Why buy porn anymore? (page 9)

Author	Post
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 2:25PM NewRomancer wrote: "what... is a creation worth if the public does want it" Any creation is worth exactly what someone (individually or collectively) will pay for it... Click to expand But this seems to cut against your statement that "property is theft". Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Click to expand Perhaps you meant, *"A foolish* consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."** ~Ralph Waldo Emerson What Emerson meant by this is that a great thinker does not have to think consistently from one day to the next -- he should be open to changing his mind. He did not mean that a great thinker needn't make cogent, consistent, and supported arguments on any given day. Thoughtlessly spewing shit is the hallmark of an idiot. --------------------- Edited by - bob on 9/8/2008 3:57:39 PM [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 2:27PM ^^^ licker, by the way, is not my idea of a shit-spewer, even though I'm usually at odds with him. [Link]
ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 3:48PM Flash wrote: And whomever that is can choose to keep the book out of print for 15 years if they want and then bring it back and make another million off of it if they can. Click to expand Advertising the fact that a film/book is being strategically intentionally held from the market for years will help some otherwise law-abiding folks make the decision to deal with the black market and/or other illegal channels. I would think this is simply a part of the owners' calculation when deciding to withhold the product from the market. Something like "We know there will be x amount of lost opportunity during the blackout period, but that will be offset by a boost in sales when the product returns to market." I'm OK with that formulation. Count me in the "lost opportunity" side of the equation. [Link]
juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 5:31PM licker wrote: ... Before that, anyone could sing a song someone else had written, and that was considered the normal state of affairs. Click to expand Before the invention of copyright artists were depending on rich patrons from the aristocracy or the church. That was considered the normal state of affairs. [Link]

juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 5:40PM licker wrote: licker wrote: . . . works of art that the community essentially has paid for. Click to expand This is a fundamental premise of yours that I don't share. Click to expand So you are saying that if an author spends a year writing a book, and the community gives him half a million dollars for copies of that book, that the community has not paid the author for his work? Drawing a long bow aren't you? Click to expand This has nothing to do with the community. One individual, the author, writes a book. Other individuals, the readers, buy the book. [Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 6:42PM I was reading some long passages or perhaps we might say quotes from one of the two books Obama has written. They appeared on a website unconnected to him. He did receive attribution, but was his copyright infringed upon? [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 9:05PM Bob wrote: And where do you think the money comes from to maintain a library of original film negatives and restore those negatives when they degrade? Click to expand Keeping a master copy is the responsibility and obligation of the copyright holder. If the copyright holder is no longer willing or able to bear that responsibility, he should hand the copyright over to the community. Remember it is already law that the copyright of the work MUST belong to the community after a limited time. Implicit in that is the concept that the community must have access to a source to make copies from. Services such as Sourceforge, the Free Software Foundation, Project Gutenberg and the various torrent networks demonstrate that there is no shortage of volunteers in the community willing to bear the expense. Moreover, your suggested copyright reform isn't going to give the public possession of the original negatives whose loss you're understandably concerned with -- that is, unless you also plan to require the physical surrender of the "non-imaginary" original film materials. Click to expand No, I am not advocating that. Such things are tangible property that is not covered by the copyright issue. If there was a completely trustworthy national archiving service, people might perhaps voluntarily donate their originals to that, but I see no reason to compel them. On my walls, I have prints of popular artworks, and originals of unknown artists whose work I can afford. I will never have millions of dollars to buy an original Waterhouse or McCubbin, but many of those originals are on public display in art galleries. The owners want them to be accessible to the public, and it is also convenient to have the galleries pay to guard and insure these works. That is the sort of "trusted archiving service" I mean. Meanwhile, I can happily look at the prints on my walls. The art is in the picture, not in the paint and canvas. [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 9:25PM juha wrote: Before the invention of copyright artists were depending on rich patrons from the aristocracy or the church. That was considered the normal state of affairs. Click to expand And copyright law was intended to change that situation, making it possible for those artists to make an income from their work, thus encouraging them to create. It was not designed to allow corporations to lock away the work of the artists and suck blood from it for evermore. The ultimate measure of a law is whether or not it performs a useful service to the community. It should not be judged purely on whether it is financially beneficial to a minority of established interests. I guess this thread has derailed into a "copyright reform" discussion and wandered away from its original topic of people making unauthorized copies of porn. Apologies to anyone who is annoyed by the derailment. My excuse is that such reforms could rehabilitate copyright in the hearts and minds of the public, and this could help to discourage unlicensed copying. [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 9:47PM licker wrote: Implicit in that is the concept that the community must have access to a source to make copies from. Click to expand If you believe that access is implicit, then why don't you believe that original film materials which fall into the public domain are subject to seizure? [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 9:52PM Bob wrote: If you believe that access is implicit, then why don't you believe that original film materials which fall into the public domain are subject to seizure? Click to expand I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the concept of copyright says anything about physical property at all. At most I would expect that the law could require access to make an alternative master copy. [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 10:07PM Okay. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. [Link]
skronker Notable Legendary Icon Scopophiliac 9780 Posts 9/02	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 11:09PM Where is a copy of this "concept of copyright" so we can see exactly what it says? You can't even argue this stuff if you don't even know what you are talking about. [Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 11:53PM skronker; That's never been a problem on ADT before... [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:53AM skronker wrote: Where is a copy of this "concept of copyright" so we can see exactly what it says? Click to expand Ask and you shall receive. [Link]

Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:49AM I don't see anything there about works belonging to the people or society. According to what I read they belong to the author. And therefore the people have no right to demand that the author release something or else they get to take the copyright. [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:53AM skronker wrote: Where is a copy of this "concept of copyright" so we can see exactly what it says? Click to expand I have been using the concept described in the text of the US constitution which I quoted earlier in this thread. Bob's link will tell you about copyright law as it currently stands. I have been suggesting possible improvements to the law that I think would make it more likely to achieve the objectives stated in the constitution. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:55AM I think your changes would be more likely to lower the amount of art (books, movies, etc) produced every year and would probably make lower budgets what was produced if enacted. [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:20AM Flash wrote: I think your changes would be more likely to lower the amount of art (books, movies, etc) produced every year and would probably make lower budgets what was produced if enacted. Click to expand We will never know, because the vested interests will never let it happen. However, I see no reason to cause what you suggest to happen. Studios that make a big budget movie expect it to pay off within one year of release. If they don't have that expectation, they don't make the movie. I can't imagine any situation in which someone would avoid making a profitable movie because they might want to quit selling copies if there is low demand thirty years later. Same for authors. Why would someone who thinks he is writing a best seller give up on it because he might want to take it out of print in twenty years? That's plain silly. He thinks it will make him ten million in the first year it hits the bookstores. Why would he pass that up? [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:37AM licker wrote: Studios that make a big budget movie expect it to pay off within one year of release. If they don't have that expectation, they don't make the movie. Click to expand You're dead wrong. Where did you come up with this idea? [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:47AM ^^^ Movie studios plan in terms of slates of movies more than single pictures. With huge overhead costs sunk into maintaining on-going production facilities and distribution apparatus, studios must produce a steady stream of product for theaters, television, and home video in order to stay afloat. They budget their development, production, and marketing functions on an annual basis. They recoup their costs for and make profits on these slates of pictures over a long period of time. It's not a "one off" business by any means. [Link]
juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 10:57AM This whole discussion about "big bad bloodsucking film companies that dictate the congressmen the copyright laws" has nothing to do with the current piracy problems of the adult industry. I think this discussion was started to becloud the real problem that was discussed in this thread. People don't want to face the fact that by downloading they steal from hard working average citizen, average citizen just like themselves. That's why pirates rather discuss if it is okay that 80 year old films don't fall into public domain. Porn's problem aren't a couple of people who download long out of print 80 year old 16mm loops. Porn's problem are the millions of people who do not respect the copyright of brand new product. And porn companies are by no means "filthy rich big bad companies". Most of the companies are pretty small start-ups. [Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 11:21AM Juha, I think you miss the point there. Large mainstream movie studios have the same problem. The music business, likewise. The laws that are supposed to protect them are supposed to protect porn. [Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 12:28PM "Porn's problem are the..." Countless fans jaded by not getting what they're really interested in, and so they don't feel that most porn is worth paying for, so they happily download it because they can and because what they download is better than nothing (I'm supposing here... the above might just be fiction) Just sitting back and claiming "Oh that's not right" isn't helping, because might makes right... if people want to DL stuff off the internet, they will. So Juha, given that people who dl things are NEVER going to go away (There will ALWAYS be someone who finds a way around ANY 'security' anyone ever tries to employ on digital media) and given that they are a very small 'percentage' of the market (name me one porn company that was driven out of business by people dl'ing their stuff on the internet and for NO OTHER reason) what is your suggestion to "fix" the "problem"? I suspect that some of the things listed in the "Things that bug you in porn" thread have WAY more to do with any supposed slump in sales. Again, I've yet to see any evidence that suggests that there is any slump in sales overall... Individual companies may see a decline, but I suspect that's mostly because any schmuck with a 300 buck camera, a 50 buck hooker, a 25 buck DVD burner and a broadband connection can make and distribute porn these days. As a matter of fact, that guy is probably one of the many who are dissatisfied with the cookie-cutter porn one finds on store shelves and so has taken to making his own porn, with the things he wants to see, and discovering that he's not alone. This is yet another way that the market has changed and yet another way that major porn companies have to take into consideration when adjusting their business models for the 21st Century... More consumers have become producers because they can, and because they are unsatisfied with what the store shelves have to offer them. [Link]
juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 12:58PM NewRomancer wrote: "Porn's problem are the..." Countless fans jaded by not getting what they're really interested in, and so they don't feel that most porn is worth paying for, ... Click to expand If it isn't worth paying it isn't worth watching. Stick with your old stuff on VHS or DVD. Oh, I forgot. You don't own any VHS or DVD because you consider property as theft. With your "Property is theft"-statement you disqualified yourself for any further discussion. [Link]

juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:08PM Clam Digger wrote: Juha, I think you miss the point there. Large mainstream movie studios have the same problem. The music business, likewise. The laws that are supposed to protect them are supposed to protect porn. Click to expand I don't miss the point. The laws are okay. The law enforcement hasn't catched up yet with the pirates. But this will happen in the near future. The wild west mentality of the early internet days is a threat to our way of life. [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:11PM Here's an excerpt from Jason Squire's [ invalid url ], which sets forth the distribution cycle of a typical Hollywood movie: ----------------------- [edited to fix image] Edited by - bob on 9/9/2008 1:16:08 PM [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:17PM ^^^ By the way, posting this excerpt is not copyright infringement, as it constitutes a "fair use" under current U.S. copyright law. [Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:19PM "you disqualified yourself for any further discussion" Nice attempt at avoidance.... (Try not to read too much into posts that may have been made half-in-the-bag eh) Most telling is that you won't answer the question, "So what's your solution?" "The law enforcement hasn't catched up yet with the pirates. But this will happen in the near future." Did you just say "catched up"?? That's almost as funny as the thought that law enforcement will EVER 'catch up' to 'the pirates'.... There will never be 100% security over the internet.... and as long as there's even the ghost of a percent of 'leak' it will be exploited to the fullest extent. So again, given that it'll never stop, what's your solution? Edited by - NewRomancer on 9/9/2008 1:36:13 PM [Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:25PM If Bob had the solution, why would he share it here for free? [Link]
juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:31PM Clam Digger wrote: If Bob had the solution, why would he share it here for free? Click to expand I share it with you for free. The way China handles the internet is the future. [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:39PM Clam Digger wrote: If Bob had the solution, why would he share it here for free? Click to expand Because of my love for truth and justice. [Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:45PM "The way China handles the internet is the future" And you'd happily roll over and accept that?!?! I'll wager this message board couldn't even exist if that was the case.... China is representative of a MAJOR step backward... not forward.... Fortunately even they won't be able to stop progress. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:48PM NewRomancer wrote: "So what's your solution?" Click to expand I think that laws should be written clearly stating that companies can go after websites that host stolen material or allow users to list stolen material on their network. I think that a basic fine structure should be set up based on the dates of each occurrence. If the material was found before home video release the site should be liable for whatever fee a movie theater pays to have the movie play, plus the fee per ticked that the movie theater has to pay for each download. I don't much care whether a download would constitute a sale. We aren't talking potential downloads, we are talking actual downloads therefore the site would be liable for each one. After home video release the site should be liable for a fee of what a channel like HBO pays for a first run movie. For each period that the downloads go on. IE if HBO pays for 3 months run at a time, each 3 month period that the movie stays up on the site the site is liable for another fee. All fees can be made in conjunction with each other. In other words, if the new Batman movie appears on a site 2 weeks before the video comes out and stays up for 12 months the site owes theatrical and ticket fees for the two weeks worth of downloads and cable fees for the rest of the period. If there is another copy of Batman at the same time a whole new set of fees get given to that copy. If a site has 50 copies of the movie, they will get 50 sets of fees. If a site can't prove the amount of downloads within the pre-theatrical window it is treated the same as a toll road is. In other words, if using the prior example that the site is caught 2 months after home video release and had it up 2 weeks prior to home video release but can't prove how many downloads happened during the 2 weeks then they are liable for all the downloads during the entire time they had it up (just as if you are on a toll road and lose your ticket you are liable for the largest toll for the exit you are taking). Will this end illegal downloading, probably not. Will this cut down on it, hell yes. Will it cut down massively on it, I think so. This system seems fair as sites that allow this type of behavior can decide not to allow it and police their own sites to keep it off or can continue to ignore it and get fined. As previously stated, I don't much care if a download would equal a sale since the person who downloads it has chosen to steal it. Therefore it would be able to be fined. [Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:58PM Interesting Flash... Except that a countries laws have no jurisdiction outside their borders (And I don't think we want to see them go in that direction do we) So all your solution will do is push sites off-shore, or slightly more underground (In exactly the way the 'war' on drugs has done) but those who want it will still be able to find it (in the same way that the 'war' on drugs hasn't prevented a single person from ever getting stoned when they wanted to) So I just don't see how that's going to solve the problem at all... I suspect it will just set up another "war" that cost more and more and more every year, but makes less and less of a 'dent' as time progresses. Again, I've yet to see any evidence that downloads are in fact hurting the industry, when there are so many other factors that could be responsible for any 'slump' in sales.... Not that I've seen any evidence of any slump in sales either... Also your solution doesn't even begin to address direct user-to-user file sharing.... Know how many FTP servers are still out here???? Still chugging away while some few cried out over Napster, and while they now wail and gnash their teeth about BitTorrent... I don't suspect your suggestion would make much of an impact, if it in fact made any, Flash.... Edited by - NewRomancer on 9/9/2008 2:02:00 PM [Link]

Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:20PM I believe that INTERPOL can help with the jurisdictions along with making it clearly read in the law that CEO or CFO along with the president and or vice president of the company can be held liable if living in a jurisdiction where what they are doing is illegal. IE, if Limewire moves to East Krujpaidanistak (non-existent country just made for illustrative purposes only) but their president and CEO both reside in the US then the president and CEO both lose their own stuff as a result. If Great Britain goes along with it same applies there. For countries that refuse to go along with it there can be tariffs added to their incoming goods by all participating countries. If this practice goes completely underground, then it is still a win because then your average teenager won't be able to just download a movie. At this point in time downloading a stolen movie has become common practice it appears. If you drive a common practice underground it ceases to be such. I said in my original post about this that it wouldn't end the downloading of illegal movies completely. Back in the days of VHS and pre-VHS there was bootlegging of movies. It just wasn't as easy to get access to them and when people did they knew they were violating the law. People now seem to feel they aren't violating the law and any search engine gives you access to them. Make them hard to find and fewer people will take. And if you are worried about potential taxpayer cost, additional administrative fees can be figured out and charged to guilty companies to offset the costs. [Link]
Zoid Senior Member Boobies and Anal 2004 Posts 5/04	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:35PM NewRomancer wrote: Again, I've yet to see any evidence that downloads are in fact hurting the industry Click to expand What's the point of asking for evidence, when you know damn well you're gonna to dismiss it anyway. Just as you dismissed the evidence about the amount of interrs worldwide. LOL! [Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:42PM Isn't INTERPOL little more than a traffic cop on Valium? Your average teenagers are the ones developing the emerging technology that is the internet (Are we on web 3.0 yet? I forget) in the same way it was the 'average' teenager who was file sharing over FTP in the early 90s... The only difference is the proliferation of computer availability.... As I said before, one cannot ever "Put the genie back into the bottle" on that front and using old solutions to new 'problems' is treating high fever with blood-letting.... Computers are more and more available and capable and more and more people are learning how to use them for more than just email... Gone (or at least fading fast) are the days of computer geek superiority. And as more and more people become proficient, more and more things will leak.... And the more you tighten your grip, Tarken... the more star systems will slip through your fingers... (sorry... my geek slipped out for a second) The internet is still really new for the human race. (I can't think of anything half as important that's anywhere near as new) I suspect it's going to be a long time still, before we figure out how best to live with it. Which I'm not suggesting, is ANY reason we shouldn't stop trying! "What's the point of asking for evidence, when you know damn well you're gonna to dismiss it anyway." So, it's my fault that I expect evidence to actually BE evidence??? That I don't just believe things because some web-site posts them? It's not the fault that perhaps the evidence WASN'T in fact evidence from a reputable source? (I'm not sure where one would FIND evidence of a slump in the sales of porn over-all, so that whole side of the argument is actually moot... There's no way to PROVE that there is a slump... and if there is a slump there's no way to prove that it's mostly or even partly the fault of file-sharing. That was most likely the point of me asking for evidence... To demonstrate that no such evidence exists.) Edited by - NewRomancer on 9/9/2008 2:47:50 PM [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:08PM So where is your proof than none of this will work. Whenever anyone else states something you want proof from them and state that what they suggest will never work. Prove it won't. Prove that your average downloader would continue to if it gets significantly harder and there are consequences. Prove that there will be just as much availability if companies have to consider the fact they would be ruined in fines if they get caught. I say it's a great start. I say it will cut down downloading. When there is a risk, theft is cut. I use the proof of security in stores. Security was put in to cut down on theft. If it didn't work stores wouldn't pay the money for security. Therefore, the amount theft was cut was greater than the cost of their security. Therefore, adding risk cuts theft. I know that this goes after sites, but how many legit companies are going to risk these fines? People go to a place like Kazaa because it's easy. If there isn't an easy place to go to, the downloading will go down. If it takes you 2 days to find a new site less people will do it. And since downloaders are still in violation of the law, large downloaders at sites that get busted can be used to find new illegal sites. And as to your comment on the FTP sites, they would be treated the same as a site such as Limewire. Owner of the server would be responsible for the downloading. No reason to change that. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:13PM And I just want to add for all those who say that illegal downloading is just taking a copy of something to use and does no harm. Think about this. Identity theft is just taking a copy of something to use. I know that there will be a bunch of justifications as to why this along with everything else isn't relevant but a downloader and an identity thief are doing the same exact thing. Taking a copy of something to use. [Link]
Zoid Senior Member Boobies and Anal 2004 Posts 5/04	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:16PM NewRomancer wrote: That I don't just believe things because some web-site posts them? It's not the fault that perhaps the evidence WASN'T in fact evidence from a reputable source? Click to expand Exactly what website do you consider reputable? The data published on internetworldstats.com comes from US census bureau and Nielsen NetRatings (which is a research/survey company). There are other sources that mention the same figures. Yet you found no reason to believe it. Now please provide me with your reputable sources that have different figures. [Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:22PM "where is your proof than none of this will work" History.... It didn't work with prohibition.... It'll NEVER work with the so-called War On Drugs... The more you try to stop a population doing something they want to do, the more they'll find ways to do it so that you never notice. "When there is a risk, theft is cut." If that were true, then there'd be no theft.... Security is an attempted deterrent, but again, there's no such thing as security in the digital domain. It all gets cracked, it all gets circumvented, and that stream will never be made to flow uphill... juha thinks that China is the future.... I think it's more likely that "Star Trek" will be our future, but not in MY lifetime (I have to try to be optimistic about the future cause there are too many clock-towers that would make great sniper nests around here.... and I'd be forced to use 'em if I thought that we were gonna go on like this forever) Look, I'm not saying that internet piracy is o.k (or not). What I'm saying is that it's a fact of life, it's a product of the very fundamental nature of the internet and it's NEVER going to go away. So rather than try to keep the water in the sponge with a band-aid, the very nature of distribution and entertainment is going to have to change. And there's nothing wrong with that in the least. Standing on the beach, yelling at the tide not to come in is just going to get you wet. Maybe even drowned... Our children's children might be the ones who sort this all out.... It might take even longer. Edited by - NewRomancer on 9/9/2008 3:24:29 PM [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 4:29PM NewRomancer wrote: If that were true, then there'd be no theft.... Security is an attempted deterrent Click to expand You're right, security is a useless idea. That's why we abandoned locks on doors and windows because it didn't cut down on theft. Oh wait, you seem to feel the only way it is acceptable would be if it eliminated theft. Do you realize what the world would be like if that were the case. Deterrents against murder don't eliminate murder so lets stop prosecuting that. It obviously doesn't work and costs money. Deterrents work. Period. They cut down on the amount of activity. And best off deterrents against downloading would deter the people who most likely would either rent or purchase the item. Hardcore I'm going to download or else people will still attempt to do it, just like a hardcore I'm going to be a serial killer people still attempt to be serial killers. Where is your proof of this statement "and that stream will never be made to flow uphill..." Since from what I have seen no reasonable attempts to stop this behavior have been enacted how can you state this definitively? If enacting something along these lines stops 25% wouldn't that be worth it? According to this article, "An arrest was made in about 41% of all murders committed in Los Angeles County in 2007, according to data collected by the Homicide Report. The total rises to about 46% when only cases from the first six months of 2007 are considered; presumably, some homicides from the second half of the year may need only weeks or months of further investigation to be resolved." That's under 50%, so should they stop trying to get murderers. Obviously making murder illegal didn't stop anyone. And they only catch 41 to 46% of the ones that commit this crime. Do you think if they stopped prosecuting murderers and trying to catch them in LA that the murder rates would stay the same or would the rate of murder go up if there was no punishment? [Link]
pornnookie Member 58 Posts 2/01	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 4:39PM Is it not funny that the majority of the people that download material (movies, music) – say that they despise the big corporations since they do the following: 1) That these companies kill art 2) That they are bloodsuckers and greedy 3) And that they treat the performers (writers, actors, musicians) badly Assume a band has signed a record deal (small label or big label doesn’t matter) and have just released their debut album – how are they helped in any way if one download their album without paying for it? Less sales will just equal less airplay, no videos, less tour opportunities and if they can tour the label will take money generated from merchandise sales. The truth is that the people that blame the companies just want to justify their actions – they couldn’t care less of the people that is affected by it all. Edited by - pornnookie on 9/9/2008 4:53:02 PM [Link]
Zoid Senior Member Boobies and Anal 2004 Posts 5/04	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:01PM NewRomancer wrote: Look, I'm not saying that internet piracy is o.k (or not). What I'm saying is that it's a fact of life, it's a product of the very fundamental nature of the internet and it's NEVER going to go away. Click to expand It's a byproduct of Internet as well as inadequate legislation. If the nature of Internet can't be changed, the legislation certainly can. Of course, it will never go away or even reduce if committing acts of internet piracy bears no real consequences. IMO, copyright laws, as they exist today, don't offer effective means to combat this. Standing on the beach, yelling at the tide not to come in is just going to get you wet. Maybe even drowned... Click to expand I don't think anyone's yelling. We are acknowledging the problem, and it would indeed be impossible to solve (or even address) the problem if you don't admit that it exists. [Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:12PM "That's why we abandoned locks on doors and windows" Real World Locks on doors and windows are not remotely analogous to things digital... "Deterrents work. Period." Show me ONE example of a deterrent in the DIGITAL world that works for more than an instant? Things are becoming MORE free and unrestrained not less... "It's a byproduct of Internet" The free and easy exchange of digital information is the whole POINT of the internet... It's not a byproduct in the least. "I don't think anyone's yelling. We are acknowledging the problem" The tide coming in is only a problem if you refuse to seek higher ground.... Might I suggest the pub? I'll get the first round. [Link]
Zoid Senior Member Boobies and Anal 2004 Posts 5/04	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:18PM NewRomancer wrote: The free and easy exchange of digital information is the whole POINT of the internet... Click to expand Legally - yes. Illegal or unauthorized exchange (aka piracy) is a byproduct. [Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:22PM That's not a hair I was splitting.... On the "China as Future" subject, Norway (The people who declared iTunes illegal because of it's DRM nonsense) is an example of how the future is leaning. China is more an example of the past... [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:46PM NewRomancer wrote: "That's why we abandoned locks on doors and windows" Real World Locks on doors and windows are not remotely analogous to things digital... Click to expand Yes they are. I'm sure that locks on doors and windows were not the first attempt to keep people from stealing things. You have to try different things before you find one that works. No matter whether you are talking digital or not. NewRomancer wrote: Things are becoming MORE free and unrestrained not less... Click to expand Because we aren't going after the people doing the bad things in an effective manner yet. This is exactly why we need to start working on this now before it gets worse. NewRomancer wrote: The free and easy exchange of digital information is the whole POINT of the internet... It's not a byproduct in the least. Click to expand The internet was created to share information, as were libraries before the internet. It was not created as a method of stealing shit. If that were the case the libraries would be fine with you stealing their books. There is a huge difference between sharing information and taking something that doesn't belong to you. You completely skipped my question about the LAPD and the murder rate. I'm curious how you feel on that. It is related. [Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 6:35PM NewRomancer wrote: That's not a hair I was splitting.... On the "China as Future" subject, Norway (The people who declared iTunes illegal because of it's DRM nonsense) is an example of how the future is leaning. China is more an example of the past... Click to expand China has a terrible record regarding intellectual property. They do lock down the Internet though. [Link]
Loraine Senior Member 1559 Posts 3/04	Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 11:37PM Porn needs to return to the theatres! Forget all this sitting at home wanking in front of your computer lads! Imagine if you had a reasonable budget, clever filmmakers and a prospect of return on investment! [Link]

Author

Post

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 2:25PM

But this seems to cut against your statement that "property is theft".

Perhaps you meant,
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
What Emerson meant by this is that a great thinker does not have to think consistently from one day to the next -- he should be open to changing his mind. He did not mean that a great thinker needn't make cogent, consistent, and supported arguments on any given day.
Thoughtlessly spewing shit is the hallmark of an idiot.

---------------------
Edited by - bob on 9/8/2008 3:57:39 PM

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 2:27PM

^^^
licker, by the way, is not my idea of a shit-spewer, even though I'm usually at odds with him.

[Link]

ninja1
Senior Member

2939 Posts
1/08

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 3:48PM

Advertising the fact that a film/book is being strategically intentionally held from the market for years will help some otherwise law-abiding folks make the decision to deal with the black market and/or other illegal channels. I would think this is simply a part of the owners' calculation when deciding to withhold the product from the market. Something like "We know there will be x amount of lost opportunity during the blackout period, but that will be offset by a boost in sales when the product returns to market." I'm OK with that formulation.
Count me in the "lost opportunity" side of the equation.

[Link]

juha
Senior Member

2752 Posts
3/05

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 5:31PM

Before the invention of copyright artists were depending on rich patrons from the aristocracy or the church.
That was considered the normal state of affairs.

[Link]

juha
Senior Member

2752 Posts
3/05

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 5:40PM

This has nothing to do with the community.
One individual, the author, writes a book.
Other individuals, the readers, buy the book.

[Link]

Clam Digger
Deactivated User

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good.
2268 Posts
1/05

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 6:42PM

I was reading some long passages or perhaps we might say quotes from one of the two books Obama has written. They appeared on a website unconnected to him.
He did receive attribution, but was his copyright infringed upon?

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 9:05PM

Keeping a master copy is the responsibility and obligation of the copyright holder. If the copyright holder is no longer willing or able to bear that responsibility, he should hand the copyright over to the community. Remember it is already law that the copyright of the work MUST belong to the community after a limited time. Implicit in that is the concept that the community must have access to a source to make copies from.
Services such as Sourceforge, the Free Software Foundation, Project Gutenberg and the various torrent networks demonstrate that there is no shortage of volunteers in the community willing to bear the expense.

No, I am not advocating that. Such things are tangible property that is not covered by the copyright issue. If there was a completely trustworthy national archiving service, people might perhaps voluntarily donate their originals to that, but I see no reason to compel them.
On my walls, I have prints of popular artworks, and originals of unknown artists whose work I can afford. I will never have millions of dollars to buy an original Waterhouse or McCubbin, but many of those originals are on public display in art galleries. The owners want them to be accessible to the public, and it is also convenient to have the galleries pay to guard and insure these works. That is the sort of "trusted archiving service" I mean.
Meanwhile, I can happily look at the prints on my walls. The art is in the picture, not in the paint and canvas.

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 9:25PM

And copyright law was intended to change that situation, making it possible for those artists to make an income from their work, thus encouraging them to create.
It was not designed to allow corporations to lock away the work of the artists and suck blood from it for evermore. The ultimate measure of a law is whether or not it performs a useful service to the community. It should not be judged purely on whether it is financially beneficial to a minority of established interests.
I guess this thread has derailed into a "copyright reform" discussion and wandered away from its original topic of people making unauthorized copies of porn. Apologies to anyone who is annoyed by the derailment. My excuse is that such reforms could rehabilitate copyright in the hearts and minds of the public, and this could help to discourage unlicensed copying.

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 9:47PM

If you believe that access is implicit, then why don't you believe that original film materials which fall into the public domain are subject to seizure?

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 9:52PM

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the concept of copyright says anything about physical property at all. At most I would expect that the law could require access to make an alternative master copy.

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 10:07PM

Okay. Thanks for your thoughtful answers.

[Link]

skronker
Notable Legendary Icon

Scopophiliac
9780 Posts
9/02

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 11:09PM

Where is a copy of this "concept of copyright" so we can see exactly what it says?
You can't even argue this stuff if you don't even know what you are talking about.

[Link]

Clam Digger
Deactivated User

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good.
2268 Posts
1/05

Posted - Sep 8 2008 : 11:53PM

skronker;
That's never been a problem on ADT before...

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:53AM

Ask and you shall receive.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11018 Posts
5/01

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:49AM

I don't see anything there about works belonging to the people or society. According to what I read they belong to the author. And therefore the people have no right to demand that the author release something or else they get to take the copyright.

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:53AM

I have been using the concept described in the text of the US constitution which I quoted earlier in this thread. Bob's link will tell you about copyright law as it currently stands.
I have been suggesting possible improvements to the law that I think would make it more likely to achieve the objectives stated in the constitution.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11018 Posts
5/01

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:55AM

I think your changes would be more likely to lower the amount of art (books, movies, etc) produced every year and would probably make lower budgets what was produced if enacted.

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:20AM

We will never know, because the vested interests will never let it happen. However, I see no reason to cause what you suggest to happen.
Studios that make a big budget movie expect it to pay off within one year of release. If they don't have that expectation, they don't make the movie. I can't imagine any situation in which someone would avoid making a profitable movie because they might want to quit selling copies if there is low demand thirty years later.
Same for authors. Why would someone who thinks he is writing a best seller give up on it because he might want to take it out of print in twenty years? That's plain silly. He thinks it will make him ten million in the first year it hits the bookstores. Why would he pass that up?

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:37AM

You're dead wrong. Where did you come up with this idea?

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:47AM

^^^
Movie studios plan in terms of slates of movies more than single pictures. With huge overhead costs sunk into maintaining on-going production facilities and distribution apparatus, studios must produce a steady stream of product for theaters, television, and home video in order to stay afloat. They budget their development, production, and marketing functions on an annual basis. They recoup their costs for and make profits on these slates of pictures over a long period of time. It's not a "one off" business by any means.

[Link]

juha
Senior Member

2752 Posts
3/05

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 10:57AM

This whole discussion about "big bad bloodsucking film companies that dictate the congressmen the copyright laws" has nothing to do with the current piracy problems of the adult industry. I think this discussion was started to becloud the real problem that was discussed in this thread. People don't want to face the fact that by downloading they steal from hard working average citizen, average citizen just like themselves. That's why pirates rather discuss if it is okay that 80 year old films don't fall into public domain.
Porn's problem aren't a couple of people who download long out of print 80 year old 16mm loops.
Porn's problem are the millions of people who do not respect the copyright of brand new product. And porn companies are by no means "filthy rich big bad companies".
Most of the companies are pretty small start-ups.

[Link]

Clam Digger
Deactivated User

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good.
2268 Posts
1/05

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 11:21AM

Juha, I think you miss the point there.
Large mainstream movie studios have the same problem. The music business, likewise. The laws that are supposed to protect them are supposed to protect porn.

[Link]

NewRomancer
Deactivated User

under THEIR avatar
738 Posts
7/08

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 12:28PM

"Porn's problem are the..."
Countless fans jaded by not getting what they're really interested in, and so they don't feel that most porn is worth paying for, so they happily download it because they can and because what they download is better than nothing (I'm supposing here... the above might just be fiction)
Just sitting back and claiming "Oh that's not right" isn't helping, because might makes right... if people want to DL stuff off the internet, they will.
So Juha, given that people who dl things are NEVER going to go away (There will ALWAYS be someone who finds a way around ANY 'security' anyone ever tries to employ on digital media) and given that they are a very small 'percentage' of the market (name me one porn company that was driven out of business by people dl'ing their stuff on the internet and for NO OTHER reason) what is your suggestion to "fix" the "problem"?
I suspect that some of the things listed in the "Things that bug you in porn" thread have WAY more to do with any supposed slump in sales.
Again, I've yet to see any evidence that suggests that there is any slump in sales overall... Individual companies may see a decline, but I suspect that's mostly because any schmuck with a 300 buck camera, a 50 buck hooker, a 25 buck DVD burner and a broadband connection can make and distribute porn these days.
As a matter of fact, that guy is probably one of the many who are dissatisfied with the cookie-cutter porn one finds on store shelves and so has taken to making his own porn, with the things he wants to see, and discovering that he's not alone.
This is yet another way that the market has changed and yet another way that major porn companies have to take into consideration when adjusting their business models for the 21st Century... More consumers have become producers because they can, and because they are unsatisfied with what the store shelves have to offer them.

[Link]

juha
Senior Member

2752 Posts
3/05

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 12:58PM

If it isn't worth paying it isn't worth watching.
Stick with your old stuff on VHS or DVD.
Oh, I forgot. You don't own any VHS or DVD because you consider property as theft.
With your "Property is theft"-statement you disqualified yourself for any further discussion.

[Link]

juha
Senior Member

2752 Posts
3/05

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:08PM

I don't miss the point.
The laws are okay. The law enforcement hasn't catched up yet with the pirates.
But this will happen in the near future.
The wild west mentality of the early internet days is a threat to our way of life.

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:11PM

Here's an excerpt from Jason Squire's [ invalid url ], which sets forth the distribution cycle of a typical Hollywood movie:

-----------------------
[edited to fix image]
Edited by - bob on 9/9/2008 1:16:08 PM

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:17PM

^^^
By the way, posting this excerpt is not copyright infringement, as it constitutes a "fair use" under current U.S. copyright law.

[Link]

NewRomancer
Deactivated User

under THEIR avatar
738 Posts
7/08

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:19PM

"you disqualified yourself for any further discussion"
Nice attempt at avoidance.... (Try not to read too much into posts that may have been made half-in-the-bag eh)
Most telling is that you won't answer the question, "So what's your solution?"
"The law enforcement hasn't catched up yet with the pirates.
But this will happen in the near future."
Did you just say "catched up"??
That's almost as funny as the thought that law enforcement will EVER 'catch up' to 'the pirates'.... There will never be 100% security over the internet.... and as long as there's even the ghost of a percent of 'leak' it will be exploited to the fullest extent.
So again, given that it'll never stop, what's your solution?

Edited by - NewRomancer on 9/9/2008 1:36:13 PM

[Link]

Clam Digger
Deactivated User

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good.
2268 Posts
1/05

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:25PM

If Bob had the solution, why would he share it here for free?

[Link]

juha
Senior Member

2752 Posts
3/05

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:31PM

I share it with you for free.
The way China handles the internet is the future.

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:39PM

Because of my love for truth and justice.

[Link]

NewRomancer
Deactivated User

under THEIR avatar
738 Posts
7/08

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:45PM

"The way China handles the internet is the future"
And you'd happily roll over and accept that?!?!
I'll wager this message board couldn't even exist if that was the case....
China is representative of a MAJOR step backward... not forward....
Fortunately even they won't be able to stop progress.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11018 Posts
5/01

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:48PM

I think that laws should be written clearly stating that companies can go after websites that host stolen material or allow users to list stolen material on their network. I think that a basic fine structure should be set up based on the dates of each occurrence. If the material was found before home video release the site should be liable for whatever fee a movie theater pays to have the movie play, plus the fee per ticked that the movie theater has to pay for each download. I don't much care whether a download would constitute a sale. We aren't talking potential downloads, we are talking actual downloads therefore the site would be liable for each one. After home video release the site should be liable for a fee of what a channel like HBO pays for a first run movie. For each period that the downloads go on. IE if HBO pays for 3 months run at a time, each 3 month period that the movie stays up on the site the site is liable for another fee. All fees can be made in conjunction with each other. In other words, if the new Batman movie appears on a site 2 weeks before the video comes out and stays up for 12 months the site owes theatrical and ticket fees for the two weeks worth of downloads and cable fees for the rest of the period. If there is another copy of Batman at the same time a whole new set of fees get given to that copy. If a site has 50 copies of the movie, they will get 50 sets of fees. If a site can't prove the amount of downloads within the pre-theatrical window it is treated the same as a toll road is. In other words, if using the prior example that the site is caught 2 months after home video release and had it up 2 weeks prior to home video release but can't prove how many downloads happened during the 2 weeks then they are liable for all the downloads during the entire time they had it up (just as if you are on a toll road and lose your ticket you are liable for the largest toll for the exit you are taking).
Will this end illegal downloading, probably not. Will this cut down on it, hell yes. Will it cut down massively on it, I think so.
This system seems fair as sites that allow this type of behavior can decide not to allow it and police their own sites to keep it off or can continue to ignore it and get fined. As previously stated, I don't much care if a download would equal a sale since the person who downloads it has chosen to steal it. Therefore it would be able to be fined.

[Link]

NewRomancer
Deactivated User

under THEIR avatar
738 Posts
7/08

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 1:58PM

Interesting Flash... Except that a countries laws have no jurisdiction outside their borders (And I don't think we want to see them go in that direction do we)
So all your solution will do is push sites off-shore, or slightly more underground (In exactly the way the 'war' on drugs has done) but those who want it will still be able to find it (in the same way that the 'war' on drugs hasn't prevented a single person from ever getting stoned when they wanted to)
So I just don't see how that's going to solve the problem at all... I suspect it will just set up another "war" that cost more and more and more every year, but makes less and less of a 'dent' as time progresses.
Again, I've yet to see any evidence that downloads are in fact hurting the industry, when there are so many other factors that could be responsible for any 'slump' in sales.... Not that I've seen any evidence of any slump in sales either...
Also your solution doesn't even begin to address direct user-to-user file sharing.... Know how many FTP servers are still out here???? Still chugging away while some few cried out over Napster, and while they now wail and gnash their teeth about BitTorrent...
I don't suspect your suggestion would make much of an impact, if it in fact made any, Flash....
Edited by - NewRomancer on 9/9/2008 2:02:00 PM

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11018 Posts
5/01

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:20PM

I believe that INTERPOL can help with the jurisdictions along with making it clearly read in the law that CEO or CFO along with the president and or vice president of the company can be held liable if living in a jurisdiction where what they are doing is illegal. IE, if Limewire moves to East Krujpaidanistak (non-existent country just made for illustrative purposes only) but their president and CEO both reside in the US then the president and CEO both lose their own stuff as a result. If Great Britain goes along with it same applies there. For countries that refuse to go along with it there can be tariffs added to their incoming goods by all participating countries. If this practice goes completely underground, then it is still a win because then your average teenager won't be able to just download a movie. At this point in time downloading a stolen movie has become common practice it appears. If you drive a common practice underground it ceases to be such. I said in my original post about this that it wouldn't end the downloading of illegal movies completely. Back in the days of VHS and pre-VHS there was bootlegging of movies. It just wasn't as easy to get access to them and when people did they knew they were violating the law. People now seem to feel they aren't violating the law and any search engine gives you access to them. Make them hard to find and fewer people will take. And if you are worried about potential taxpayer cost, additional administrative fees can be figured out and charged to guilty companies to offset the costs.

[Link]

Zoid
Senior Member

Boobies and Anal
2004 Posts
5/04

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:35PM

What's the point of asking for evidence, when you know damn well you're gonna to dismiss it anyway. Just as you dismissed the evidence about the amount of interrs worldwide. LOL!

[Link]

NewRomancer
Deactivated User

under THEIR avatar
738 Posts
7/08

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 2:42PM

Isn't INTERPOL little more than a traffic cop on Valium?
Your average teenagers are the ones developing the emerging technology that is the internet (Are we on web 3.0 yet? I forget) in the same way it was the 'average' teenager who was file sharing over FTP in the early 90s... The only difference is the proliferation of computer availability.... As I said before, one cannot ever "Put the genie back into the bottle" on that front and using old solutions to new 'problems' is treating high fever with blood-letting.... Computers are more and more available and capable and more and more people are learning how to use them for more than just email... Gone (or at least fading fast) are the days of computer geek superiority.
And as more and more people become proficient, more and more things will leak....
And the more you tighten your grip, Tarken... the more star systems will slip through your fingers...
(sorry... my geek slipped out for a second)
The internet is still really new for the human race. (I can't think of anything half as important that's anywhere near as new) I suspect it's going to be a long time still, before we figure out how best to live with it.
Which I'm not suggesting, is ANY reason we shouldn't stop trying!
"What's the point of asking for evidence, when you know damn well you're gonna to dismiss it anyway."
So, it's my fault that I expect evidence to actually BE evidence??? That I don't just believe things because some web-site posts them? It's not the fault that perhaps the evidence WASN'T in fact evidence from a reputable source? (I'm not sure where one would FIND evidence of a slump in the sales of porn over-all, so that whole side of the argument is actually moot... There's no way to PROVE that there is a slump... and if there is a slump there's no way to prove that it's mostly or even partly the fault of file-sharing. That was most likely the point of me asking for evidence... To demonstrate that no such evidence exists.)

Edited by - NewRomancer on 9/9/2008 2:47:50 PM

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11018 Posts
5/01

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:08PM

So where is your proof than none of this will work. Whenever anyone else states something you want proof from them and state that what they suggest will never work. Prove it won't. Prove that your average downloader would continue to if it gets significantly harder and there are consequences. Prove that there will be just as much availability if companies have to consider the fact they would be ruined in fines if they get caught. I say it's a great start.
I say it will cut down downloading. When there is a risk, theft is cut. I use the proof of security in stores. Security was put in to cut down on theft. If it didn't work stores wouldn't pay the money for security. Therefore, the amount theft was cut was greater than the cost of their security. Therefore, adding risk cuts theft. I know that this goes after sites, but how many legit companies are going to risk these fines? People go to a place like Kazaa because it's easy. If there isn't an easy place to go to, the downloading will go down. If it takes you 2 days to find a new site less people will do it. And since downloaders are still in violation of the law, large downloaders at sites that get busted can be used to find new illegal sites.
And as to your comment on the FTP sites, they would be treated the same as a site such as Limewire. Owner of the server would be responsible for the downloading. No reason to change that.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11018 Posts
5/01

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:13PM

And I just want to add for all those who say that illegal downloading is just taking a copy of something to use and does no harm. Think about this. Identity theft is just taking a copy of something to use. I know that there will be a bunch of justifications as to why this along with everything else isn't relevant but a downloader and an identity thief are doing the same exact thing. Taking a copy of something to use.

[Link]

Zoid
Senior Member

Boobies and Anal
2004 Posts
5/04

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:16PM

Exactly what website do you consider reputable? The data published on internetworldstats.com comes from US census bureau and Nielsen NetRatings (which is a research/survey company). There are other sources that mention the same figures. Yet you found no reason to believe it. Now please provide me with your reputable sources that have different figures.

[Link]

NewRomancer
Deactivated User

under THEIR avatar
738 Posts
7/08

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 3:22PM

"where is your proof than none of this will work"
History.... It didn't work with prohibition.... It'll NEVER work with the so-called War On Drugs... The more you try to stop a population doing something they want to do, the more they'll find ways to do it so that you never notice.
"When there is a risk, theft is cut."
If that were true, then there'd be no theft.... Security is an attempted deterrent, but again, there's no such thing as security in the digital domain. It all gets cracked, it all gets circumvented, and that stream will never be made to flow uphill...
juha thinks that China is the future.... I think it's more likely that "Star Trek" will be our future, but not in MY lifetime (I have to try to be optimistic about the future cause there are too many clock-towers that would make great sniper nests around here.... and I'd be forced to use 'em if I thought that we were gonna go on like this forever)
Look, I'm not saying that internet piracy is o.k (or not). What I'm saying is that it's a fact of life, it's a product of the very fundamental nature of the internet and it's NEVER going to go away. So rather than try to keep the water in the sponge with a band-aid, the very nature of distribution and entertainment is going to have to change.
And there's nothing wrong with that in the least.
Standing on the beach, yelling at the tide not to come in is just going to get you wet. Maybe even drowned...
Our children's children might be the ones who sort this all out.... It might take even longer.

Edited by - NewRomancer on 9/9/2008 3:24:29 PM

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11018 Posts
5/01

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 4:29PM

You're right, security is a useless idea. That's why we abandoned locks on doors and windows because it didn't cut down on theft. Oh wait, you seem to feel the only way it is acceptable would be if it eliminated theft. Do you realize what the world would be like if that were the case. Deterrents against murder don't eliminate murder so lets stop prosecuting that. It obviously doesn't work and costs money. Deterrents work. Period. They cut down on the amount of activity. And best off deterrents against downloading would deter the people who most likely would either rent or purchase the item. Hardcore I'm going to download or else people will still attempt to do it, just like a hardcore I'm going to be a serial killer people still attempt to be serial killers.
Where is your proof of this statement "and that stream will never be made to flow uphill..." Since from what I have seen no reasonable attempts to stop this behavior have been enacted how can you state this definitively? If enacting something along these lines stops 25% wouldn't that be worth it?
According to this article, "An arrest was made in about 41% of all murders committed in Los Angeles County in 2007, according to data collected by the Homicide Report. The total rises to about 46% when only cases from the first six months of 2007 are considered; presumably, some homicides from the second half of the year may need only weeks or months of further investigation to be resolved." That's under 50%, so should they stop trying to get murderers. Obviously making murder illegal didn't stop anyone. And they only catch 41 to 46% of the ones that commit this crime. Do you think if they stopped prosecuting murderers and trying to catch them in LA that the murder rates would stay the same or would the rate of murder go up if there was no punishment?

[Link]

pornnookie
Member

58 Posts
2/01

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 4:39PM

Is it not funny that the majority of the people that download material (movies, music) – say that they despise the big corporations since they do the following:
1) That these companies kill art
2) That they are bloodsuckers and greedy
3) And that they treat the performers (writers, actors, musicians) badly
Assume a band has signed a record deal (small label or big label doesn’t matter) and have just released their debut album – how are they helped in any way if one download their album without paying for it? Less sales will just equal less airplay, no videos, less tour opportunities and if they can tour the label will take money generated from merchandise sales.

The truth is that the people that blame the companies just want to justify their actions – they couldn’t care less of the people that is affected by it all.
Edited by - pornnookie on 9/9/2008 4:53:02 PM

[Link]

Zoid
Senior Member

Boobies and Anal
2004 Posts
5/04

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:01PM

It's a byproduct of Internet as well as inadequate legislation. If the nature of Internet can't be changed, the legislation certainly can. Of course, it will never go away or even reduce if committing acts of internet piracy bears no real consequences. IMO, copyright laws, as they exist today, don't offer effective means to combat this.

I don't think anyone's yelling. We are acknowledging the problem, and it would indeed be impossible to solve (or even address) the problem if you don't admit that it exists.

[Link]

NewRomancer
Deactivated User

under THEIR avatar
738 Posts
7/08

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:12PM

"That's why we abandoned locks on doors and windows"
Real World Locks on doors and windows are not remotely analogous to things digital...
"Deterrents work. Period."
Show me ONE example of a deterrent in the DIGITAL world that works for more than an instant? Things are becoming MORE free and unrestrained not less...
"It's a byproduct of Internet"
The free and easy exchange of digital information is the whole POINT of the internet... It's not a byproduct in the least.
"I don't think anyone's yelling. We are acknowledging the problem"
The tide coming in is only a problem if you refuse to seek higher ground....
Might I suggest the pub? I'll get the first round.

[Link]

Zoid
Senior Member

Boobies and Anal
2004 Posts
5/04

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:18PM

Legally - yes. Illegal or unauthorized exchange (aka piracy) is a byproduct.

[Link]

NewRomancer
Deactivated User

under THEIR avatar
738 Posts
7/08

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:22PM

That's not a hair I was splitting....
On the "China as Future" subject, Norway (The people who declared iTunes illegal because of it's DRM nonsense) is an example of how the future is leaning. China is more an example of the past...

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11018 Posts
5/01

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 5:46PM

Yes they are. I'm sure that locks on doors and windows were not the first attempt to keep people from stealing things. You have to try different things before you find one that works. No matter whether you are talking digital or not.

Because we aren't going after the people doing the bad things in an effective manner yet. This is exactly why we need to start working on this now before it gets worse.

The internet was created to share information, as were libraries before the internet. It was not created as a method of stealing shit. If that were the case the libraries would be fine with you stealing their books. There is a huge difference between sharing information and taking something that doesn't belong to you.
You completely skipped my question about the LAPD and the murder rate. I'm curious how you feel on that. It is related.

[Link]

Clam Digger
Deactivated User

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good.
2268 Posts
1/05

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 6:35PM

China has a terrible record regarding intellectual property. They do lock down the Internet though.

[Link]

Loraine
Senior Member

1559 Posts
3/04

Posted - Sep 9 2008 : 11:37PM

Porn needs to return to the theatres! Forget all this sitting at home wanking in front of your computer lads! Imagine if you had a reasonable budget, clever filmmakers and a prospect of return on investment!

[Link]