their product stolen. Piracy hurts the porn business. Everyone in the business who's posted on the subject says so. What would it serve them to lie abou that? By every fundamental of law and ethics, when a porn maker makes a movie, that movie is HIS -- no one else's. When someone puts that movie on the internet, whether or not he's paid for his copy of it himself, he is, at best, giving it away. When he does that he has effectively stolen the movie from the one who made it and owns it, because he has taken control of the movie, he has made it free against the intentions of its owner. When you steal something -- a car or a candy bar or the hope diamond -- what you have done is to remove it from the control of the rightful owner who cannot drive his car that's been stolen from him or eat his candy bar or display his diamond at the Smithsonian. When you upload porn, the rightful owner no longer controls it: he can't sell it for a profit or even, any longer, decide for some reason that he doesn't want to sell it. It's out there. It's been STOLEN. It is the uniquenss of any media that it can be stolen from the owner even though the owner retains physical posession of it, because, just as surely as if he no longer HAD physical posession of his product, he no longer controls what is done with it. But we don't upload videos that belong to others, we only download them. When we do, we're breaking the law. Furthermore, when we do, it is no different than if we hacked the movie off a pay site or made a copy of a friend's paid for DVD or stole it from a store. We have joined the original thief of that porn maker's property in taking control of the product from the rightful owner. He wants and has a right to sell it to us to recoup his cost to make it and make a profit, and we've TAKEN his chance to do that. We've taken from him. We've STOLEN what is his. Notice that I said WE. I, and no one in this thread that I can remember right now, has claimed to be "lily white and tr[ied] to teach and impart moral lessons on others" I've said above that I'm as guilty as anyone of prowling tube sites, etc. I don't care to decieve myself about or rationalize what I've done. If that makes me "lily white" one of us has a real shitty color sense. Look, the fact that piracy is SO pervasive, and downloading so universal is exactly why it's hurting the porn industry. And we are all going to pay for that. Forget for the moment about the damage it does to profits or that it's unfair to people who make their living in the business. Fewer and fewer movies are being made. There's ideas for really good movies that'll never be anything but ideas. There's beautiful sexy girls that we'll never see, because porn's less of a way for them to make good money. There's favorite stars leaving the business because they can make better money elsewhere. And then there are the good ol' capitalist consequences. Just as retail theft has added to the cost of everything we buy, the losses from piracy must be made up somewhere if the porn businesss is to survive. I'm not the expert at this, but I've noticed that prices for joining websites are going up -- a lot in some cases. VOD sites seem to have more 'premium' titles that charge more than a minute for each minute you watch them. I don't THINK I'm wrong and I'm sure not surprised. One thing's sure, porn piracy in one way or another, is going to bite all of us in the ass.
[Link]
Stalag Deactivated User
476 Posts 1/10
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 7:51AM
I don't think moral lessons or criminal acts are really involved, just a total lack of concern which leads lazy people to do those things that are much to easy. Sort of like stealing bread when it is left on your doorstep, or finding $100 that you have a prettty good idea of the actual owner. Rapidshare and their ilk will always exist as long as there is an internet.
[Link]
Stalag Deactivated User
476 Posts 1/10
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 7:56AM
Exactly. It's not feasable to regulate what cannot be regulated. People are the same no matter where they live, and are just plain going to ignore laws which are not enforcable, whether US or Europe. Customs and confiscation just add an extra layer of hassle to the situation and accomplish absolutely nothing.
I think piracy would be far less if it had a less awesome name. If you're a pirate engaging in piracy, what's not to like about that, you're a golden hero of the modern age. If the word for piracy was "being an asshole" then less people would pirate stuff (be assholes). Edited by - unkwnusr2 on 2/28/2010 8:15:28 AM
[Link]
Mojo Deactivated User
1223 Posts 9/03
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 8:22AM
Then there's the added factor of risk...theft! Porn must be quite a rarity in the UK post and comes at a premium to people with sticky fingers. So, some crooked git sees a disk sized parcel in the sorting office mailed in from the US (especially if it's from Europe) and thinks, "Ahh, I think I'll have a peak. Hay, it's PORN!!! I think I'll nab this whilst no one's lookin'!" And yes, it does happen. But it wouldn't happen if it was more freely available like it is in the US and Europe.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 8:47AM
You still haven't explained why it's theft. Because what you're describing is copyright infringement, not the loss of a physical product.It's already been determined that the industry has not been substantially affected by the sharing of their content, given the millions they continue to make. However, what has likely depressed profits is the recession. And it was in 2008 when the recessions effects became quite noticeable that the industry started complaining far more than they have in the past about people sharing their content. Because before 2008 they would complain on occasion about online sharing, but as their profits were still high they didn't concern themselves with the issue to a great degree. Because of course such sharing didn't really lower their profits. But now they've increased the amount of criticism they level at content sharing, but they've missed the actual reason for their profits declining: the recessionActually more films are being made now than in years past.If they're raising prices, then that's exactly the wrong thing to do as it'll drive even more people towards cheaper alternatives to getting the content. Edited by - Zaer on 2/28/2010 8:50:08 AM
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 9:20AM
If they are the main source of the industry's problem, then why don't they take them on and shut them down down, rather than just complain and whine about it all the time? It's a big target after all. Same goes for tube sites and Torrent sites.
[Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User
781 Posts 12/08
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 9:37AM
The entire personal us thing is a fiasco. A giant loopwhole with legalistic implications that boggle the mind. If I can record Disney at my leisure and then sell copies on hollywood Blvd, there is absolutely nothing stopping me. On the other hand, if the cops catch me, nothing happens either. It's only if lawsuits are filed that the shit hits the fan, which is the great curse.
You can't shut down one-click hosters, because they are not legally responsible for the files uploaded by users. They are only required to remove files when they get valid complaints. The reasoning is simply that it's impossible to check the legal status of every files uploaded (also password-protected files being inaccessible) You can't shut down tubesites because they too are not legally responsible for the files uploaded by users. As long as they comply with requests by copyright holders they are fine. Torrent sites don't host any copyrighted content, so you can't shut them down. The only way to shut down any of these sites is by changing the law so as to make it illegal to assist copyright violation indirectly by providing services that can be and are being used to violate copyright. This is never going to happen, it's a slippery slope.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 11:50AM
Saying "it's not theft it's copyright infringement" is semantic, like saying "it's not theft, it's burglary." Taking what is not ethically or legally yours to take travels under many names depending on what is being taken and how: embezzlement, fraud, armed robbery; burglary: all are thefts, all are stealing. Saying things like, "It's already been determined that the industry has not been substantially affected by the sharing of their content, given the millions they continue to make." and "Actually more films are being made now than in years past," does not make them true, regardless of the conviction with which you say them. There IS a difficulty about this particular point that IS the fault entirely of the porn makers themselves, and that is that porn companies are not forthcoming about exactly how much they make or how financially healthy their business is. But Everyone in the business that's in a position to know says here on ADT and in trade publications that your statements are just plain wrong. But let's forget that and say that you're right. Stealing from a rich man is no less wrong, no less a crime, than stealing from a poor one. The theft is certainly more devastating for the poor victim, but that doesn't make it something less than theft for the rich one. The very LAST thing YOU would say if somebody took something of yours without your permission, no matter how small, is "that wasn't stealing because I can afford to lose it," or "It's okay. I still make a living." The acknowledged fact that the recession has hurt this, as most every other, business is justification for what? Not for piracy or theft, certainly. On the contrary, it makes illegal downloads more hurtful, not less. Beating on an open wound with a stick makes it hurt more. Your logic would suggest it makes no real difference. I still haven't explained why it's theft? Jesus Christ almighty! You certainly haven't understood or agreed with my explanations; you may not have READ my explanations, but I've been explaining and explaining and explaining. Mind you, I'd accept Byron's criticism, paraphrased as follows: And Duefuss, too, has lately taken wing, Explaining stealing porn to the nation: I wish he would explain his explanation! But don't tell me I haven't been trying. [o\|] Like I've said before, what I say here, or anyone else says, won't diminish this problem one damn bit. This is just debate for its own sake. I do it probably to keep the intellectual cobwebs at bay, so I'm getting what I've come to get. What I don't know is why people have come here to justify taking porn illegally off the 'net. You're not going to stop taking it, no matter how many people in the business tell you it's hurting them. You're not going to stop even if you couldn't pretend that it's not wrong, not stealing, not fair. What's going to happen is plain enough. The business WILL find ways to minimize piracy and theft. Technologies already make it harder than it once was, and that will continue. Sooner or later, probably sooner, the makers are going to make an example of somebody, just as the music industry did, and some poor bastard is going to have his life ruined for uploading or downloading a couple of porn clips. I think that's the only way to minimize this kind of theft, because creating bad consequences for wrong behavior is really the ONLY way to change it. When that happens, my bet is somebody from this very thread is going to bitch about how unjust it is for the big porn industry to pick on some poor little porn fan. Someone else will call the guy an asshole for getting caught. But everyone is going to pause before they steal porn the next time, and fewer people are going to do it. Even that's not the worst that could happen because of this problem. If you think, as someone has mentioned, that it's impossible to regulate the 'net, that it can't happen, think again. What they've done to eradicate kiddie porn, to find and prosecute sexual predators on the 'net, to catch terrorists who use the 'net for their crimes, they can do for ALL of porn. I don't want that. You don't want that. But if the industry can't police the spread of porn on the 'net, if they can't control who sees their stuff (and if you can download it with a google search and a mouse click, so can your kids), then it doesn't matter what justification there is or is not for putting free porn out there and downloading it. I guarantee you that, though it'll never disappear, porn is going to get a whole lot harder to enjoy ANYWHERE. Edited by - duefuss on 2/28/2010 11:53:15 AM
all this brings me back to the question would people buy porn again instead of downloading it if all those "free" sources were not avail anymore ? I wouldn´t bet my arm on that. I belive that people (more and more) have to live with less and less money they earn. Therefore, they need to give their money to what they decide is important for them. And since people seem to become more and more internetjunkies they pay for a inet-flatline before they buy a dvd or alike ... porn avail on net or not. Cube Edited by - cubesnake on 2/28/2010 12:54:01 PM
No. The industry and the government will continue to be unable to police where the content is going. None of the mainstream industries have found ways to combat piracy other than by competing with it, i.e. adjusting their business model and products. The same will hold true for porn. The amount of piracy is too large for any company to handle. The best you can do is going for the Google results. Contrary to your belief, it is easier than ever to pirate anything. In fact, specifically with porn it is in a lot of cases much more convenient to pirate than to pay. Most casual porn pirates are looking for either category- or starlet- related content, they're not looking for specific releases and porn titles. That's why most pirated porn doesn't even reflect the original source, it just describes the content and the participants. Edited by - unkwnusr2 on 2/28/2010 12:21:27 PM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 12:30PM
I think it's all about prioities. To someone who enjoys or requires the things that porn provides for them, the fact that porn is neither, food, clothing, nor shelter will not stop him from spending money on it. I agree that the DVD is probably on its way out as the favored delivery method of porn, simply because downloading is more convenient and the 'net mor ubiquitous.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 12:50PM
As I said above, I very much fear that those who assume nothing can be done about the proliferation of easily downloaded porn are living in a fool's paradise. Can it be stopped? No of course not, but what I would worry about is what can happen if the powers that be TRY to stop it. If you think the internet can't be regulated, if what's on it and what's allowed on it can't be controlled by someone determined to control it, you are absolutely flat out WRONG. If Washington for any reason should take notice of just how much porn is on the 'net and decide that it'll get them votes to do something about it, they will do something, and what they do will not be anything you want. If they can't get rid of porn on the 'net, they can make it very risky and potentially very costly. They haven't gotten rid of kiddie porn either, but downloading the stuff or posting it is a VERY risky business. They haven't gotten rid of internet predators eiher, but do you want looking at porn on the 'net to have the same risk as trolling for sex victims does? If the industry and we its customers can't regulate ourselves, you better believe sooner or latter law enforcement is going to do it for us.
What are you talking about? Who's talking about removing porn from the net? Not only is it impossible, it also has little to do with the discussion at hand. Never mind that it is also conflicting with free speech laws in most countries. There are plenty of fabulous highly advanced options for parents to protect their children, that's not the government's line of work. Even without piracy there is tons of legally distributed porn around (previews, amateur, non-photographic).
in fact i was wondering ... if he/she doesn´t pay for porn on the net would they (if it became unavail on the net) "steal" it somewhere else (adult-store etc) ? (therefore hurting the guy from the shop) or would they cut back on food/clothes whatever to buy porn But let me just get back to this for a second. AFAIK customs is supposed to "protect" the domestic market by collecting "fees" for imported products. But ... what they (or those people who made those laws) seem to forget is ... ... people are not (always) trying to get items from abroad because they are cheaper but because you DO NOT get them where you live !!! And if one may find a local store the owner want´s to have his expenses compensated too which makes the item even more expensive. That too leads to the problem at hand And maybe anyone can spend a few minutes on this "imagine you´d be living in a society where everything you crave is not avail or too expensive for you" Would this make you angry ? Would you maybe turn your anger toward someone else ? This still isn´t supposed to excuse stealing but it´s something to think about Cube
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 2:31PM
Actually it's not semantics there's a distinction that the courts have made as well as the general public. And you still haven't explained how sharing copied content is equivalent to the appropriation of physical property.Those statements aren't made without evidence given that there are a number of large companies in the industry that make millions despite alleged sharing of their content. And there are more films being made now than in years past. And the industry knows it.As has already been stated the main cause of the recent decline in profits in the industry is primarily attributable to the recession. Edited by - Zaer on 2/28/2010 2:32:10 PM
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 4:30PM
Zaer:
You quote my arguments, at times incompletely or out of context, and then simply repeat the statements they addressed in the first place. You say, with no more authority than saying it, "it's not theft it's copyright infringement" and when I point out that both are versions of the same thing and why they are, you say "Actually it's not semantics there's a distinction that the courts have made as well as the general public" without suggesting just what that distinction is or explaining why the only real distinction is not a semantic one. You say, "Those statements aren't made without evidence" but they WERE were made without evidence, because all you did was make them without saying what that evidence was. I'm not going to waste my time, yours, or ADT's resources addressing, yet again what I have already discussed, in some cases many times. If you think that I and many others here with far more authority in this thread "still haven't explained how sharing copied content is equivalent to the appropriation of physical property" it's not because it hasn't been explained, but because you don't want to hear the explanation, you don't want to believe there is an explanation, or you haven't even bothered to read something you have no intention of agreeing with. Go tell the poor girl wo owes the RIAA 1.9 million dollars for downloading a bunch of songs that copyright infringement isn't stealing. Likewise with the other points I have made, you refute nothing. For every point I make, all you have said is "Actually that isn't true." Do I hear from you why isn't it true? Do I even hear why you think it isn't true? No, all I get in rebuttal is "Actually that isn't true," and "I still haven'y heard your explanation." That isn't discussion, it's just hollering "No, it isn't," whenever I say "Yes it is" and it's getting neither of us anywhere. Come back when you've actually READ this thread, and rebut what is in it; don't just keep saying it's wrong, say why it's wrong with reasons, with a different viewpoint, with support for what you say or explanations for why you say it. But if all you can say is "that's not true," then, like it or not, you're just proving that it probably IS true.
[Link]
Bluto Deactivated User
511 Posts 3/09
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 4:48PM
Click to expand
You need to spend more time in your library. Laemle innovation overshadows all else.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 5:18PM
Who's talking about removing porn? I am, obviously, and don't accuse me of wanting that. I don't. And how is it not germane to this discussion? For Christ's sake did you not read what I wrote?Those 'highly advanced options' of yours are only as good as the parents that use them and police what their kids do on the internet. That's not the government's line of work? Dream on, son! Regulating public behavior has been the government's line of work since it was invented. And agreeing that there's tons of porn around , far from being an argument that it will never be regulated, is PRECISELY the argument why it might be controlled by the authorities someday if we don't control it ourselves. And Free Speech Laws? Free speech does not and never has protected anyone who shows movies of people having sex to people who don't WANT to see movies of people having sex. Free speech has nothing to do with even inadvertently exposing children to porn. As for the notion that the internet is impossible to regulate, ask the Chinese or the Iranians or the Saudis what they think of that. It's possible. Moreover, it's done and done right here. I feel silly quoting MYSELF, but I seem to have to:This is not some gloom and doom prediction. I'm not saying it's going to happen.. I AM saying that it CAN happen, and, as I HAVE said, the proliferation of easily downloaded unrestricted free porn on the 'net is sure as Hell not making it any less likely. Agree with me or not as you like.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 5:25PM
Bluto wrote:Don't tell ME. Tell Len801; he's the one that thinks the movie industry is a bunch of thieves and criminals that deserve to be robbed blind.
Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com 1390 Posts 7/05
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 6:17PM
As there is no standard industry-wide policy here (or in the mainstream, btw), obviously I am only speaking for myself and the companies I worth with. Keep them for your own enjoyment. I'm pretty easy. As long as I eventually see a review, and I DON'T receive a newsletter in which you attempt to sell my own product back to me (see my earlier post), we'll get on like a house on fire and I'll appreciate the reviews and feedback created, here and elsewhere. If you're posing as a reviewer simply to build up a free DVD library, then that's a different story. And if I had a quarter for every time I've lived that story, well, at the very least I could make a down payment on a new Escalade with rolls of quarters. Roads To Moscow / Twitter: @roadstomoscow
Edited by - DM/PR on 3/1/2010 11:03:49 AM
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 28 2010 : 6:56PM
Let's dissect that statement. For the first part, I don't think. It is fairly obvious. I did not say or infer that as a result or consequence they should be inflicted with same treatment, or that they are open season for unlawful activity. But when you take a high moral ground, you better have clean hands, or people just don't take you very serious or much sympathy with your position. That's basically the point I was making. If the music recording industry was charging a price of about $28 for a music CD disc which for the most part contained 1 or two good songs (and it cost very little to produce) while the rest was just inferior product, and music fans were enraged by such high prices, the rebellion against unfair prices and outright greed by the recording industry resulted in the creation of Napster and file sharing. No one heard or cared about industry executives when they claimed the music industry was being irreparably harmed (it is also curious that at the time these big firms and executives were deflecting the outcries by making it look that it was the artists themselves who were being harmed. Top tiered artists may have been well compensated, but not the other lesser known, who may have been struggling to have their works better circulated/distributed/heard). The people who were doing this (downloading) were not essentially out to hurt the recording artists themselves, but outraged over the greed of the executives and the recording firms. When fans were finally able to pick and choose the songs they wanted for a $1 each (which they felt was a fair price), they started to behave (lawfully) again. It took someone OUTSIDE the recording industry to rescue them.
Although a few posters have tried to make a distinction between theft and copyright infringement, it seems to be lost on many. When I take a work belonging to someone else (in part or whole), which has been lawfully copyrighted, and without the author's authorization (there are some things that are considered "fair use" nonetheless) and try to traffick it in some way for monetary gain that is copyright infringement. I believe or assume that the few cases that the recording or movie industry has made against people or organizations over the years has dealt with "copyright infringement" and not necessarily theft which may be more difficult to prove unless it involved something physical. I do not recall reading in the media a successful case (criminal or civil) dealing with movie download over the web. Perhaps someone knows of some and what the actal ramification were. It would be interesting to note whether any such cases were prosecuted and what legal grounds/precedents were raised. Edited by - Len801 on 3/1/2010 1:34:02 AM
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Mar 1 2010 : 9:37AM
This is like reading a missing chapter of "Alice in Wonderland" or having a debate about what "is" is. Income from licensed product is being stolen, if the "copy" is unauthorized and distributed. One can make infinite copies of books (I presume you have heard of Xerox). One can make infinite copies of the Mona Lisa, but if you try to sell it as the real "Mona Lisa" you are committing a crime. Just because something is digital makes no difference. A copy is a copy is a copy.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 1 2010 : 12:56PM
The owner of said content is not the one who put it up. Because you purchased a dvd does not give you the right to "share" it with the rest of the world. You are buying it for your personal use only. See FBI warning at the beginning of every DVD. Why is this so hard to understand. Example: I buy a copy, buzz word here is copy, of Pulp Fiction, I upload this onto a site, I have broken the law. I do not own the rights to Pulp Fiction, therefore I have no right to upload it on a share site. Period. No if and or buts about it. The minute I do that and someone watches it, the producer or owner of Pulp Fiction is losing money. If you want to see it, you have to buy one of your own, or go to your friends house to watch it, if you are to cheap to fork out the money for one.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 1 2010 : 12:59PM
You can keep the screeners. We send out screeners for review, we do not expect them to be sold or uploaded. Does it happen, sure it does, if we catch you we will prosecute.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 1 2010 : 1:24PM
Len801 wroteFrom page 7, this thread, Len801 wrote, in response to the view that unauthorized uncompensated downloading was theft:When one responds, to a charge of stealing media content that the media was built on stealing/copyright infringement and continues to be deceptive, I take it that the responder is justifying the theft with the implication that it is fair retribution for the patent infringements, plagirism, humorous accounting, and deception to which the responder refers, else why bring it up? Regarding this continued insistence that somehow 'copyright infringement' is something other than theft, I refer you to a previous post apparently missed. It continues to be my answer to that insistence I have boldened what I think are the more relevant bits in the hope that you might actually read them this time, which I see no evidence you have done thusfar:
