Actually far as I know, the rules are the same as I've always known them. They simply state "Federal Law provides severe and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exhibition of copywrited motion pictures, video tapes, and video disks." Pretty much standard issue to those that actually buy dvd's. I'm guessing the early rule didn't take into account the eventual internet, but the same rules should apply in my mind.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 10:56PM
Since forever. It isn't payola, it goes to groups like the RIAA who distribute the funds to the owners of the song rights, which may be the artist themselves, or their label, or their producer.
I assume this happened in the last 30 years or so, because I distinctly remember a payola scandal where the producers paid large radio stations to carry their music. How things change in a lifetime! I'll have to ask a retired radio disc jockey (next time I see him, which could be a while) when things changed so drastically. My contact retired around 1995 or so, he was also the general manager -- he should know. This also explains why Delilah (a Clear Channel DJ with a national show) said that her bosses complain when she brings in obscure recordings and plays them on the air!
[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 11 2010 : 12:03AM
^The big payola scandal was in the 1950's. The man who made Rock'n'Roll famous was Alan Freed and he took a very big fall.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 11 2010 : 12:08AM
No, I doubt this is just in the last 30 years, it's been in place for a long, long time. Station's pay a percentage of their revenue in royalty fees, it is completely legit and above board and has nothing to do with payola. It has to do with copyright law. The reason Clear Channel doesn't want DJs playing obscure music is because they are douchebags who don't want anything unfamiliar that may make a listener tune out played, it has nothing to do with royalty payments, as college stations also have to pay these fees as well and most of the artists they play are not well known or even on major labels. Payola is when a music label pays a station to pay a specific track or artist. Spitzer busted up a payola scheme in New York state so that's not ancient history but it's a completely separate issue.
[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 11 2010 : 12:24AM
The royalty payments go to ASCAPIf you check my last post you will see the Payola scandal erupted in the 1950. Clear Channel isn't the only station where disk jockeys don't select their own playlists. In fact that is the case more often then not. They don't want the dj's to expose the stations to payola charges. Edited by - Clam Digger on 3/11/2010 12:28:17 AM Edited by - Clam Digger on 3/11/2010 12:30:09 AM
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 11 2010 : 12:25AM
It's self-evidently not.The law, written by content owners based on a flawed view of the world, states that anything that unsettles them concerning copyright is theft, which is demonstrably absurd.And such a "crack down" will be as successful as the MPAA and RIAA's efforts, which is to say not at all. They're going to need to learn to live with slightly lower profit margins, which will be difficult for them because of their boundless avarice, but it's a reality they'll need to get used to. Edited by - Zaer on 3/11/2010 4:12:16 PM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 11 2010 : 12:28AM
^ thanks Clam, I'm not American, in Canada the group is called SOCAN, depends on the country. The lack of DJ control over playlists has nothing to do with payola, it has to do with the top-heavy corporate control of radio. Clear Channel are just the worst offenders. Check out the classic book [ invalid url ] for the real story on why modern radio sucks.
[Link]
rambo99ca Deactivated User
ca 406 Posts 3/06
Posted - Mar 11 2010 : 1:43AM
I don't like the idea of stealing porn but I have to admit with the crap that's being made these days it's getting harder an harder not to revert to the darkside.
The MPAA can afford to fail with films like Avatar to make up the differences. Pirates 1 & 2 pale in comparison. Doesn't help that they shot themselves in the foot by doing what they preached against. The RIAA is now sinking for their unwillingness to make examples of pre-teens stealing their content. Minors can't legally buy or download porn, so the porn industry has no reason to keep their gloves on for those stealing their content. I seriously doubt all these bogus arguments for allowing tube sites to download porn that isn't paid for, would hold-up in a court-of-law. The hardest part just seems to be getting them there.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 11 2010 : 12:25PM
The older catalog is for sale too. There is no reason at all to become dishonest and a thief. And come on, there are plenty of companies putting out great movies to suit any taste. I think you have come up with justification #189.
This is yet another point which casts doubt on the claimed seriousness of the "theft" problem. The pornmakers could easily sue in civil court; it costs only a few hundred dollars (if that much) to file a claim. They could identify a few of the most active uploaders and sue them for thousands of dollars, then make a big press release about it, complete with photos of the guilty parties. No need for the government to get involved. Seems simple to me. If it is as clear-cut as claimed.
I say so. I've never heard of it. Therefore, for purpose of being an example/deterrent, it didn't happen. I don't know anybody who has been prosecuted. I don't know how much money they lost, or if they were forced into bankruptcy, or if their life was ruined, or any of a number of bad things that would scare the bejeezus out of the average person who is contemplating uploading/downloading. Everybody, even a dummy, knows "Don't drink and drive" and you will get fucked by the police and fucked by the judge and fucked by the insurance company and lose your license and be forced to ride around in the rain on a dinky little moped if you get convicted of DWI. It's gonna take that same level of awareness to scare the uploaders/downloader into submission.
From what I hear, there are some moves being made. IMO, the porn industry can easily go after those stealing from them...well the ones with deeper pockets anyway. The porn industry simply doesn't have the resources of the MPAA or the RIAA to fall back on. It's in their best interest to go after those stealing from them, unless they all simply want to keep losing money and eventually go out of business. Hard enough for most of them to stay afloat even without the pirating involved.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 11 2010 : 5:23PM
There's a world of difference between DWI and sharing copyrighted material, which is why such methods to deal with it won't work. It makes more sense to work with consumers instead of fighting them.
Um, I know they are not the same; it was an EXAMPLE. If you want people to pay attention, and the problem is serious, then the punishment needs to be harsh and well-known by everyone. If this is about "crime and punishement", then half-assed solutions won't work. "Working with consumers" counts as a half-assed solution. Consumers are already buying the product; that is the definition of a consumer. Pirates are, by definition, not consumers; they are freeloaders. You can't convert pirates into buyers; they should just be written off as a lost cause (you'll never get money from them), and punished in very public ways so as to be a deterrent to other pirates. How could "working with consumers" possibly convert a freeloader into a buyer? Pirates vs. producers is not a "fight" at all, because the pirates will always "win" due to having superior weapons and higher motivation. The producers will have to get ruthless if anything is going to change. Edited by - ninja1 on 3/11/2010 6:52:48 PM
[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 11 2010 : 6:54PM
^No, what you really are saying is "it makes sense to work with thieves".
Well first off the problem isn't serious. We're talking about potential profit losses over adult content. Not exactly something of world importance. Secondly, people who access the content aren't some monolithic group of the same mind. Because some download the content and sell it. Some view tube sites, some merely download it because it's free, and some download the content but would buy it if it were as easily available for pay as it is for free. Given the differences in the groups, different methods would be necessary to deal with them. For the first group they can be ignored, but for the other groups they can be considered likely consumers and thus it would make more sense to work with them as opposed to trying to sue them into compliance which the RIAA and MPAA have tried over the past 6 years, or more, to little effect. Edited by - Zaer on 3/11/2010 8:57:43 PM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Mar 12 2010 : 1:37PM
Well first off the problem isn't serious. We're talking about potential profit losses over adult content. Not exactly something of world importance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maybe not to you, but it is a world of importance to the owners of the movies. This is how we make a living, feed our families, pay taxes, put our kids through school. Your dismissal of our lively hood is very arrogant.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 13 2010 : 4:20PM
How about 'incomprehensible' The thread about dating a pilates ball takes strangeness into entirely new territory.
[Link]
Mojo Deactivated User
1223 Posts 9/03
Posted - Mar 14 2010 : 11:56AM
I’ve been thinking. Does Dogfart’s attitudes towards filesharing come across as a tad hypocritical? They started off ripping DVDs to put on their site (BOB), but now they’ve grown out of piracy and are making their own stuff they go after free downloads and cry “copyright infringement” like a dad protecting his virgin daughter’s panties! I’ve noticed they’re about the most protective of all the websites. You’d think with their dark history of pirating DVDs they’d simply shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, fair’s fair!”
I'd say it's hypocritical only if they still steal because otherwise they have realised that if you steal someone else's content then you open the door for someone to steal yours. It's the same thing in life. Ex-smokers are usually the most virulent anti-smokers there are.
"I don't want to steal porn" I don't like the idea of free illegal downloads. Really, I don't. Like a kid in a candy store, when it first became possible, I have to admit the idea appealed to me. And I won't confirm or deny whether or not I did download (mainly because it's always a bad idea to ever admit to any crime if you committed it or not.)... But let's say for the sake of argument, I did download. At first, I might not have thought much of it. After all, I maintained a xrentdvd account up until August of 2009. I was still getting movies the old fashioned way. And the stuff I was looking at download-wise was a lot of older, hard to find rarities, stuff that may never come out on DVD or even pop up on VHS. If no one was going to put it out, why not have it for the click of a mouse? So that may have been excuse number one. The next slippery slope was the high priced websites. First off, 29.95 for a month? A dollar a day for six or seven scenes of new footage? And having to give my credit card in perpetuity? And hearing nightmares about cancelling out of sites, being charged after not wanting to be a member any longer? Sounds terrible to me. The choice of downloading a scene and incurring the worst case scenario, a virus that might wipe out my hard drive and cost 200 bucks to fix still sounds better than having my credit card in someone else's hands, to me. So that may have been excuse number two. Now we get to the movies themselves. And let's face it, we can hardly call them movies anymore. There's no narrative, no story, barely a theme. Even picking up a MILF movie often means the actresses are simply in their twenties, thirties and forties. The concept of a MILF is more complicated than simply their child bearing age. It has to do with their station in life and maybe their longing for some excitement and thrills in a way a 20 year old girl isn't. So I might look at a movie and find there is maybe one scene, ONE SCENE, where the initial concept is actually approached that makes it worth a look. And I have to buy or rent an entire movie where little or no effort was made to see it. Or there's some uploader who broke the movie down piece by piece, each scene is available as a separate download and I can ignore the girls who I don't find attractive and the ones who don't do good work and the ones working with a guy who fucks up the scene by putting the focus on himself. Oh my, that certainly is seductive. So that may have been excuse number three. But to be honest, it's not that appealing after a while. It's like your working at a supermarket, and after hours you and your buddies take a shopping cart and steal every variety of potato chips. Naturally your first instinct is going to be, take a bunch of your favorites and throw some new ones in there as well, try out flavors you didn't even think you'd like- because they're free! Somebody's paying for it, but they're free for you. However, now you've got five hundred bags of potato chips. You didn't want them, but it didn't cost you anything. After a while you're eating two, three chips out of the bag and throwing them away because it's pointless to eat the crap you didn't want in the first place. I don't want bad porn for free. But the current economic model just doesn't work. It makes it very easy to rationalize stealing. Why aren't there other pay modes besides credit card to allay my fears? I can buy virtually everything else in the world with paypal. Why not porn too? I rarely deal with an online merchant of any sort who doesn't allow me to put a barrier between my credit info and them. And why must I pay for a month? Why can't I download according to what content I want? I can buy a song that cost ten grand to produce for 99 cents on iTunes, yet if I only want two or three scenes from a porn site I have to pay 30 bucks? If the option is I pay a few bucks for a few scenes or your content remains unseen, wouldn't you rather make five, ten bucks as opposed to nothing? And doesn't it make sense to actually make movies that somehow hit the theme target in a really powerful fashion? I hate brazzers and their relative lack of IR output, but I must admit they usually put five minutes worth of set up and follow through in their ideas. I'm honestly not trying to justify theft, but it seems like porn has gotten stuck in this mindset where they shouldn't have to meet the consumer's needs in any new fashion. No changing the way we pay for it, no effort in production and no new ideas in how to price it.
zzzzzzzzz Then don't steal it!
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Mar 15 2010 : 1:45AM
How is this even an issue? It's almost impossible to avoid porn on the internet. I read somewhere that the average new computer has some form of porn on it within 30 seconds of first accessing the internet. Seriously, you have a better chance of drinking airport terminal toilet water and not catching something than you do of not having porn on your computer.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 15 2010 : 7:45AM
This too has been covered elsewhere, but I wouldn't require my worst enemy to read this whole thread to find it (actually I WOULD require it if I could and I had an enemy). The pervasiveness of porn on the 'net IS the problem. Notwithstanding some's refusal to believe it, that pervasiveness has hurt the industry, effectively cutting down the amount of new production, for one thing, and creating a real danger of legal trouble for the industry for another. All this has been disputed on this thread and you may follow the arguments here. It has also been an issue for those here who, for their own reasons, do not want to accept that uncompensated downloading of another's work is a form of theft.
[Link]
Mojo Deactivated User
1223 Posts 9/03
Posted - Mar 15 2010 : 9:10AM
More like they pirated while they got on their feet, when they didn't have enough money to make their own stuff. Now they've got the money they act as if they're whiter than white and cry foul when someone does exactly the same to them that they once did to others.
Actually much of the discussion concerning the downturn in sales, the cutting back of content production, and the lowering of pay rates for the talent started around 2007-2008, which was at the beginning of the current recession, which is obviously the fundamental reason for the aforementioned economic issues in the industry, not some other highly exaggerated and in some cases non-existent issue.
BingoPaypal is an independent business, and they do not want their services used for porn purchasing. Might be in part to their own poor security, who knows. Anyways, most banks offer virtual credit card numbers you can use anywhere you want, without any fear of abuse. Some of them even have it so you set a spending limit on the number. Like you create a virtual number with a $30 limit, buy your subscription, cancel the number. Even worst case scenario, all hell breaks loose, the most that is allowed to be charged is that $30, which you'll get the bank to reverse that charges anyways.
Producer, Director, HBO/Cinemax, International Award Winner. 75 Posts 2/10
Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 1:24AM
Try spending over 200 hours of blood, sweat and tears producing a porn feature (recently did that for "The Vampire Sex Diaries") only to find that within hours of its release countless bit torrent sites have already spread it all over the internet. Kinda kills the morale to do good work doesn't it? By the way Zaer, you couldn't be more wrong. Free porn on the internet IS absolutely responsible for the current down trend. Do a little homework before you take that tall stool champ.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 4:07AM
I'm pretty sure it has already been mentioned here that Paypal now does allow transactions for porn, I've purchased stuff from the Adult xxx section of Ebay and paid openly with Paypal.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09
Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 5:39AM
How's it going, Zaer? That word of yours-- "Acually" -- you might want to consider a moratorium on using it. It's getting to be like talking to someone with a facial tic. After awhile it's hard to listen to what he's saying because all you're doing is waiting for that next twitch. I can't speak for others, but I see that word 'actually' and I assume some more Zaer-esque factoids are coming. Sure enough, there they are.
^Even more to my point. You can't really say that "PayPal allows porn purchases" if its "adult purchasing power" is limited to Ebay porn. I don't know for sure; just speculating.
[Link]
Zaer Deactivated User
249 Posts 10/07
Posted - Mar 17 2010 : 11:20AM
It looks like you've run out of hyperbole laden content owner talking points if you've reached the point where you're trying to criticize the words used in a discussion instead of responding to content of the posts themselves.
Zaer-esque factoids vs. duefuss-esque fuzzy/arcane/esoteric/flexible definitions (of "theft"). I can't speak for others, but seems a matched pair to me.
[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 17 2010 : 12:18PM
^The theft of copyrighted material is defined very well by our laws. There is nothing fuzzy about it. If Zaer & company think that it is legal, drop the screen names, as far as file sharing sites are concerned, and declare your your opinions and actions openly and freely.
Introducing Dallas Rea
Posted - Mar 10 2010 : 9:55PM
