Is it stealing if...? (page 2)

Author	Post
motorcade Deactivated User 7 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 5:16PM johnshaft820 wrote: imsorry wrote: "you can live without your fingernails. you can live in chernobyl. you can live getting punched in the face every day. you can live in human excrement. i don't see what the problem is!" Click to expand This abusive kind of reductio ad absurdum is even worse than comparing porn movies to library books or food. Are you seriously suggesting that being unable to see that porno you were keen on is similar to these horrific situations? Click to expand Have you ever watched porn? EVER???? What kind of porn do you watch? Name some movies. [Link]
johnshaft820 Member 271 Posts 1/05	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 5:27PM ^ Yes, plenty. I don't think I need to provide you with my credentials, though. So you, like imsorry, see a real similarity between being deprived of a single porn movie and being forcibly deprived of your fingernails? Or being punched in the face daily? [Link]
JohnHenry Member 165 Posts 3/09	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 9:37PM motorcade wrote: fu_q wrote: Shocking that "imsorry" is deactivated. Click to expand You know, fu... I would be more shocked if he wasn't still here. ;) People need to stop thinking that deactivation actually does anything. If you really want someone to go then you need to talk it out and convince them why. Click to expand People saying "blah blah blah" when presented with intelligent opinions aren't likely to be open to being convinced of anything. Besides, I'm sure he's already back, posting on the forums, on this very topic, with the same egotistical approach to his own position that he should have gold plated blu-ray discs delivered to his door on litters carried by a dozen 18 year old virgins. John [Link]
fu_q All-Star Member Marv Montag (@PornOfYore) 2506 Posts 2/09	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 10:40PM motorcade wrote: fu_q wrote: Shocking that "imsorry" is deactivated. Click to expand You know, fu... I would be more shocked if he wasn't still here. ;) People need to stop thinking that deactivation actually does anything. If you really want someone to go then you need to talk it out and convince them why. Click to expand Well... you certainly don't try to hide who you are--I will give you that. [Link]

motorcade Deactivated User 7 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 22 2009 : 11:23PM conquistador: one man's opinion--I wish that you would go because I'm tired of you flamebaiting the newbies under different handles. Your arguments haven't been as intelligent as you'd like to think and if you'd read a post you'd realize that. People come her because they love porn...not just -like porn but can live without- they love porn and they couldn't live without it. Believe me, there are people in the porn industry who love their jobs and live, breathe and shit porn. I've been here five years now and I haven't seen it get any better with you. That's my two cents. Edited by - motorcade on 8/22/2009 11:24:47 PM [Link]
johnshaft820 Member 271 Posts 1/05	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 12:06AM ^ I'm not conquistador. What makes you think that? Check my posts in other threads. You'll find none of the erratic behavior that got him deactivated. It's fine to like porn. Everyone here does. It's fine to love it. It's even fine to "live, breathe and shit" porn, as you say. But your personal relation to porn, no matter how intense, doesn't make it ok to infringe copyright to get that movie you're jonesing for. Those industry folks you call to your defense, the ones who "live, breathe and shit" porn, would be pleased to learn you consider their product as vital as food. But they would not like your conclusion that you're entitled to have their stuff, not just buy it as offered. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 12:48AM killbillvol69 wrote: Those things at libraries, radio stations, etc. were purchased legally at some point. Click to expand Just FYI, radio stations never pay for their music, it is supplied free of charge by the labels. To sell the promo material is illegal though. [Link]
motorcade Deactivated User 7 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 1:04AM double post please delete Edited by - motorcade on 8/23/2009 1:10:21 AM [Link]
motorcade Deactivated User 7 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 1:07AM BlackSix wrote: killbillvol69 wrote: Those things at libraries, radio stations, etc. were purchased legally at some point. Click to expand Just FYI, radio stations never pay for their music, it is supplied free of charge by the labels. To sell the promo material is illegal though. Click to expand These guys don't know nothin BlackSix! high five [Link]
motorcade Deactivated User 7 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 1:09AM I know a conquistador when I see one because they never let things go. You should worship at the chapel of copyright. Seriously. This is not productive. What gives you any right to speak for any of the people in the industry? Edited by - motorcade on 8/23/2009 2:12:49 AM [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 1:26AM motorcade wrote: These guys don't know nothin BlackSix! high five Click to expand I wasn't running down killbill, just letting him know. I worked in radio years ago. [Link]
motorcade Deactivated User 7 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 2:13AM Mod please lock this thread. [Link]
johnshaft820 Member 271 Posts 1/05	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 8:36AM ^ That's the most rational thing you've said in this thread, by far. motorcade wrote: What gives you any right to speak for any of the people in the industry? Click to expand I'm not speaking for anyone. Just speculating that someone who makes their living producing porn for sale wouldn't want people downloading it for free. Before we go, let's review how this thread has developed: 1. You started this thread acting like you found yourself in an ethical dilemma over a specific, real movie. You didn't know what to do. You asked for peoples' opinions. 2. Then it turned out you were just proposing a hypothetical situation. 3. Then it turned out that you had no ethical dilemma after all, real or imagined, because you had already concluded it was ok to download the hypothetical movie. You got upset when people disagreed with you. 4. You argued that porn is knowledge, and should be freely available. You argued that porn is necessary for life, and should be freely available. These are bad arguments. 5. Then your account was deactivated. 6. Then you came back with a new account and argued that I have no right to engage you in discussion because (1) I don't watch enough porn, and/or (2) I'm conquistador in disguise, and/or (3) I'm not a producer and shouldn't address producers' interests. None of these are responses to my arguments - they're claims that I lack sufficient authority to argue with you. 7. Now you want your own thread closed. Good call. [Link]
Smiler Grogan All-Star Member the war cry 14790 Posts 1/08	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 2:32PM I'm obviously drifting a bit afield of the specific porn topic. I believe we live in a society that has taught us not to fend for ourselves, that the basics of survival (housing, food, medicine) are entitlements; Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness means we're entitled to opportunities; not guaranteed three squares and a rack Click to expand John, I respect your way of thinking, but you and I will have to agree to disagree. I believe as a matter of fact that food, clothing and shelter, are necessities, to which, in a civilized society people are entitled too. (And no that doesn't mean everyone's entitled to filet mignon nightly) If a significant number of people lack such things, what evolves next is your basic crime-infested neighborhood. But you are right about people feeling entitled to entertainment, which is something they will not die without. And you're right about how long free access can go on before a provider, be it Vivid, Red Light, Adobe, Universal Music, or Sony would have to shut down because there is not enough people purchasing their product with real dollars. People who have been in the tape-trading habit for some time know that yes, we are infringing on copyrights, and could very well find ourselves getting phone calls from the FBI. So the purists in the hobby make sure we only trade unavailable/OOP, non-pirated, material for trade or the actual costs of duplicating and S&H. That way we'll have some defense if that knock on the door ever comes. So yes, it's infringment based on entitlement. But then again, that sense of entitlement drives a lot of legitimate business activity feeds off of people's wants and desires. I mean, does anyone really need the overpriced crap that Pottery Barn, Williams Sonoma or Crate & Barrel sells? Not really. But because people do want things, bootlegging is an inevitable by-product of a consumerist society. Good riddance to imsorry; he raised some very good points. Too bad he turned out to be a dick. [Link]

killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18631 Posts 4/08	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 5:25PM imsorry/motorcade/campusQT: If I answer you, I mean really answer you, will you promise to stop coming back? Yes? Well then pay attention... Suppose movie XXXX was made in a pre-2257 era, and there is material in the film that would not satisfy the 2257-compliant regulations. You've purchased XXXX now, and once you put it in your DVD player, you realize that certain scenes or portions of scenes are missing - namely the ones that would violate a piece of the 2257 legislation. Now, you're faced with your dilemma. You want to watch those scenes, as you're aware that they're part of the original cut of the film, but your version of the DVD doesn't contain them. OK so forgetting about whether you're going to decide to download them or not, let's jump ahead to the point in the decision where you've already downloaded the original version of the film from the internet. What we need to do at this point is decide whether what you've done is to be considered stealing, or not. So. Suppose that, as unlikely as it may seem, that the 2257 rules are changed tomorrow/next week/next month/next year so that this film is now compliant with the rules and regulations set forth by the government. At this point, the company who owns the film re-releases the original version, and wants people to buy that DVD. Maybe they even offer a 50% discount to the people who bought the censored DVD. Whatever. The point is, that you won't buy it (or are less likely to buy it) because you already have the copy that you got off the internet. Ergo, the company doesn't make the money they could have made off of you. Thus, the original act of downloading the video has in fact lessened the amount of money the company could have potentially made from the sale of the DVD. So what it comes to is this: since it's impossible for you to know if/when government rules and regulations will change (they've changed before after all), then yes, in this weird, hypothetical, roundabout way, it is stealing. Like anything else, you must decide where your own moral compass lies, and whether you yourself would be comfortable doing this act; but I am convinced that it is in fact "stealing", or whatever exact term would apply in a legal context in this case. Happy now? (Uh, if you're happy now, don't respond. If you're unhappy now, also, don't respond.) [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 6:20PM If my memory serves me properly, 2257 deals with record keeping issues and only has a look-back period of five years (in this case any scene filmed in or after August 2004). If the film does not meet 2257 now, it never did and those scenes should have never been released. I don't recall 2257 having anything to do with content, period. I am not saying that some other law couldn't apply here, but I don't think section 2257 does. Pornlaw, please chime in here. If I am wrong about the five year look-back (I am not perfect), I know that the law's inception date as declared by the US Attorney's office is in 1995, any movie before that date is exempt from the law, period. Personally I would recommend keeping records at least back to the 1995 date to protect yourself in case of a claimed minor in the film (child rape charges can be pressed up to one year after the supposed minor's 21st birthday if they push it IIRC), and if you keep copies, as long as you do so -- just in case forty years from now someone questions you about a supposed minor in it -- to protect your right to view or distribute the tape, because any age tape of a minor fucking is illegal, even if it is 100 years old. Remember, many 25 year old women look 16 and if someone pushes the issue, you may have to prove you are not wrong even decades later! [Link]
BYOB_Kenobi Senior Member “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard 2684 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 6:53PM Is it ethical to rip a porn DVD if your GF has sexual arousal disorder? Just kidding. Ignoring legalities, I see the original argument of the rental scenario a philosophical division between the technical definition of renting vs. spirit of renting. Technically if someone has rented something they can do whatever they want contingent upon returning it in the same condition. Once the law/government gets involved with specifying acceptable and unacceptable uses of rented products, you can easily start to violate Constitutional rights and create many undue problems. However, if going by the spirit of renting, it would be unethical to rip a copy of the product because the premise of renting is only allowing access to the product for limited time. Having a digitally ripped copy of the product with all functional capabilities of the original product violates the spirit of renting. To me this is the ultimate question, do people subscribe to the technical definition of renting or the spirit of rental. This question is just symptomatic of the current bramble-fuck of intellectual property law. ImSorry, I’m not sure I understand your specific philosophy on IP as you’ve been all over the map, but you lose a lot of would be support by your choice of tactics. Even though I would like to see better consumer rights and eliminating some of the overextended CPR laws at the federal level, the only way to effectively accomplish this is by changing legislation, not by trying to individually destroy the companies who make the products that you enjoy. Your strategy is ineffective and counterproductive, just like strategies and tactics employed by the RIAA like filing absurd civil lawsuits with ridiculous damages against their vary customers. It’s bad business for everyone and turns everything into a pissing contest. That being said, there have been many posts on ADT saying x behavior will kill the industry. Even if this behavior(s) is attributed to the industrial demise, this doesn’t necessarily make it right to illegalize the behavior outright. I don’t object to people admonishing immoral behavior, however it doesn’t give the industry through politicians license to destroy consumers rights (in this case Fair Use) to legally prop up or keep an industry alive, especially when there are Constitutional rights in play. ImSorry, I blame the current shitty state of Fair Use/CPR laws on me, part of the general public, not the media companies because I/we have failed to influence legislators and companies from resorting to impose these unjust laws. For example, although I find it completely asinine that there are federal laws decreeing the limit of # copies a consumer can make of a CD (was it 4-5 copies?) and the number of devices a file can be transferred between personal devices, these laws exist because we have been sitting on our asses doing nothing. By being complacent, we have not kept our politicians in check resulting in the drafting and passing copyright legislation at expense of consumer rights. This has changed the CPR/FU balance helping create the current atmosphere. As JohnHenry has stated earlier, whether commercial or political the consumers/public needs to focus on influencing demand/policy with dollars/votes and need to stop resorting to inappropriate and ineffective tactics of victimization when we get screwed. BTW, this is a great topic. [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 23 2009 : 11:53PM (Quote from BYOB Kenobi: For example, although I find it completely asinine that there are federal laws decreeing the limit of # copies a consumer can make of a CD (was it 4-5 copies?) and the number of devices a file can be transferred between personal devices, these laws exist because we have been sitting on our asses doing nothing.) I wasn't aware that legally you could make a copy, period (possibly unless it was to an MP3 player) but have been told numerous times that if you own the album that one backup/use copy is probably OK as prosecutors have bigger fish to fry. I would be interested in the section number decreeing four copies is OK if you have it. [Link]
poloprinz Member We didn't bring a compass 'cause we ain't got nowhere to go 173 Posts 4/09	Posted - Aug 24 2009 : 3:25AM ^ Oh, I missed that one. I'd like to see that, too. AFAIK, there is no right to make any copy of a dvd you own. The laws on copyright infringement state that copying dvds is illegal, regardless of your intention. In Germany, we had the right to make private copies (if not intended for distribution), until the law was changed to accomodate international (=US) standards. Maybe Kenobi was talking about Canada or some Scandinavian countries, where it might still be legal. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 24 2009 : 3:50AM I think he is referring to audio CDs. There was a time, I believe, when it was legal to make backups for personal use as long as you kept the original. [Link]
Dean Wormer Senior Member Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son. 1048 Posts 7/04	Posted - Aug 24 2009 : 3:57AM Is it stealing if what you take is something nobody wants? [Link]
BYOB_Kenobi Senior Member “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard 2684 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 24 2009 : 10:10AM mharris127 wrote: (Quote from BYOB Kenobi: For example, although I find it completely asinine that there are federal laws decreeing the limit of # copies a consumer can make of a CD (was it 4-5 copies?) and the number of devices a file can be transferred between personal devices, these laws exist because we have been sitting on our asses doing nothing.) I wasn't aware that legally you could make a copy, period (possibly unless it was to an MP3 player) but have been told numerous times that if you own the album that one backup/use copy is probably OK as prosecutors have bigger fish to fry. I would be interested in the section number decreeing four copies is OK if you have it. Click to expand mharris127, You are correct sir, I was thinking of something else. Thanks for the correction. [Link]
johnshaft820 Member 271 Posts 1/05	Posted - Aug 24 2009 : 10:14AM Regarding back-up copies of CDs and DVDs I believe the change came with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. It made it illegal to circumvent any copy protection mechanism on digital media, which includes CDs and DVDs. (Technically, what was declared illegal was the distribution of devices/programs whose sole purpose was to defeat copy protection.) Since most CDs don't have any special copy protection, there was nothing stopping people from making back-up copies of CDs within the bounds of "fair use." But since DVDs had CSS encryption, it was illegal to distribute technologies for decrypting DVDs. The crazy thing about the DMCA is that it says it doesn't conflict with fair use rights. After all, it's not illegal for you to create a back-up; it's illegal for anyone to distribute the software that lets you make a back-up. How are you supposed to make a fair-use back-up without the needed technology? Good question. But in case after case judges have been ruling that the DMCA doesn't conflict with the fair use doctrine. It's puzzling. [Link]
gerva Member 43 Posts 9/09	Posted - Sep 27 2009 : 10:33PM This thread has had no addition for a month now. but I will put something here just for those that may come here later. Talking about copying DVDs and decrypting, how do you get rid of the non-skippeable non-forwardable scene at the begining of at least 3 DVDs that I own where there is green stuff coming out of a girl's ass and the audio is 72 decibels louder than the actual footage after the adds. And how do you separate 2 scenes, one great the other mediocre at best that an editor mixed togeter, also the meshed frames, the swirl, the 1 or 2 whitewashed frames that occur most of the time when you hear "kerslick". There's only one way and as soon as I can I will improve my own purchased DVDs. If I can extract a favorite scene in less than an hour I will. to moderator, if you think this should be somewhere else please do not hesitate to move it or even kill it if it belongs nowhere. [Link]

budtugley Senior Member One man's trash can be the next man's treasure. 1187 Posts 1/04	Posted - Sep 28 2009 : 4:50PM I bought the Beatles White Album in 1970 and played it so much the grooves wore out. About 1980 I bought another vinyl version of the White Album and I taped it onto cassette as well as a reel to reel deck I had. Is that stealing? They did sell cassette tapes. When it was remastered I bought another copy, the third time I spent loot on the same album only this time it was a CD. I copied it, one for my car and one for in home use. Suppose I copied it once more for in office use. Is that stealing or should I buy the same recording 5 times over? Seems like a gray area to me. [Link]
johnshaft820 Member 271 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 28 2009 : 10:30PM Look here for some info on this issue. This is a "gray area" because the RIAA wants it that way. When they address the public, they say that making a back-up copy of a CD you own usually won't raise concerns. But when they go to court, they like to call such copies "unauthorized." So, they want to look good for the public while leaving open the possibility of prosecuting people for doing what they currently say they don't object to. [Link]
JohnHenry Member 165 Posts 3/09	Posted - Sep 28 2009 : 10:35PM budtugley wrote: I bought the Beatles White Album in 1970 and played it so much the grooves wore out. About 1980 I bought another vinyl version of the White Album and I taped it onto cassette as well as a reel to reel deck I had. Is that stealing? They did sell cassette tapes. When it was remastered I bought another copy, the third time I spent loot on the same album only this time it was a CD. I copied it, one for my car and one for in home use. Suppose I copied it once more for in office use. Is that stealing or should I buy the same recording 5 times over? Seems like a gray area to me. Click to expand Nothing gray here. When you purchase an album, you buy two things: the plastic that the CD is made from (or vinyl the record was made of, etc etc) and a license to listen to the music. If you make two copies of that album, one for your car and one for your office, you're well within your rights until the moment your wife flips on the copy at home, while you're listening to it in the car. You only own one license, so legally you're only entitled to hear that album in one place, at one time. If the police raided your house and found ten thousand copies you've made of the album, you'd have a tough time trying to convince them that they were for 'personal use.' Stephan [Link]
johnshaft820 Member 271 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 29 2009 : 8:50AM JohnHenry wrote: You only own one license, so legally you're only entitled to hear that album in one place, at one time. Click to expand Where does this principle come from? Which law? I'm interested because I've never heard even the recording industry make this argument. [Link]
elgringoviejo58 Senior Member 1460 Posts 1/07	Posted - Sep 30 2009 : 9:43PM Who needs copies of anything as there is enough free porn on tube sites for the average guy to spend the rest of his waking life viewing tube sites. [Link]
JohnHenry Member 165 Posts 3/09	Posted - Oct 1 2009 : 9:30PM johnshaft820 wrote: JohnHenry wrote: You only own one license, so legally you're only entitled to hear that album in one place, at one time. Click to expand Where does this principle come from? Which law? I'm interested because I've never heard even the recording industry make this argument. Click to expand DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998 It's not light reading. John [Link]
johnshaft820 Member 271 Posts 1/05	Posted - Oct 3 2009 : 8:30AM ^ Thanks for the link JohnHenry, but I can't find anything in that document that would support your argument here. Granted, it's just a summary of the DMCA, not the whole text of the statute. But there's nothing at all about consumers purchasing a "license" when they purchase media and that "license" prohibiting its being copied and played in two places at once. [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Oct 3 2009 : 8:49PM johnshaft820 wrote: ^ Thanks for the link JohnHenry, but I can't find anything in that document that would support your argument here. Granted, it's just a summary of the DMCA, not the whole text of the statute. But there's nothing at all about consumers purchasing a "license" when they purchase media and that "license" prohibiting its being copied and played in two places at once. Click to expand That would be in English Common Law, which is not codified but is based on common sense and regulates everything we do. It comes from what is now the UK and is the unwritten legal code of the twelfth century there. This principle is what we base such laws on as rape, murder, robbery, theft, etc. (although most of those have since been written into codified law). Intellectual content is considered property and making copies to sell is certainly theft of that property. I disagree with John on one of his points about not allowing small amounts of back-up copies to be made (like one per title that you own) in case the original is damaged, I think that is OK morally (legally is another question). Also unknown is if copying a song/title/movie to a MP3 or MP4 player is legal (that is the only manner of making a CD or computer file truly portable enough to listen to on the go and actually using that device). Allowing backups would also allow single copies to MP3 players as that could be considered a backup copy. At this point I go ahead and copy my CD's to a MP3 player but do not make CD copies unless it is a file that I purchased via computer (Napster and Rhapsody are examples of this). Then I will make one copy for use with my CD player (Wal-Mart online used to license up to 10 copies to CD and unlimited to MP3 players along with the file with electronic control to prevent more, maybe more should do that -- I am unsure if this is technically allowed with Napster although the software allows it). [Link]
RectomRamington Member Everybody needs a little R&R 63 Posts 8/09	Posted - Oct 3 2009 : 10:59PM Is it stealing if you dont get caught? and have no chance of getting caught? [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Oct 3 2009 : 11:02PM Yes. [Link]

elgringoviejo58 Senior Member 1460 Posts 1/07	Posted - Oct 3 2009 : 11:11PM Is the mere act of clicking onto a tube site stealing? [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Oct 4 2009 : 6:16PM elgringoviejo58 wrote: Is the mere act of clicking onto a tube site stealing? Click to expand Not as long as you don't watch anything. I haven't been on a illegit tube site, but I doubt everything there is illegal. However, telling what is and isn't is likely hard to do and if they are breaking copyright laws, what telling else is there (computer viruses or worms, stealing credit card numbers to vacation to Italy, etc.) [Link]
Ignatz Deactivated User 269 Posts 2/12	Posted - Apr 21 2012 : 7:05PM Just say no! [Link]
utopiaa Member 610 Posts 7/11	Posted - Apr 22 2012 : 10:36AM Well as someone bumbed this up i might aswell ask this here. Lets say you are a member on Some Studio Website Like Evil Angel. They have Some Porn series there like Clarks Euro Angels which are missing some of the titles on the series. Now would it be ok to download those missing movies, Especailly since it is very hard to buy those DVDs new anywhere. Or would you consider this to be morally wrong? Espesially considering you been a member of their site a few years and the gaps havent been updated and it is very unlikely they ever will be? Edited by - utopiaa on 4/22/2012 10:38:38 AM [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18631 Posts 4/08	Posted - Apr 22 2012 : 11:49AM ^ How is it up to you to decide when they will be uploaded or made available on DVD? Maybe the studio is planning on re-releasing that movie on DVD and blu-ray next week. You download it this week. Well, now you've downloaded it, so you're not going to buy it. Now you've basically stolen, because the studio won't get the money that you likely would have spent on it. There is no inherent right that you have to see that scene. It is material owned by the copyright owner, that is made available at their convenience/on their timeline (not yours) to purchase, if you desire to do so when they make it available. [Link]
utopiaa Member 610 Posts 7/11	Posted - Apr 22 2012 : 12:04PM Well who said i downloaded anythng :) And they still get my money by the Subscritpion i pay to their site. [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18631 Posts 4/08	Posted - Apr 22 2012 : 12:13PM ^ I didn't say you downloaded it. I was playing through a hypothetical scenario. And I know you still have a subscription to their website. That's why in my scenario, I offered up the possibility of them wanting to release it on DVD as opposed to releasing it on their site. They're allowed to do that, and expect that people will buy the DVD (even members of their site). But if you had already downloaded it, then you would be much less likely to buy the DVD. Get what I'm saying? [Link]
utopiaa Member 610 Posts 7/11	Posted - Apr 22 2012 : 12:28PM Yes i get what you mean but it is very unlikely :) oh well the time you own the copyright on video is 50 years in EU so 35 years or so to wait .) [Link]
johnshaft820 Member 271 Posts 1/05	Posted - Apr 22 2012 : 6:14PM Oh lord, here we go again. Has it really been 3 years since imsorry blessed us with his defense of theft, known ever after as the porn = fingernails principle? imsorry was indeed a sorry poster, but not sorry about being sorry. And that's the sorriest kind of sorry. The answer to the bumper's question is in the posts from 3 years ago. [Link]
bmnot Member I love interactive movies. 114 Posts 3/11	Posted - Aug 11 2012 : 6:50AM “Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress: ‘To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,” the lawsuit details, adding: “Early Circuit law in California held that obscene works did not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and thus cannot be protected by copyright.” [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18631 Posts 4/08	Posted - Aug 11 2012 : 9:25PM ^ That second part is in past tense, so what I gather from that is that there was a time when porn was not covered by copyright, but now it is. [Link]
Katvena Member Rocco & Nacho are the KINGS OF HARDCORE and yes I am a Red Blooded WOMAN 402 Posts 8/12	Posted - Sep 23 2012 : 8:01PM RectomRamington wrote: Is it stealing if you dont get caught? and have no chance of getting caught? Click to expand Yes people have been caught and fined and banned for using the internet. [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Sep 24 2012 : 9:30PM killbillvol69 wrote: ^ That second part is in past tense, so what I gather from that is that there was a time when porn was not covered by copyright, but now it is. Click to expand Also what is obscene? The courts haven't come up with a definition other than if the content is of the Max Hardcore variety or if it involves shitting into someone's mouth. Therefore even if that California ruling was still operative today most porn would not be affected by it. Everyone, please do us a favor and buy your damn movies legally before the US Government is forced by movie producers to pass a law stating any violation of copyright is punishable by life in prison getting fucked up the ass by five bubbas nightly. That is what all of this tube and torrent shit is leading up to. [Link]
Diablo Canyon One Deactivated User Quality Control 46 Posts 9/12	Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 12:10AM Maybe they wanna get fucked up the ass by five bubbas nightly.... [Link]
Diablo Canyon One Deactivated User Quality Control 46 Posts 9/12	Posted - Sep 25 2012 : 12:36AM Totally agree with the deactivation of this creep, but what happens when adult companies are the ones putting out the illegal downloads? [Link]