Stopping piracy. Can multiangle be pirated? (page 2)

Author	Post
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 17 2010 : 12:34PM x3094 wrote: Copying purchased content is not equivalent to it. Click to expand So, someone could copy your social security number and give it out and that would be okay with you since you still have your original number there is no theft of your number according to you. Or your bank account number. Or your credit card number. Etc. Edited by - Flash on 8/17/2010 12:34:54 PM [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 17 2010 : 1:28PM Wow, I just realized, the key to ending piracy has been stated by the illegal downloaders in each and every one of these threads. It's just no one has caught it. Everyone who is pro-illegal downloading keeps stating that nothing of value has been taken. That's the key. The movie has no value. No one wants it. Apparently the item of value is the actual DVD or Blu-ray disc, case and artwork. Adult studios, you can save tons of money. Stop making the movies, they are apparently worthless. Just produce a blank DVD, case and artwork of the movie you would have made if it still had value and sell it. Give the illegal downloaders what they want. The blank discs, boxes and artwork. Apparently that's what's worth the money and stop making the worthless movies on the discs. Then there will also be no movie to illegally download solving that issue as well. [Link]
Bill All-Star Member 5334 Posts 6/00	Posted - Aug 17 2010 : 10:38PM x3094 wrote: But if you buy the book and make a copy for your friend and give it to them does the copying represent theft? Of course not. Is the copied book stolen? Obviously not. Would book publishers attempt to say it's theft to prevent the purchasing and copying of their books? Of course, but that doesn't change the reality that it's not. Click to expand It absolutely is theft. It's a textbook definition of copyright violation. [url=197943]copyright If anyone other than the copyright holder, or an agent licensed by the copyright holder reproduces works held by the copyright holder, that is a violation of the copyright and, by definition, theft. [Link]
Bill All-Star Member 5334 Posts 6/00	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 12:04AM ChodeMasterJ wrote: ^ I know people who have downloaded something to test it and went out and bought the physical media because of it, so your argument goes both ways. Programs, movies, or music. Click to expand There are definitely people who have downloaded something that they have subsequently purchased. But they are in a small minority. I've been part of that minority. A few years ago, I wanted to buy all of the Harry Potter movies as a Christmas present for a friend's daughter. At the time, I think that there were three movies on DVD at the time and the fourth had already been in theaters, but wasn't being released on DVD for another month or two. When I went online to purchase them, I ended up buying them for less than $10 each, which was a lot less than I had planned on spending on her. So, I decided that I would also buy her the fourth movie, when it was released on DVD. But I wanted something to give to her to represent that at Christmas. So, I asked a friend to download a copy of the fourth movie for me, which I gave to her, along with the other three with a "coupon", inside the case, telling her that when the movie actually came out on DVD, I'd trade her coupon for a legitimate copy of the movie. When the DVD came out, I bought a copy for each of us. Technically, what I did was wrong. However, I rationalized it in my mind that I wasn't stealing anything because we had both already paid to see it in the theater and I was going to buy a the DVD for each of us when it was available, so nobody was losing money. But, in reality, what I did was still wrong. Edited by - Bill on 8/18/2010 12:14:17 AM [Link]

x3094 Deactivated User 46 Posts 5/09	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 6:02AM Flash wrote: x3094 wrote: Copying purchased content is not equivalent to it. Click to expand So, someone could copy your social security number and give it out and that would be okay with you since you still have your original number there is no theft of your number according to you. Or your bank account number. Or your credit card number. Etc. Click to expand Interesting that you felt the need to change the discussion concerning what was being copied and whether or not that is to be considered theft since the original debate about copying data wasn't working in your favor. That would mean that you've tacitly conceded that copying purchased content doesn't deprive the original of their property, but it may deprive them of potential profit, which as previously stated is hypothetical unless you could interview every single person who downloaded said purchased content and asked them if they would have bought the content if it wasn't available any other way. Bill wrote: It absolutely is theft. It's a textbook definition of copyright violation. [url=197943]copyright If anyone other than the copyright holder, or an agent licensed by the copyright holder reproduces works held by the copyright holder, that is a violation of the copyright and, by definition, theft. Click to expand You gave the definition of copyright, not theft. But let's look at the denotation of theft: [url=197933]theft Even they understand that theft is about depriving the rightful owner of their property, and when such a situation doesn't occur in the context of making copies of books, for example, it isn't equivalent to the deprivation of property, merely copying that book publishers don't like because they think they're losing money. Edited by - x3094 on 8/18/2010 6:07:18 AM [Link]
The Edge Member Rock and Roll Stops the traffic! 91 Posts 2/10	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 10:00AM ^ Your argument that a downloader would possibly buy a piece of media afterwards is just as hypothetical as the belief that he wouldn't buy it. So your rationalization doesn't bear fruit, just because you happen to believe it or may know a few people who have actually bought after the fact. Who cares what the definitions are? Call it what you wantever you want to but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that revenues are being lost due to downloading. Yes, individually, there is a case for someone who may buy later, just as the inverse is true, but as been stated, we're talking on the mass scale here, and on the mass scale, at least of adult content, it's pretty clear, it's hurting sales. And as I pointed out earlier, it doesn't need to be deprivation of the physical product. My example of giving away printed copies of books next to a retailer points that out. It's simply about someone who may have bought but doesn't now. Even if that buyer is buying to sample and feels cheated with the product-that's always been the case. But running with this common complaint, so the logic then is that if all media found a way to let the consumer sample a good chunk of the product, then a person wouldn't download it, if they found it to be to their liking and would then buy it? Because at that point, they've seen enough to validate a purchase? Well, that idea may be forthcoming, but I don't believe it will curtail the vast amount of downloaders who just want something for free. [mod edit: quote removed] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 8/18/2010 5:20:52 PM [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 12:32PM x3094 wrote: Interesting that you felt the need to change the discussion concerning what was being copied and whether or not that is to be considered theft since the original debate about copying data wasn't working in your favor. Click to expand Interesting that you feel that other things being copied doesn't apply. Why is that. Shouldn't the same things you've said in this thread be the same for them too? There is no debate about stealing, it is illegal. Some people just use very poor rationalizations to try to explain that what they are doing isn't wrong. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 12:34PM Also interesting how you skipped my comment about the movie apparently having no value. Do you feel a movie has value or not? [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 5:33PM As I've pointed out numerous times, nobody steals trash. [Link]
ADT44 Member 876 Posts 7/09	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 6:03PM Flash wrote: I think the majority of people who are illegally downloading never spend a dime on buying the actual item, be it porn, mainstream, video games, e-books or music. Click to expand This is the first time that I opened this thread and considering that I don't have time to read all of them (some lengthy!) posts, I do feel like responding to this one. You thought wrong. If you would invest some time to go on the internet and find all of them (independent! and/or governemental) reports about the subject matter, then you could've known that your statement is false. There are even some big posts about this on ADT. I think it was in that only copyright thread that I ever participated in and in which Woody was being the hard up ("black ór white") guy we all have (annoyingly) come to know; it was that thread in which I also participated in before I had my big 3/4 month break and in which I uploaded some personally made photos of Third World semi-underground illegal (DVD) markets. I think it got deleted. The problem is that too many pro ór contra copyright supporters, ONLY read reports that can help consolidate their specific points/arguments. Edited by - adt44 on 8/18/2010 7:10:08 PM [Link]
Bill All-Star Member 5334 Posts 6/00	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 10:48PM x3094 wrote: Bill wrote: It absolutely is theft. It's a textbook definition of copyright violation. [url=197943]copyright If anyone other than the copyright holder, or an agent licensed by the copyright holder reproduces works held by the copyright holder, that is a violation of the copyright and, by definition, theft. Click to expand You gave the definition of copyright, not theft. But let's look at the denotation of theft: [url=197933]theft Click to expand Violation of copyright laws is theft because the violator is depriving the legal owner, of the intellectual property, the exclusive right to distribute or sell the copyrighted material. The copyright in itself is tangible personal property, it has value and can be sold or licensed to someone else. When someone violates that copyright, they are stealing that exclusive right. It is gone because it is no longer exclusive if others are copying and distributing the intellectual property that is protected by that copyright. [Link]
ChodeMasterJ Perpetual Marxist 5405 Posts 4/03	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 11:07PM Bill wrote: ChodeMasterJ wrote: ^ I know people who have downloaded something to test it and went out and bought the physical media because of it, so your argument goes both ways. Programs, movies, or music. Click to expand Click to expand I know people like that, even though they're in the minority. Hell, some of my friends download first and go buy BluRays, Box Sets, Special Editions, etc after they see that the movie is worth it. I was just pointing that out to refute Flash's absolute statement that no one does that kind of stuff, when I know people personally (in real life and on here) who do exactly that. That was my point. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 11:41PM ADT44 wrote: The problem is that too many pro ór contra copyright supporters, ONLY read reports that can help consolidate their specific points/arguments. Click to expand My stance doesn't come from reports at all, it came from real world experience. Sorry. Based on the people that I have met my statement holds true. The vast majority don't spend a dime, in fact the vast majority have mocked me for being dumb enough to actually buy DVDs when they are available free. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 11:50PM ChodeMasterJ wrote: I was just pointing that out to refute Flash's absolute statement that no one does that kind of stuff Click to expand Again, I have not stated this. I pointed this out earlier. Apparently that is being ignored. My understanding is you are taking this statement to mean that I am saying that no one who illegally downloads ever buys... Flash wrote: To post that no one who has illegally downloaded something wouldn't have bought or rented it is bullshit. Click to expand What I am saying is that people who state that there is no financial loss due to illegal downloading because the people who are illegally downloading the item would never have bought it is bullshit. Some of those people, if illegal downloading wasn't available, would purchase or rent. I have stated multiple times I don't think the majority of illegal downloaders will ever spend a time. Majority is not a absolute. I ask again. Stop making claims to an absolute I never made. [Link]

Mike Quasar Zero Tolerance Reluctant pornographer 1765 Posts 7/01	Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 12:06AM Seriously, just lock these discussions as soon as they get started. The people who steal will never acknowledge that that's what they do. They will make every imaginary rationalization possible. The only "study" that really matters is the fact that before tube/torrent sites, DVD sales were huge, profits were booming and the good studios were putting that money back into their movies as well as their pockets. Post- piracy, overall revenue is almost at a negative and more and more companies are cutting back on the type of content they shoot. "There's not enough gang bangs nowadays" - Too expensive to shoot and downloaded for free thousands of times within hours of it's release. "Not enough anal, D.P etc. first time this and first time that" - Again, too expensive and downloaded thousands of times illegally for free the day the DVD hits the street. As for pay sites that offer premium, original HD content? We got rid of DRM protection because the consumer demanded it and guess what - all of that premium, exclusive content is now available illegally and for free. There goes that business model too. I know that all of you really super smart content thieves will mock us for "not adapting" to the new reality. When the "new reality" is that we should be working for free, it's hard to adapt. Will you be punching in on time at Wal Mart when they tell you that working for nothing is the "new reality"? This is my final word on the subject forever - you entitled parasites have already killed the music business and you will soon drive the final nail into this one too. Hollywood won't be far behind. Fuck all of you and don't complain when there is no longer anything new and exciting for you to steal. I hope each and every fucking one of you has your home broken into because someone wanted to "share" your big screen TV. Fucking die. End of rant [Link]
nateglass Member I must break you 201 Posts 12/05	Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 12:22AM But tell us how you really feel Mike. I agree with you in every respect Mike, but there's something you should look into. Look at who one of the major financial supporters of piracy sites is (videosz.com), and then look who's behind that site, and then look at who's behind a site that is near and dear to your heart...and pocketbook. [Link]
smboards Member 6 Posts 2/09	Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 7:17AM you entitled parasites have already killed the music business and you will soon drive the final nail into this one too. Click to expand The question was asked former in the thread but I did not see clear answer. How exactly is the music industry killed? I live in Eastern Europe. You can only try to imagine the level of piracy here :( Really shameful :( But I happen to have sales figures for one local chain of music stores (selling mostly CD-s and some small selection of DVD/bluray stuff). Total sales dynamics for last 4 years (growth year-on-year) 2006 +26% 2007 +7% 2008 -2% 2009 -13% mind, 2009 was the year when turnovers for retail stores specializing in clothes or home appliances fell more than 50%. -13% is GOOD if you take into account the overall situation. We are talking about a country where good broadband internet connections are as common as piracy. Based on numbers, pure and simple, I would say that piracy has had no effect on conventional music sales. Based on my own experience it makes sense, I still buy about the same number of CD-s per year as I used to. Some artists are "must-buy" for me. So my purchasing habits have not changed because of the ready availability of pirated material on Internet. I am not telling that I do not know what a torrent is. I know, nothing to be proud of, but let's stay honest here. So, my point is that this pirating stuff has mostly caused people to start consuming lot of stuff that they would never considered before, while not significantly affecting their shopping habits. The only difference here is that while in the "good old days" they would not have purchased nor consumed the product, now they are just not purchasing it. Money out of pocket has stayed the same, stuff consumed has increased. Would the money out of pocket have grown at the same rate if the piracy was impossible? Doubt it. I just remembered the old days when I was young (and stupid). The age of VHS and no internet. I had stacks and stacks of VHS tapes and all of them were copies. Not a single original :(. Now I have even higher stacks of original DVD-s and Blurays (and a broadband connection). Go figure. [Link]
The Edge Member Rock and Roll Stops the traffic! 91 Posts 2/10	Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 10:15AM ^ You bring up some interesting points for sure, and this whole issue as stated is shades of grey. But you can't just look at numbers to form an opinion on this. Any report can be skewed to prove either viewpoint, I believe. But this is a case that if it walks like a duck, then it's a duck. How many people do each of us know that download for free without guilt? Hell, I know someone who taught his sister, who is middle-aged and would never think of herself as stealing-it's just a technical convience for her now. Now if someone sat down and rationalized it to her, maybe she'd understand and change her mind that it could be hurting the industries. But my point is that yes, many people can download to sample and then purchase what they like. But by that logic, the next belief should be that overall numbers of ALL things downloaded or torrented would increase. And to my belief, while almost everything gets shared out there, you will see staggeringly higher numbers of downloads for the most mainstream and commercial of media. For example, everybody knows Lady Gaga-her music is everywhere. Yet, I'm willing to be her downloads are among the highest. That shouldn't be according to your theory as most people have "sampled" that music over the airwaves, ad nauseum. So my opinion is yes, people sample to purchase, but they are a miniority of what's actually being traded. mod note : no need to quote the post just above yours Edited by - Joey Starr on 8/19/2010 11:15:57 AM [Link]
nateglass Member I must break you 201 Posts 12/05	Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 12:15PM The Edge wrote: So my opinion is yes, people sample to purchase, but they are a minority of what's actually being traded. Click to expand Agreed. That's called using the exception to prove the rule. It's another bs justification that the freeloaders have convinced themselves of. Just look at their various justifications for downloading, it changes from item to item. There's no consistency in their arguments. [Link]
Jamie Gardner Member demicomix.com Carnal Comics - True Stories of Adult Film Stars 105 Posts 6/04	Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 12:29PM nateglass wrote: But tell us how you really feel Mike. I agree with you in every respect Mike, but there's something you should look into. Look at who one of the major financial supporters of piracy sites is (videosz.com), and then look who's behind that site, and then look at who's behind a site that is near and dear to your heart...and pocketbook. Click to expand In addition to Zero Tolerance having movies on videosz.com, Pink Visual has movies on there as well. The ironic thing is that Pink Visual is suing Brazzers for piracy. There are scenes on tube sites that say they are sponsored by Zero Tolerance. In addition to saying the links are sponsored by Zero Tolerance, there are links to the Zero Tolerance website. If these links are not sponsored by Zero Tolerance, it's possible that they say "This video is sponsored by Ztod" to confuse anti-piracy services. These scenes tend to be 3 minutes in length. http://www.demicomix.com/Carnal01.htm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carnalcomics [Link]
x3094 Deactivated User 46 Posts 5/09	Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 8:34PM Bill wrote: You gave the definition of copyright, not theft. But let's look at the denotation of theft: [url=197933]theft Click to expand Violation of copyright laws is theft because the violator is depriving the legal owner, of the intellectual property, the exclusive right to distribute or sell the copyrighted material. The copyright in itself is tangible personal property, it has value and can be sold or licensed to someone else. When someone violates that copyright, they are stealing that exclusive right. It is gone because it is no longer exclusive if others are copying and distributing the intellectual property that is protected by that copyright. Click to expand Bill, if someone violates the copyright they're violating the copyright, they haven't deprived the original owner of their property or of their "right" to sell or distribute it. Thus it is not equivalent. Furthermore, the content owner is still free to distribute and sell the copyrighted material as it's not a tangible good like a physical book that the original owner can be deprived of. The content owner simply doesn't like the idea of someone sharing something they've purchased because they think every single use of the content should be paid for, so they invent the idea that purchased content which is copied can somehow be "stolen," which of course defies common sense. [Link]
nateglass Member I must break you 201 Posts 12/05	Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 9:09PM a lot of studios have sponsored vids up on the tube sites nowadays, it's becoming more common. where i think a lot of the studios are dropping the ball is only focusing on tube sites and overlooking cyberlockers and torrent sites. Or only relying on the "sue the downloader" torrent programs that overlook cyberlockers and aren't all that effective in the first place. anyone that sells content to videosz.com should also realize that videosz is going to upload that content to all the big tube sites with a "dvdrig.com" watermark...so you aren't just selling them a license to put the scene on videosz.com but it'll show up on those same tube sites the studios are complaining about except videosz will have been given the license to put it up there......and i'm talking full scenes. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 12:11AM Again x3094 I post the question to you, that you have previously ignored, do you think a movie has value? [Link]
God Created Woman For Member 19 Posts 7/10	Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 12:51AM x3094 wrote: Bill wrote: You gave the definition of copyright, not theft. But let's look at the denotation of theft: [url=197933]theft Click to expand Violation of copyright laws is theft because the violator is depriving the legal owner, of the intellectual property, the exclusive right to distribute or sell the copyrighted material. The copyright in itself is tangible personal property, it has value and can be sold or licensed to someone else. When someone violates that copyright, they are stealing that exclusive right. It is gone because it is no longer exclusive if others are copying and distributing the intellectual property that is protected by that copyright. Click to expand Bill, if someone violates the copyright they're violating the copyright, they haven't deprived the original owner of their property or of their "right" to sell or distribute it. Thus it is not equivalent. Furthermore, the content owner is still free to distribute and sell the copyrighted material as it's not a tangible good like a physical book that the original owner can be deprived of. The content owner simply doesn't like the idea of someone sharing something they've purchased because they think every single use of the content should be paid for, so they invent the idea that purchased content which is copied can somehow be "stolen," which of course defies common sense. Click to expand I actually happen to have issues with the concept of "intellectual property", but in the interests of fairness, I will explain that there is a widely-held belief that "property" is not the right to "have" something, but rather, the right to "prevent others from having" something -- i.e. when you have such a right, then you can charge for releasing that right. For example, "owning" a bicycle gives you the right to prevent others from using it, even when you're not using it -- therefore they must pay to borrow it from you, even if you wouldn't have used it. This is the basis of intellectual property -- someone can own the right to prevent you from looking at the Mona Lisa, thus they can make you pay for the opportunity to look at it, even if it could be copied endless times. Porn is the same way -- just because the legal owner can still try to charge for viewing it, does not mean you haven't infringed on their rights by viewing it without paying for it. (this is why I have issues with "intellectual" property -- it has no "exclusive" rights, because everyone can use it at the same time without taking it away from anyone, and thus shouldn't be compared with a bicycle) [Link]

Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 1:40AM So then how exactly do you propose that the companies and people behind making intellectual property get paid? If anyone just has the right to watch whatever copy they can find than the companies and people make no money. Should then the people of the world pay a tax per project, whether you want to see it or not? And how much would say the world person tax be for say Saw 3D? Would you be mad if when you got your paycheck $100.00 was deducted as the Saw 3D tax? So for anyone who is pro illegal downloading.... Does a movie have value. Anyone. I like how everyone who is in favor of illegal downloading is afraid of this question..... [Link]
smboards Member 6 Posts 2/09	Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 4:52AM The point of view I was trying to express in my post was that although illegal downloading IS theft, maybe it just doesn't matter. I work in the field of creating intellectual property myself and can't help but look at the thing by the numbers. I have another real life example about music. A local artist called HU? released an album here couple of years ago that was massive success. I even think that it sold better than any album has ever sold here. And it was stolen more than any local release before. I think that illegal downloads exceeded album sales tenfold. Now the interesting point is that the album sold about 5 times more than the artist had expected even in her wildest dreams. Question that makes me wonder is that if you exceed your sales target 5 times, does it matter at all, how much additinal copies are stolen? Maybe the piracy should be ignored unless it actually harms business. I do not have answer to that question but I understand that we live in significantly different world than 10 or 20 years ago. By the way, I both bought and pirated the album used in example. I bought the CD as soon as it was released. Some time later I wanted to put that album into my MP3 player and it was just so much quicker to download the torrent instead of ripping the CD :) So I performed my part in screwing up the statistics. [Link]
Bill All-Star Member 5334 Posts 6/00	Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 10:03PM x3094 wrote: Violation of copyright laws is theft because the violator is depriving the legal owner, of the intellectual property, the exclusive right to distribute or sell the copyrighted material. The copyright in itself is tangible personal property, it has value and can be sold or licensed to someone else. When someone violates that copyright, they are stealing that exclusive right. It is gone because it is no longer exclusive if others are copying and distributing the intellectual property that is protected by that copyright. Click to expand Bill, if someone violates the copyright they're violating the copyright, they haven't deprived the original owner of their property or of their "right" to sell or distribute it. Thus it is not equivalent. Furthermore, the content owner is still free to distribute and sell the copyrighted material as it's not a tangible good like a physical book that the original owner can be deprived of. The content owner simply doesn't like the idea of someone sharing something they've purchased because they think every single use of the content should be paid for, so they invent the idea that purchased content which is copied can somehow be "stolen," which of course defies common sense. Click to expand Wow. You are either as dumb as a fucking stump or you are just trying to convince yourself that you're not a thief. Either way, It's a waste of time trying to explain anything to a piece of shit such as yourself. I'm out. [Link]
TheDreamPolice Deactivated User 170 Posts 2/10	Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 11:16PM They only way to win the war on piracy/tube sites and is a drastic change in the business model. No wants to admit..... Do this Performers makes less Spend money on scripts and locations Make the site or dvd so cheap. People are like "fuck i can pay $10 bucks", I'll just buy it. Update daily. Stagger the updates. And each update has to feel like (to the viewer) its the greatest scene that has just come out. Contracts with performers for their own personal sites. Split revenue with performer. content on performer site is not updated as much and is not downloadable. Get performer to agree to solo web chats 2 to 3 times a week. Hardcore w/boyfriend or whoever 1 once a week. Porn Music videos. Do deals with up and coming bands - la has a million of them. Make porn comps, sorta like pop shot comps of performers advertise with those....with the music. ** Do deals with performers to when comes to dancing. [Link]
x3094 Deactivated User 46 Posts 5/09	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 4:20AM Flash wrote: Again x3094 I post the question to you, that you have previously ignored, do you think a movie has value? Click to expand Value is subjective. God Created Woman For wrote: I actually happen to have issues with the concept of "intellectual property", but in the interests of fairness, I will explain that there is a widely-held belief that "property" is not the right to "have" something, but rather, the right to "prevent others from having" something -- i.e. when you have such a right, then you can charge for releasing that right. For example, "owning" a bicycle gives you the right to prevent others from using it, even when you're not using it -- therefore they must pay to borrow it from you, even if you wouldn't have used it. This is the basis of intellectual property -- someone can own the right to prevent you from looking at the Mona Lisa, thus they can make you pay for the opportunity to look at it, even if it could be copied endless times. Porn is the same way -- just because the legal owner can still try to charge for viewing it, does not mean you haven't infringed on their rights by viewing it without paying for it. (this is why I have issues with "intellectual" property -- it has no "exclusive" rights, because everyone can use it at the same time without taking it away from anyone, and thus shouldn't be compared with a bicycle) Click to expand Agreed. And some seek to create scarcity with copyright being applied to intellectual "property" even though such a characteristic doesn't exist in the digital world given that such content is not equivalent to tangible property, such as land or physical objects such as books, and such content can be infinitely copied without the original owner being deprived of their content. Edited by - x3094 on 8/21/2010 6:22:12 AM [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 1:12PM Demand is what creates value. Demand for anything is demonstrated by a desire to acquire it, so when you download a song or movie you are demonstrating that it has value to you, x3094. What you are arguing is that the originator of the content has no right to realize the value demonstrated by this demand simply because what was creates has no physical form, thus the owner is not deprived of anything when the item is acquired without his consent. Sex has no physical form, either. Try your idea out on the next girl you meet and see if it gets you off the rape charge. [typos] Edited by - hardware on 8/21/2010 3:15:35 PM [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 1:49PM x3094 wrote: Value is subjective. Click to expand Wow, your argument is extremely pathetic when you can't even give a straight answer to whether you think a movie has value. I'm done in this thread. I'd have better luck teaching common sense to a rock. [Link]
God Created Woman For Member 19 Posts 7/10	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 1:54PM Does the air you breathe have value to you? Breathing it almost never infringes on anyone else's right to breathe air, but what if the government declared you must pay for air, or die? As I said earlier, property is the right to prevent someone else from using something -- the air is the same, your need for it is the same, but it becomes property when the law prevents someone from using it. Physical things must be property, because if I'm riding the bicycle nobody else can. Oddly enough, jokes are not intellectual property -- but the first comedian to tell the same joke to the same audience will get a lot more laughs. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 1:59PM See what I mean, attempting to actually have a real conversation here is impossible. It's sad, not only do people steal, but then they use pathetically sad arguments explaining why it's okay. My final word on the subject is, if you really and truly think it's okay to illegally download, I suggest you e-mail your real name, address and titles you have illegally downloaded to each studio that you have stolen from along with your reasoning as to why it is okay. If you are correct in your assumptions they will send you a thank you e-mail. If you are wrong you may find yourself explaining yourself to a judge. But, if it is okay, then you have no problem sending that e-mail, right? [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 3:27PM God Created Woman For wrote: Does the air you breathe have value to you? Breathing it almost never infringes on anyone else's right to breathe air... Click to expand How did this go from being a discussion about the right of people who originate things of value to profit from their labor to a discussion about the right of people to breathe air? The atmosphere was here long before any humans walked the face of the Earth. [Link]

ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 3:47PM Flash wrote: See what I mean, attempting to actually have a real conversation here is impossible. Click to expand It's (for some) too emotional a topic to have a "real" conversation about. You're on the "winning" side of the argument, legally speaking. But that does nothing to change the behavior of those who are less high-minded than you. It's sad, not only do people steal, but then they use pathetically sad arguments explaining why it's okay. Click to expand Is there *any* argument which you will accept as legitimate? Aren't all of them, preemtively and by definition, "pathetically sad" and put forth by thieves who lack common sense? [Link]
VandalSupreme Member 16 Posts 8/10	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 4:34PM It's quite ironic that those in the industry, an industry which is still persecuted in numerous countries for the violation of numerous laws, morph into law & order types whenever piracy is brought up. Blaming the industry's woes in piracy is convenient, but hasn't been concretely proven yet. Newspapers are failing too, without the theft of their intellectual property being a main factor. People are simply getting equivalent (legal) material elsewhere, for a lesser price or free. Could the same be true of porn? Could it simply be that the explosion in porn's popularity in the last generation or was an anomaly, and things are currently going back to what was, until the past 30 years ago, the status quo? Why aren't these questions being explored? Is it because that these questions present uncomfortable realities about the future of the industry itself? [Link]
Jamie Gardner Member demicomix.com Carnal Comics - True Stories of Adult Film Stars 105 Posts 6/04	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 5:22PM Flash wrote: Apparently the item of value is the actual DVD or Blu-ray disc, case and artwork. Adult studios, you can save tons of money. Stop making the movies, they are apparently worthless. Just produce a blank DVD, case and artwork of the movie you would have made if it still had value and sell it. Give the illegal downloaders what they want. The blank discs, boxes and artwork. Apparently that's what's worth the money and stop making the worthless movies on the discs. Then there will also be no movie to illegally download solving that issue as well. Click to expand At the video store where I work, there was a customer who came in with a DVD case but no DVD in it. The woman, who lost the DVD, said was returning the most important part. She suggested that the store could make a copy of the DVD and use that as a replacement. The woman was suggesting that the store do something illegal. If a customer loses the case, a DVD can still be checked in but not the reverse. http://www.demicomix.com/Carnal01.htm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carnalcomics [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 6:43PM VandalSupreme wrote: It's quite ironic that those in the industry, an industry which is still persecuted in numerous countries for the violation of numerous laws, morph into law & order types whenever piracy is brought up. Click to expand I don't see anything ironic about it. The porn industry has never advocated a lawless society, merely that they should not be prosecuted based upon vague laws which they cannot be certain they are violating until after the fact. You, on the other hand, are well aware of the fact that you do not have permission to copy their movies and sell or post them online. Blaming the industry's woes in piracy is convenient, but hasn't been concretely proven yet. Newspapers are failing too, without the theft of their intellectual property being a main factor. People are simply getting equivalent (legal) material elsewhere, for a lesser price or free. Could the same be true of porn? Sigh; another red herring - newspapers mostly report the news. They do not generate new product, at least we hope that they aren't making the news up out of whole cloth. Furthermore, newspapers have traditionally made their profit by selling advertising. The rates they can charge for advertising space depend upon the number of people who take the paper. As that number has declined so have the rates, along with the number of businesses advertising in the papers. Another point - your argument fails to explain why copies of the industry's movies are posted all over the internet. I think we can assume that people didn't post them because they figured nobody was interested. Could it simply be that the explosion in porn's popularity in the last generation or was an anomaly, and things are currently going back to what was, until the past 30 years ago, the status quo? Porn's popularity comes from our sexual desires. Those haven't changed in recorded history. Unless you can demonstrate some cultural force that would account for a smaller portion of the world's population being interested in porn than was the case thirty years ago I think we can safely say the answer is no. [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:00AM It's worth bearing in mind that Federal law does not categorize copyright and patent infringement as theft crimes, per se. At common law and under Western criminal codes, the crime of "theft" (as opposed the word's common usage) has a very specific meaning rooted in history. "Infringement" actions -- both civil and criminal -- are brought as such because infringement was not conceived as fitting squarely within the traditional rubric. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution regarded intellectual property -- both copyrights and patents -- as having a different legal status than physical property. (Benjamin Franklin famously refused to patent any of his inventions). Trademark laws grew up not to establish property rights but as a way to prevent "passing off", false labeling, and other forms of unfair competition. All this by way of saying that -- even if copyright infringement is wrong, violative, and destructive -- distinctions do make a difference. ------------ Edited by - bob on 8/22/2010 12:11:15 AM [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:13AM VandalSupreme wrote: Newspapers are failing too, without the theft of their intellectual property being a main factor. People are simply getting equivalent (legal) material elsewhere, for a lesser price or free. Click to expand This is a common claim but the truth is that the vast majority of the 'news' on the web is produced by newspapers and then picked up by web 'providers' and 'commentators.' The same was true for TV as well, they get the majority of their hard facts and info from newspapers, not their own sources. The NYT website is one of the biggest sources for news on the web. Slate is probably the biggest success story in real internet news, but even they are closer to a magazine format. [Link]
THICK_LOVA54 Senior Member Wielding a sword without fear of it is to be unworthy of the blade. 1441 Posts 5/10	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:22AM Just pay for the content and stop being a cheapskate, damn. If it was your stuff people were watching without paying for, would you like it. Crimson Rain...What A Sight Edited by - THICK_LOVA54 on 8/22/2010 12:23:08 AM [Link]
x3094 Deactivated User 46 Posts 5/09	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 3:32AM Hardware wrote: What you are arguing is that the originator of the content has no right to realize the value demonstrated by this demand simply because what was creates has no physical form, thus the owner is not deprived of anything when the item is acquired without his consent. Click to expand The content creator has the right to realize the value of their content, but equating their content being shared online after it's already been purchased with theft, when it hasn't occurred, renders their argument illogical. Hardware wrote: Sigh; another red herring - newspapers mostly report the news. They do not generate new product, at least we hope that they aren't making the news up out of whole cloth. Furthermore, newspapers have traditionally made their profit by selling advertising. The rates they can charge for advertising space depend upon the number of people who take the paper. As that number has declined so have the rates, along with the number of businesses advertising in the papers. Click to expand Actually a number of people in the industry don't like the idea of the government being involved in their business, particularly in the context of preventing the spread of std's. However they then turn around and unironically decide they want government involvement when they believe they're losing profits due to their content being shared online. Either they want government involvement or they don't. It's not a pick and choose situation. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 6:04AM x3094 wrote: The content creator has the right to realize the value of their content, but equating their content being shared online after it's already been purchased with theft, when it hasn't occurred, renders their argument illogical. Click to expand There's nothing illogical about it. You agreed to purchase a copy of a work, then you turned around and posted that work online for others to copy, thus turning that copy into a master. In doing so, you violated your agreement with the author of the work. Furthermore, you demonstrated intent to deprive the author of a reasonable return on his investment. That's theft, QED. BTW, If I share a full glass of water with you we don't both get a full glass of water. If I share my toothbrush with you we cannot both brush our teeth at the same time. To whit, there is no 'sharing' going on here. Either they want government involvement or they don't. It's not a pick and choose situation. Really? What law would you be citing, then? If you are arguing that only the pure at heart should be allowed to seek the protection of the law then I guess we can just dispense with it entirely. Oh, and if your momma didn't teach you that two wrongs don't make a right I'd be very surprised (and disappointed). [Link]
THICK_LOVA54 Senior Member Wielding a sword without fear of it is to be unworthy of the blade. 1441 Posts 5/10	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 9:30AM Why are you waisting your time arguing. The simple fact is, these people are just cheapskates. Trying to hide it under twisted reasoning and bullshit logic, period. Talking about value and everything else, the bottom line is its stealing, you are not supposed to view the material unless it was paid for. Crimson Rain...What A Sight [Link]
x3094 Deactivated User 46 Posts 5/09	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 10:05AM Hardware wrote: There's nothing illogical about it. You agreed to purchase a copy of a work, then you turned around and posted that work online for others to copy, thus turning that copy into a master. In doing so, you violated your agreement with the author of the work. Furthermore, you demonstrated intent to deprive the author of a reasonable return on his investment. That's theft, QED. Click to expand It's highly illogical given that the content creator was not and is not deprived of the use of or the content itself. ` Furthermore, there wasn't any "agreement" between the purchasers and the content creator on what was to be done with the content once it is purchased. And furthermore, what is to be considered a "reasonable" return on an investment is highly subjective and thus not equivalent to theft despite incessant protestations to the contrary. Although by that specious reasoning an author or musician could claim that because their content didn't sell well and thus they didn't receive a "reasonable" return on their investment that their content was "stolen," which would of course be absurd, but they could claim that by such reasoning. Hardware wrote: Either they want government involvement or they don't. It's not a pick and choose situation. Really? What law would you be citing, then? If you are arguing that only the pure at heart should be allowed to seek the protection of the law then I guess we can just dispense with it entirely. Click to expand It's a matter of consistency and being non-hypocritical. I would think such concepts would be apparent. Furthermore, government involvement is not a pick and choose situation, because if one wants the government to protect their profit margins, they shouldn't be surprised when that same government seeks to regulate their industry as well to make it safer. [Link]
markaudess Marie Madison Media 68 Posts 2/04	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:23PM It seems like no matter how these 'piracy' threads start, they always end up as a debate about whether or not 'stealing' is 'stealing'. It's very strange to me that the 'pro-piracy' people seem to be so hell bent on justifying what they do to an audience of readers with such a high percentage of the people who make their living creating and selling the thing they are stealing. This thread started with a legitimate question from a fan, immeditely answered with the myriad of ways in which the product a lot of us spent a lot of time and money creating gets stolen - easily, as the first response points out. So yeah... sorry if some of us take it a little personally. 'Porn' can't be compared with any other industry, because it's different. The Music Industry survived it's piracy problem, but that's because they have live concerts, t-shirts, and game licensing. 'Mainstream Film & Television' has no comparison. You can show all the episodes of "Family Guy" for free all day long, because the producers get paid in ad revenue. It's different, and everyone knows it. The people who work to create it know it especially well, and the one's who are honest about it will tell you it's really fucking us up right now. The really honest one's will tell you we have no fucking clue what to do about it, because all the money we've thrown at it in the last 3 years has done nothing. The idea of "Make it all free and build enough traffic to sell advertising on" scares the shit out of us, because that could take another couple of years, and in the meantime, few of us can afford to take that kind of financial hit all at once, so we're clinging to what we have, and working our asses off to try and figure out a way to deal with what might be coming up ahead. Everyone thinks music is free. No question about that. And a lot of people think Porn is free. A LOT of people think that. No question there either. The debate about whether or not it's legal, or whatever - would all have to be proven in court anyway, and you all know we don't have the money to sue you all. As producers, we HAVE to deal with it another way. Until then, I agree with Mike. These threads should be locked as soon as they start, because they are completely missing the point. - Mark Maddy G Productions Edited by - markaudess on 8/22/2010 12:25:28 PM [Link]
mariemadison Member 57 Posts 2/04	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:55PM First of all, Flash, Mike Q, and even Mark Audess all have very valid, articulated responses to this thread. I don't even know if my 2 cents is even needed. I've been reading through this thread. I agree with Flash if you want a tax taken out of your paycheck, well that's one way to ensure that anytime you want to watch porn for "free" well then fuck you can. If we as producers new that we had a reliable income to make these scenes, movies, or mini episodes for you, well then shit go ahead download all you want. If you want it to be free well here another alternative. Open your mind real wide for me Mr. Illegal Downloader With No Real Point, Ok we will make it. All you have to do is pay for the girl, say it's and anal scene, your cost 1200.00 - 1800.00 depending on the girl. You might get away with less if she's a newbie or an amateur. Then you can pay another 100.00 per hour for lights, and add in all the costs of a crew, post production, the cost of tape or the cameras with hard drives on them. Then you also have set design, wardrobe, etc. O and let's not forget the travel expenses, meals, and hotel room charges you incurr. Even if the girl is local, you still have her rate card. Let's also count the server bills, hosting fees, and all that goes with that. I'm not real tech geek so I'm not even going to pretend that I am. And let's say you want to have a movie like say "Pirates", wow the bill on that one... YOU COULDNT AFFORD IT!! Hollywood doesn't have these issues because they have the lawyers to sue. They get shit loads of ad revenue etc. Enough said, everyone else has covered this. Yet you illegal downloaders all bitch about it not being free. Do you have the money or skill to do it? And to those who host these free torrent sites get a fucking brain in your head. Don't you have any original ideas of your own? Grow up, learn a skill and survive on your own. You know perfectly well what you are doing is wrong. The sad part is nothing will ever be done about it. We will fight with the court systems for years over this and no one CARES because we are "PORN" So I guess what I'm saying is either start putting up our budgets and everyone's porn will be free, or shut the fuck up. Man up and pay for it. So that the studios who really care will continue to put out a quality product. Sorry for the rant. -Maddy [Link]
Harri Patel Senior Member #SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 1:34PM Bob wrote: It's worth bearing in mind that Federal law does not categorize copyright and patent infringement as theft crimes, per se. At common law and under Western criminal codes, the crime of "theft" (as opposed the word's common usage) has a very specific meaning rooted in history. "Infringement" actions -- both civil and criminal -- are brought as such because infringement was not conceived as fitting squarely within the traditional rubric. Click to expand Goddammit, Bob, what are you doing? Posting facts instead of angry, fist-shaking rhetoric in threads like this is unwelcome; almost like posting something other than links in a Pop Culture thread. [Link]
TheDreamPolice Deactivated User 170 Posts 2/10	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 1:35PM MOD: Not appropriate. Read the forum etiquette. Edited by - Flash on 8/22/2010 2:29:02 PM [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 1:46PM Harri Patel wrote: Goddammit, Bob, what are you doing? Click to expand Trolling, Harri, trolling. [eye-roll] [Link]

Author

Post

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 17 2010 : 12:34PM

So, someone could copy your social security number and give it out and that would be okay with you since you still have your original number there is no theft of your number according to you. Or your bank account number. Or your credit card number. Etc.
Edited by - Flash on 8/17/2010 12:34:54 PM

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 17 2010 : 1:28PM

Wow, I just realized, the key to ending piracy has been stated by the illegal downloaders in each and every one of these threads. It's just no one has caught it. Everyone who is pro-illegal downloading keeps stating that nothing of value has been taken. That's the key. The movie has no value. No one wants it. Apparently the item of value is the actual DVD or Blu-ray disc, case and artwork. Adult studios, you can save tons of money. Stop making the movies, they are apparently worthless. Just produce a blank DVD, case and artwork of the movie you would have made if it still had value and sell it. Give the illegal downloaders what they want. The blank discs, boxes and artwork. Apparently that's what's worth the money and stop making the worthless movies on the discs. Then there will also be no movie to illegally download solving that issue as well.

[Link]

Bill

All-Star Member

5334 Posts
6/00

Posted - Aug 17 2010 : 10:38PM

It absolutely is theft. It's a textbook definition of copyright violation.
[url=197943]copyright
If anyone other than the copyright holder, or an agent licensed by the copyright holder reproduces works held by the copyright holder, that is a violation of the copyright and, by definition, theft.

[Link]

Bill

All-Star Member

5334 Posts
6/00

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 12:04AM

There are definitely people who have downloaded something that they have subsequently purchased. But they are in a small minority.
I've been part of that minority. A few years ago, I wanted to buy all of the Harry Potter movies as a Christmas present for a friend's daughter. At the time, I think that there were three movies on DVD at the time and the fourth had already been in theaters, but wasn't being released on DVD for another month or two. When I went online to purchase them, I ended up buying them for less than $10 each, which was a lot less than I had planned on spending on her. So, I decided that I would also buy her the fourth movie, when it was released on DVD. But I wanted something to give to her to represent that at Christmas. So, I asked a friend to download a copy of the fourth movie for me, which I gave to her, along with the other three with a "coupon", inside the case, telling her that when the movie actually came out on DVD, I'd trade her coupon for a legitimate copy of the movie. When the DVD came out, I bought a copy for each of us.
Technically, what I did was wrong. However, I rationalized it in my mind that I wasn't stealing anything because we had both already paid to see it in the theater and I was going to buy a the DVD for each of us when it was available, so nobody was losing money. But, in reality, what I did was still wrong.
Edited by - Bill on 8/18/2010 12:14:17 AM

[Link]

x3094
Deactivated User

46 Posts
5/09

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 6:02AM

Interesting that you felt the need to change the discussion concerning what was being copied and whether or not that is to be considered theft since the original debate about copying data wasn't working in your favor.
That would mean that you've tacitly conceded that copying purchased content doesn't deprive the original of their property, but it may deprive them of potential profit, which as previously stated is hypothetical unless you could interview every single person who downloaded said purchased content and asked them if they would have bought the content if it wasn't available any other way.

You gave the definition of copyright, not theft. But let's look at the denotation of theft:
[url=197933]theft
Even they understand that theft is about depriving the rightful owner of their property, and when such a situation doesn't occur in the context of making copies of books, for example, it isn't equivalent to the deprivation of property, merely copying that book publishers don't like because they think they're losing money.
Edited by - x3094 on 8/18/2010 6:07:18 AM

[Link]

The Edge
Member

Rock and Roll Stops the traffic!
91 Posts
2/10

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 10:00AM

^ Your argument that a downloader would possibly buy a piece of media afterwards is just as hypothetical as the belief that he wouldn't buy it. So your rationalization doesn't bear fruit, just because you happen to believe it or may know a few people who have actually bought after the fact.
Who cares what the definitions are? Call it what you wantever you want to but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that revenues are being lost due to downloading. Yes, individually, there is a case for someone who may buy later, just as the inverse is true, but as been stated, we're talking on the mass scale here, and on the mass scale, at least of adult content, it's pretty clear, it's hurting sales.
And as I pointed out earlier, it doesn't need to be deprivation of the physical product. My example of giving away printed copies of books next to a retailer points that out. It's simply about someone who may have bought but doesn't now. Even if that buyer is buying to sample and feels cheated with the product-that's always been the case.
But running with this common complaint, so the logic then is that if all media found a way to let the consumer sample a good chunk of the product, then a person wouldn't download it, if they found it to be to their liking and would then buy it? Because at that point, they've seen enough to validate a purchase? Well, that idea may be forthcoming, but I don't believe it will curtail the vast amount of downloaders who just want something for free.
[mod edit: quote removed]
Edited by - killbillvol69 on 8/18/2010 5:20:52 PM

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 12:32PM

Interesting that you feel that other things being copied doesn't apply. Why is that. Shouldn't the same things you've said in this thread be the same for them too?
There is no debate about stealing, it is illegal. Some people just use very poor rationalizations to try to explain that what they are doing isn't wrong.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 12:34PM

Also interesting how you skipped my comment about the movie apparently having no value. Do you feel a movie has value or not?

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14594 Posts
3/02

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 5:33PM

As I've pointed out numerous times, nobody steals trash.

[Link]

ADT44
Member

876 Posts
7/09

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 6:03PM

This is the first time that I opened this thread and considering that I don't have time to read all of them (some lengthy!) posts, I do feel like responding to this one.
You thought wrong.
If you would invest some time to go on the internet and find all of them (independent! and/or governemental) reports about the subject matter, then you could've known that your statement is false.
There are even some big posts about this on ADT. I think it was in that only copyright thread that I ever participated in and in which Woody was being the hard up ("black ór white") guy we all have (annoyingly) come to know; it was that thread in which I also participated in before I had my big 3/4 month break and in which I uploaded some personally made photos of Third World semi-underground illegal (DVD) markets. I think it got deleted.
The problem is that too many pro ór contra copyright supporters, ONLY read reports that can help consolidate their specific points/arguments.

Edited by - adt44 on 8/18/2010 7:10:08 PM

[Link]

Bill

All-Star Member

5334 Posts
6/00

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 10:48PM

Violation of copyright laws is theft because the violator is depriving the legal owner, of the intellectual property, the exclusive right to distribute or sell the copyrighted material. The copyright in itself is tangible personal property, it has value and can be sold or licensed to someone else. When someone violates that copyright, they are stealing that exclusive right. It is gone because it is no longer exclusive if others are copying and distributing the intellectual property that is protected by that copyright.

[Link]

ChodeMasterJ
Perpetual Marxist

5405 Posts
4/03

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 11:07PM

I know people like that, even though they're in the minority. Hell, some of my friends download first and go buy BluRays, Box Sets, Special Editions, etc after they see that the movie is worth it. I was just pointing that out to refute Flash's absolute statement that no one does that kind of stuff, when I know people personally (in real life and on here) who do exactly that. That was my point.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 11:41PM

My stance doesn't come from reports at all, it came from real world experience. Sorry. Based on the people that I have met my statement holds true. The vast majority don't spend a dime, in fact the vast majority have mocked me for being dumb enough to actually buy DVDs when they are available free.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 18 2010 : 11:50PM

Again, I have not stated this. I pointed this out earlier. Apparently that is being ignored. My understanding is you are taking this statement to mean that I am saying that no one who illegally downloads ever buys...

What I am saying is that people who state that there is no financial loss due to illegal downloading because the people who are illegally downloading the item would never have bought it is bullshit. Some of those people, if illegal downloading wasn't available, would purchase or rent.
I have stated multiple times I don't think the majority of illegal downloaders will ever spend a time. Majority is not a absolute.
I ask again. Stop making claims to an absolute I never made.

[Link]

Mike Quasar
Zero Tolerance

Reluctant pornographer
1765 Posts
7/01

Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 12:06AM

Seriously, just lock these discussions as soon as they get started. The people who steal will never acknowledge that that's what they do. They will make every imaginary rationalization possible. The only "study" that really matters is the fact that before tube/torrent sites, DVD sales were huge, profits were booming and the good studios were putting that money back into their movies as well as their pockets. Post- piracy, overall revenue is almost at a negative and more and more companies are cutting back on the type of content they shoot. "There's not enough gang bangs nowadays" - Too expensive to shoot and downloaded for free thousands of times within hours of it's release. "Not enough anal, D.P etc. first time this and first time that" - Again, too expensive and downloaded thousands of times illegally for free the day the DVD hits the street.
As for pay sites that offer premium, original HD content? We got rid of DRM protection because the consumer demanded it and guess what - all of that premium, exclusive content is now available illegally and for free. There goes that business model too.
I know that all of you really super smart content thieves will mock us for "not adapting" to the new reality. When the "new reality" is that we should be working for free, it's hard to adapt. Will you be punching in on time at Wal Mart when they tell you that working for nothing is the "new reality"?
This is my final word on the subject forever - you entitled parasites have already killed the music business and you will soon drive the final nail into this one too. Hollywood won't be far behind. Fuck all of you and don't complain when there is no longer anything new and exciting for you to steal. I hope each and every fucking one of you has your home broken into because someone wanted to "share" your big screen TV.
Fucking die.
End of rant

[Link]

nateglass
Member

I must break you
201 Posts
12/05

Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 12:22AM

But tell us how you really feel Mike.
I agree with you in every respect Mike, but there's something you should look into. Look at who one of the major financial supporters of piracy sites is (videosz.com), and then look who's behind that site, and then look at who's behind a site that is near and dear to your heart...and pocketbook.

[Link]

smboards
Member

6 Posts
2/09

Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 7:17AM

The question was asked former in the thread but I did not see clear answer. How exactly is the music industry killed?
I live in Eastern Europe. You can only try to imagine the level of piracy here :( Really shameful :( But I happen to have sales figures for one local chain of music stores (selling mostly CD-s and some small selection of DVD/bluray stuff). Total sales dynamics for last 4 years (growth year-on-year)
2006 +26%
2007 +7%
2008 -2%
2009 -13%
mind, 2009 was the year when turnovers for retail stores specializing in clothes or home appliances fell more than 50%. -13% is GOOD if you take into account the overall situation.
We are talking about a country where good broadband internet connections are as common as piracy. Based on numbers, pure and simple, I would say that piracy has had no effect on conventional music sales. Based on my own experience it makes sense, I still buy about the same number of CD-s per year as I used to. Some artists are "must-buy" for me. So my purchasing habits have not changed because of the ready availability of pirated material on Internet. I am not telling that I do not know what a torrent is. I know, nothing to be proud of, but let's stay honest here.
So, my point is that this pirating stuff has mostly caused people to start consuming lot of stuff that they would never considered before, while not significantly affecting their shopping habits. The only difference here is that while in the "good old days" they would not have purchased nor consumed the product, now they are just not purchasing it. Money out of pocket has stayed the same, stuff consumed has increased. Would the money out of pocket have grown at the same rate if the piracy was impossible? Doubt it.
I just remembered the old days when I was young (and stupid). The age of VHS and no internet. I had stacks and stacks of VHS tapes and all of them were copies. Not a single original :(. Now I have even higher stacks of original DVD-s and Blurays (and a broadband connection). Go figure.

[Link]

The Edge
Member

Rock and Roll Stops the traffic!
91 Posts
2/10

Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 10:15AM

^
You bring up some interesting points for sure, and this whole issue as stated is shades of grey. But you can't just look at numbers to form an opinion on this. Any report can be skewed to prove either viewpoint, I believe. But this is a case that if it walks like a duck, then it's a duck. How many people do each of us know that download for free without guilt? Hell, I know someone who taught his sister, who is middle-aged and would never think of herself as stealing-it's just a technical convience for her now.
Now if someone sat down and rationalized it to her, maybe she'd understand and change her mind that it could be hurting the industries. But my point is that yes, many people can download to sample and then purchase what they like. But by that logic, the next belief should be that overall numbers of ALL things downloaded or torrented would increase. And to my belief, while almost everything gets shared out there, you will see staggeringly higher numbers of downloads for the most mainstream and commercial of media.
For example, everybody knows Lady Gaga-her music is everywhere. Yet, I'm willing to be her downloads are among the highest. That shouldn't be according to your theory as most people have "sampled" that music over the airwaves, ad nauseum. So my opinion is yes, people sample to purchase, but they are a miniority of what's actually being traded.
*mod note : no need to quote the post just above yours*
Edited by - Joey Starr on 8/19/2010 11:15:57 AM

[Link]

nateglass
Member

I must break you
201 Posts
12/05

Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 12:15PM

Agreed. That's called using the exception to prove the rule.
It's another bs justification that the freeloaders have convinced themselves of. Just look at their various justifications for downloading, it changes from item to item. There's no consistency in their arguments.

[Link]

Jamie Gardner
Member

demicomix.com Carnal Comics - True Stories of Adult Film Stars
105 Posts
6/04

Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 12:29PM

In addition to Zero Tolerance having movies on videosz.com, Pink Visual has movies on there as well. The ironic thing
is that Pink Visual is suing Brazzers for piracy. There are scenes on tube sites that say they are sponsored by Zero
Tolerance. In addition to saying the links are sponsored by Zero Tolerance, there are links to the Zero Tolerance
website. If these links are not sponsored by Zero Tolerance, it's possible that they say "This video is sponsored by
Ztod" to confuse anti-piracy services. These scenes tend to be 3 minutes in length.
http://www.demicomix.com/Carnal01.htm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carnalcomics

[Link]

x3094
Deactivated User

46 Posts
5/09

Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 8:34PM

Click to expand

Bill, if someone violates the copyright they're violating the copyright, they haven't deprived the original owner of their property or of their "right" to sell or distribute it. Thus it is not equivalent.
Furthermore, the content owner is still free to distribute and sell the copyrighted material as it's not a tangible good like a physical book that the original owner can be deprived of.
The content owner simply doesn't like the idea of someone sharing something they've purchased because they think every single use of the content should be paid for, so they invent the idea that purchased content which is copied can somehow be "stolen," which of course defies common sense.

[Link]

nateglass
Member

I must break you
201 Posts
12/05

Posted - Aug 19 2010 : 9:09PM

a lot of studios have sponsored vids up on the tube sites nowadays, it's becoming more common.
where i think a lot of the studios are dropping the ball is only focusing on tube sites and overlooking cyberlockers and torrent sites. Or only relying on the "sue the downloader" torrent programs that overlook cyberlockers and aren't all that effective in the first place.
anyone that sells content to videosz.com should also realize that videosz is going to upload that content to all the big tube sites with a "dvdrig.com" watermark...so you aren't just selling them a license to put the scene on videosz.com but it'll show up on those same tube sites the studios are complaining about except videosz will have been given the license to put it up there......and i'm talking full scenes.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 12:11AM

Again x3094 I post the question to you, that you have previously ignored, do you think a movie has value?

[Link]

God Created Woman For
Member

19 Posts
7/10

Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 12:51AM

Click to expand

I actually happen to have issues with the concept of "intellectual property", but in the interests of fairness, I will explain that there is a widely-held belief that "property" is not the right to "have" something, but rather, the right to "prevent others from having" something -- i.e. when you have such a right, then you can charge for releasing that right. For example, "owning" a bicycle gives you the right to prevent others from using it, even when you're not using it -- therefore they must pay to borrow it from you, even if you wouldn't have used it. This is the basis of intellectual property -- someone can own the right to prevent you from looking at the Mona Lisa, thus they can make you pay for the opportunity to look at it, even if it could be copied endless times. Porn is the same way -- just because the legal owner can still try to charge for viewing it, does not mean you haven't infringed on their rights by viewing it without paying for it.
(this is why I have issues with "intellectual" property -- it has no "exclusive" rights, because everyone can use it at the same time without taking it away from anyone, and thus shouldn't be compared with a bicycle)

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 1:40AM

So then how exactly do you propose that the companies and people behind making intellectual property get paid? If anyone just has the right to watch whatever copy they can find than the companies and people make no money. Should then the people of the world pay a tax per project, whether you want to see it or not? And how much would say the world person tax be for say Saw 3D? Would you be mad if when you got your paycheck $100.00 was deducted as the Saw 3D tax?
So for anyone who is pro illegal downloading.... Does a movie have value. Anyone. I like how everyone who is in favor of illegal downloading is afraid of this question.....

[Link]

smboards
Member

6 Posts
2/09

Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 4:52AM

The point of view I was trying to express in my post was that although illegal downloading IS theft, maybe it just doesn't matter. I work in the field of creating intellectual property myself and can't help but look at the thing by the numbers. I have another real life example about music.
A local artist called HU? released an album here couple of years ago that was massive success. I even think that it sold better than any album has ever sold here. And it was stolen more than any local release before. I think that illegal downloads exceeded album sales tenfold. Now the interesting point is that the album sold about 5 times more than the artist had expected even in her wildest dreams. Question that makes me wonder is that if you exceed your sales target 5 times, does it matter at all, how much additinal copies are stolen? Maybe the piracy should be ignored unless it actually harms business. I do not have answer to that question but I understand that we live in significantly different world than 10 or 20 years ago.
By the way, I both bought and pirated the album used in example. I bought the CD as soon as it was released. Some time later I wanted to put that album into my MP3 player and it was just so much quicker to download the torrent instead of ripping the CD :) So I performed my part in screwing up the statistics.

[Link]

Bill

All-Star Member

5334 Posts
6/00

Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 10:03PM

Click to expand

Wow. You are either as dumb as a fucking stump or you are just trying to convince yourself that you're not a thief. Either way, It's a waste of time trying to explain anything to a piece of shit such as yourself. I'm out.

[Link]

TheDreamPolice
Deactivated User

170 Posts
2/10

Posted - Aug 20 2010 : 11:16PM

They only way to win the war on piracy/tube sites and is a drastic change in the business model.
No wants to admit.....
Do this
** Performers makes less
** Spend money on scripts and locations
** Make the site or dvd so cheap. People are like "fuck i can pay $10 bucks", I'll just buy it.
** Update daily. Stagger the updates. And each update has to feel like (to the viewer) its the greatest scene that has just come out.
** Contracts with performers for their own personal sites. Split revenue with performer. content on performer site is not updated as much and is not downloadable. Get performer to agree to solo web chats 2 to 3 times a week. Hardcore w/boyfriend or whoever 1 once a week.
**Porn Music videos. Do deals with up and coming bands - la has a million of them.
Make porn comps, sorta like pop shot comps of performers advertise with those....with the music.
** Do deals with performers to when comes to dancing.

[Link]

x3094
Deactivated User

46 Posts
5/09

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 4:20AM

Value is subjective.

God Created Woman For wrote:
I actually happen to have issues with the concept of "intellectual property", but in the interests of fairness, I will explain that there is a widely-held belief that "property" is not the right to "have" something, but rather, the right to "prevent others from having" something -- i.e. when you have such a right, then you can charge for releasing that right. For example, "owning" a bicycle gives you the right to prevent others from using it, even when you're not using it -- therefore they must pay to borrow it from you, even if you wouldn't have used it. This is the basis of intellectual property -- someone can own the right to prevent you from looking at the Mona Lisa, thus they can make you pay for the opportunity to look at it, even if it could be copied endless times. Porn is the same way -- just because the legal owner can still try to charge for viewing it, does not mean you haven't infringed on their rights by viewing it without paying for it.
(this is why I have issues with "intellectual" property -- it has no "exclusive" rights, because everyone can use it at the same time without taking it away from anyone, and thus shouldn't be compared with a bicycle)
Click to expand

Agreed.
And some seek to create scarcity with copyright being applied to intellectual "property" even though such a characteristic doesn't exist in the digital world given that such content is not equivalent to tangible property, such as land or physical objects such as books, and such content can be infinitely copied without the original owner being deprived of their content.
Edited by - x3094 on 8/21/2010 6:22:12 AM

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14594 Posts
3/02

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 1:12PM

Demand is what creates value. Demand for anything is demonstrated by a desire to acquire it, so when you download a song or movie you are demonstrating that it has value to you, x3094.
What you are arguing is that the originator of the content has no right to realize the value demonstrated by this demand simply because what was creates has no physical form, thus the owner is not deprived of anything when the item is acquired without his consent.
Sex has no physical form, either. Try your idea out on the next girl you meet and see if it gets you off the rape charge.
[typos]
Edited by - hardware on 8/21/2010 3:15:35 PM

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 1:49PM

Wow, your argument is extremely pathetic when you can't even give a straight answer to whether you think a movie has value. I'm done in this thread. I'd have better luck teaching common sense to a rock.

[Link]

God Created Woman For
Member

19 Posts
7/10

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 1:54PM

Does the air you breathe have value to you? Breathing it almost never infringes on anyone else's right to breathe air, but what if the government declared you must pay for air, or die? As I said earlier, property is the right to prevent someone else from using something -- the air is the same, your need for it is the same, but it becomes property when the law prevents someone from using it.
Physical things must be property, because if I'm riding the bicycle nobody else can.
Oddly enough, jokes are not intellectual property -- but the first comedian to tell the same joke to the same audience will get a lot more laughs.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 1:59PM

See what I mean, attempting to actually have a real conversation here is impossible. It's sad, not only do people steal, but then they use pathetically sad arguments explaining why it's okay.
My final word on the subject is, if you really and truly think it's okay to illegally download, I suggest you e-mail your real name, address and titles you have illegally downloaded to each studio that you have stolen from along with your reasoning as to why it is okay. If you are correct in your assumptions they will send you a thank you e-mail. If you are wrong you may find yourself explaining yourself to a judge. But, if it is okay, then you have no problem sending that e-mail, right?

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14594 Posts
3/02

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 3:27PM

How did this go from being a discussion about the right of people who originate things of value to profit from their labor to a discussion about the right of people to breathe air?
The atmosphere was here long before any humans walked the face of the Earth.

[Link]

ninja1
Senior Member

2939 Posts
1/08

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 3:47PM

It's (for some) too emotional a topic to have a "real" conversation about. You're on the "winning" side of the argument, legally speaking. But that does nothing to change the behavior of those who are less high-minded than you.

Is there any argument which you will accept as legitimate? Aren't all of them, preemtively and by definition, "pathetically sad" and put forth by thieves who lack common sense?

[Link]

VandalSupreme
Member

16 Posts
8/10

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 4:34PM

It's quite ironic that those in the industry, an industry which is still persecuted in numerous countries for the violation of numerous laws, morph into law & order types whenever piracy is brought up.
Blaming the industry's woes in piracy is convenient, but hasn't been concretely proven yet. Newspapers are failing too, without the theft of their intellectual property being a main factor. People are simply getting equivalent (legal) material elsewhere, for a lesser price or free. Could the same be true of porn?
Could it simply be that the explosion in porn's popularity in the last generation or was an anomaly, and things are currently going back to what was, until the past 30 years ago, the status quo?
Why aren't these questions being explored? Is it because that these questions present uncomfortable realities about the future of the industry itself?

[Link]

Jamie Gardner
Member

demicomix.com Carnal Comics - True Stories of Adult Film Stars
105 Posts
6/04

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 5:22PM

At the video store where I work, there was a customer who came in with a DVD case but no DVD in it. The woman, who
lost the DVD, said was returning the most important part. She suggested that the store could make a copy of the DVD
and use that as a replacement. The woman was suggesting that the store do something illegal. If a customer loses
the case, a DVD can still be checked in but not the reverse.
http://www.demicomix.com/Carnal01.htm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carnalcomics

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14594 Posts
3/02

Posted - Aug 21 2010 : 6:43PM

I don't see anything ironic about it. The porn industry has never advocated a lawless society, merely that they should not be prosecuted based upon vague laws which they cannot be certain they are violating until after the fact. You, on the other hand, are well aware of the fact that you do not have permission to copy their movies and sell or post them online.

Blaming the industry's woes in piracy is convenient, but hasn't been concretely proven yet. Newspapers are failing too, without the theft of their intellectual property being a main factor. People are simply getting equivalent (legal) material elsewhere, for a lesser price or free. Could the same be true of porn?

Sigh; another red herring - newspapers mostly report the news. They do not generate new product, at least we hope that they aren't making the news up out of whole cloth. Furthermore, newspapers have traditionally made their profit by selling advertising. The rates they can charge for advertising space depend upon the number of people who take the paper. As that number has declined so have the rates, along with the number of businesses advertising in the papers.
Another point - your argument fails to explain why copies of the industry's movies are posted all over the internet. I think we can assume that people didn't post them because they figured nobody was interested.
Could it simply be that the explosion in porn's popularity in the last generation or was an anomaly, and things are currently going back to what was, until the past 30 years ago, the status quo?
Porn's popularity comes from our sexual desires. Those haven't changed in recorded history. Unless you can demonstrate some cultural force that would account for a smaller portion of the world's population being interested in porn than was the case thirty years ago I think we can safely say the answer is no.

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:00AM

It's worth bearing in mind that Federal law does not categorize copyright and patent infringement as theft crimes, per se. At common law and under Western criminal codes, the crime of "theft" (as opposed the word's common usage) has a very specific meaning rooted in history. "Infringement" actions -- both civil and criminal -- are brought as such because infringement was not conceived as fitting squarely within the traditional rubric.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution regarded intellectual property -- both copyrights and patents -- as having a different legal status than physical property. (Benjamin Franklin famously refused to patent any of his inventions). Trademark laws grew up not to establish property rights but as a way to prevent "passing off", false labeling, and other forms of unfair competition.
All this by way of saying that -- even if copyright infringement is wrong, violative, and destructive -- distinctions do make a difference.
------------
Edited by - bob on 8/22/2010 12:11:15 AM

[Link]

BlackSix

All-Star Member

pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
12377 Posts
9/07

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:13AM

This is a common claim but the truth is that the vast majority of the 'news' on the web is produced by newspapers and then picked up by web 'providers' and 'commentators.' The same was true for TV as well, they get the majority of their hard facts and info from newspapers, not their own sources. The NYT website is one of the biggest sources for news on the web. Slate is probably the biggest success story in real internet news, but even they are closer to a magazine format.

[Link]

THICK_LOVA54
Senior Member

Wielding a sword without fear of it is to be unworthy of the blade.
1441 Posts
5/10

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:22AM

Just pay for the content and stop being a cheapskate, damn. If it was your stuff people were watching without paying for, would you like it.
Crimson Rain...What A Sight
Edited by - THICK_LOVA54 on 8/22/2010 12:23:08 AM

[Link]

x3094
Deactivated User

46 Posts
5/09

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 3:32AM

The content creator has the right to realize the value of their content, but equating their content being shared online after it's already been purchased with theft, when it hasn't occurred, renders their argument illogical.

Actually a number of people in the industry don't like the idea of the government being involved in their business, particularly in the context of preventing the spread of std's. However they then turn around and unironically decide they want government involvement when they believe they're losing profits due to their content being shared online.
Either they want government involvement or they don't. It's not a pick and choose situation.

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14594 Posts
3/02

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 6:04AM

There's nothing illogical about it. You agreed to purchase a copy of a work, then you turned around and posted that work online for others to copy, thus turning that copy into a master. In doing so, you violated your agreement with the author of the work. Furthermore, you demonstrated intent to deprive the author of a reasonable return on his investment. That's theft, QED.
BTW, If I share a full glass of water with you we don't both get a full glass of water. If I share my toothbrush with you we cannot both brush our teeth at the same time. To whit, there is no 'sharing' going on here.
Either they want government involvement or they don't. It's not a pick and choose situation.
Really? What law would you be citing, then? If you are arguing that only the pure at heart should be allowed to seek the protection of the law then I guess we can just dispense with it entirely.
Oh, and if your momma didn't teach you that two wrongs don't make a right I'd be very surprised (and disappointed).

[Link]

THICK_LOVA54
Senior Member

Wielding a sword without fear of it is to be unworthy of the blade.
1441 Posts
5/10

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 9:30AM

Why are you waisting your time arguing. The simple fact is, these people are just cheapskates. Trying to hide it under twisted reasoning and bullshit logic, period. Talking about value and everything else, the bottom line is its stealing, you are not supposed to view the material unless it was paid for.
Crimson Rain...What A Sight

[Link]

x3094
Deactivated User

46 Posts
5/09

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 10:05AM

It's highly illogical given that the content creator was not and is not deprived of the use of or the content itself. `
Furthermore, there wasn't any "agreement" between the purchasers and the content creator on what was to be done with the content once it is purchased.
And furthermore, what is to be considered a "reasonable" return on an investment is highly subjective and thus not equivalent to theft despite incessant protestations to the contrary.
Although by that specious reasoning an author or musician could claim that because their content didn't sell well and thus they didn't receive a "reasonable" return on their investment that their content was "stolen," which would of course be absurd, but they could claim that by such reasoning.

It's a matter of consistency and being non-hypocritical. I would think such concepts would be apparent.
Furthermore, government involvement is not a pick and choose situation, because if one wants the government to protect their profit margins, they shouldn't be surprised when that same government seeks to regulate their industry as well to make it safer.

[Link]

markaudess
Marie Madison Media

68 Posts
2/04

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:23PM

It seems like no matter how these 'piracy' threads start, they always end up as a debate about whether or not 'stealing' is 'stealing'. It's very strange to me that the 'pro-piracy' people seem to be so hell bent on justifying what they do to an audience of readers with such a high percentage of the people who make their living creating and selling the thing they are stealing.
This thread started with a legitimate question from a fan, immeditely answered with the myriad of ways in which the product a lot of us spent a lot of time and money creating gets stolen - easily, as the first response points out.
So yeah... sorry if some of us take it a little personally.
'Porn' can't be compared with any other industry, because it's different. The Music Industry survived it's piracy problem, but that's because they have live concerts, t-shirts, and game licensing. 'Mainstream Film & Television' has no comparison. You can show all the episodes of "Family Guy" for free all day long, because the producers get paid in ad revenue.
It's different, and everyone knows it. The people who work to create it know it especially well, and the one's who are honest about it will tell you it's really fucking us up right now. The really honest one's will tell you we have no fucking clue what to do about it, because all the money we've thrown at it in the last 3 years has done nothing.
The idea of "Make it all free and build enough traffic to sell advertising on" scares the shit out of us, because that could take another couple of years, and in the meantime, few of us can afford to take that kind of financial hit all at once, so we're clinging to what we have, and working our asses off to try and figure out a way to deal with what might be coming up ahead.
Everyone thinks music is free. No question about that. And a lot of people think Porn is free. A LOT of people think that. No question there either. The debate about whether or not it's legal, or whatever - would all have to be proven in court anyway, and you all know we don't have the money to sue you all. As producers, we HAVE to deal with it another way.
Until then, I agree with Mike. These threads should be locked as soon as they start, because they are completely missing the point.
- Mark
Maddy G Productions

Edited by - markaudess on 8/22/2010 12:25:28 PM

[Link]

mariemadison
Member

57 Posts
2/04

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 12:55PM

First of all, Flash, Mike Q, and even Mark Audess all have very valid, articulated responses to this thread. I don't even know if my 2 cents is even needed.
I've been reading through this thread. I agree with Flash if you want a tax taken out of your paycheck, well that's one way to ensure that anytime you want to watch porn for "free" well then fuck you can.
If we as producers new that we had a reliable income to make these scenes, movies, or mini episodes for you, well then shit go ahead download all you want.
If you want it to be free well here another alternative.
Open your mind real wide for me Mr. Illegal Downloader With No Real Point, Ok we will make it. All you have to do is pay for the girl, say it's and anal scene, your cost 1200.00 - 1800.00 depending on the girl. You might get away with less if she's a newbie or an amateur. Then you can pay another 100.00 per hour for lights, and add in all the costs of a crew, post production, the cost of tape or the cameras with hard drives on them. Then you also have set design, wardrobe, etc.
O and let's not forget the travel expenses, meals, and hotel room charges you incurr. Even if the girl is local, you still have her rate card.
Let's also count the server bills, hosting fees, and all that goes with that. I'm not real tech geek so I'm not even going to pretend that I am.
And let's say you want to have a movie like say "Pirates", wow the bill on that one... YOU COULDNT AFFORD IT!!
Hollywood doesn't have these issues because they have the lawyers to sue. They get shit loads of ad revenue etc. Enough said, everyone else has covered this.
Yet you illegal downloaders all bitch about it not being free. Do you have the money or skill to do it?
And to those who host these free torrent sites get a fucking brain in your head. Don't you have any original ideas of your own? Grow up, learn a skill and survive on your own. You know perfectly well what you are doing is wrong.
The sad part is nothing will ever be done about it. We will fight with the court systems for years over this and no one CARES because we are "PORN"
So I guess what I'm saying is either start putting up our budgets and everyone's porn will be free, or shut the fuck up. Man up and pay for it. So that the studios who really care will continue to put out a quality product.
Sorry for the rant.
-Maddy

[Link]

Harri Patel
Senior Member

#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele
5110 Posts
3/03

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 1:34PM

Goddammit, Bob, what are you doing? Posting facts instead of angry, fist-shaking rhetoric in threads like this is unwelcome; almost like posting something other than links in a Pop Culture thread.

[Link]

TheDreamPolice
Deactivated User

170 Posts
2/10

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 1:35PM

MOD:
Not appropriate. Read the forum etiquette.

Edited by - Flash on 8/22/2010 2:29:02 PM

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 1:46PM

Trolling, Harri, trolling.
[eye-roll]

[Link]