XBIZ NEWS: Lightspeed, Grooby File Suits Against Hundreds of Bit Torrent Users

[Nathan]

In plain English. = Suing downloaders could mean you suing people who download from my Tubes and that might fuck my business model of fucking the rest of you.

Suing downloaders and uploaders is legal. As legal as it is to set up a site that relies on "Uploaders" and downloaders of pirated material while hiding behind a 2257 law to make money.

Actually, no, suing downloaders from my tubes is just ridiculously stupid since you would never ever win in court.

Torrents are completely different...

[Nathan]

Making money out of someone viewing/downloading pirated porn. What a terrible concept.

Like selling space for an advert on a site that makes money off pirated porn.

You know what would happen if you got subpoenaed to give out the info on downloaders on your Tubes. So please no crocodile tears about the poor downloaders. Illegal Tubes make their money off them.

What illegal tubes do, is none of my business, since I own no illegal tubes... and as I said before, you can not subpoena info from surfers/viewers of our tubes, there is no legal basis for you to do so, none whatsoever...

You clearly do not understand copyright law...

[neilmc]

In the UK a disgusting company called Davenport Lyons did exactly that. It was bloody clever, in terms of entrapment and extortion. They worked with a company called Digiprotect.

These companies are interesting, they might prove useful one day.

[theking]

What illegal tubes do, is none of my business, since I own no illegal tubes... and as I said before, you can not subpoena info from surfers/viewers of our tubes, there is no legal basis for you to do so, none whatsoever...

You clearly do not understand copyright law...

There is a reason he is called clueless.

[Robbie]

search for "jordan capri sex tape"
check out the 1st result.

sue THOSE bastards

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Nathan you just got exposed yet again bro!

[Nathan]

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Nathan you just got exposed yet again bro!

Sorry to let you know, but there is nothing exposed nor is there anything TO expose...

It is scary to see how few people understand tubes and dmca though..

[theking]

Fortunately it's not that way at all for us. Since porn is still "bad", it's been very, very easy to get this done. Folks don't want to be "outed" for their porn habits. When they get these letters from our attorneys they pay up quick.

And it doesn't cost me a dime and there is no "loss". Only profit. We are doing a 60/40 split with the attorneys. I get 60. We set the settlement fee at exactly the price point that it will cost the person more to fight than to settle.

This ain't that hard and it's making me back the money I've lost over the last couple of years. And it's going to start happening a lot.

When you get that letter from my attorney you'll have the choice of getting your own attorney and facing us in court...which is more expensive than paying the settlement. And if you fight it, it's not only gonna cost you more money...but it's going to give you the nice extra bonus of your wife, kids, neighbors, co-workers, etc. finding out ALL about your dirty little porn habits that you want to keep private.

Watch as everyone gets on board with this. If you are a content producer, you need to be doing this too. It's so simple and so effective it's ridiculous. And you are not out of pocket one thin dime. It's all profit.

How many people have your attorney's sent a letter to that chose not to fight in court and chose not to pay...but simply chose to not appear in court and lose by default...and just say fuck it...try to collect the judgement? They then will have minimal exposure.

I have sued more than one person in small claims court that did not appear and lost by default...and have yet to collect a dime from the judgement against them...except for one person...who voluntarily paid the judgement.

[Dirty Dane]

Because suing the maker of the road is rediculous, why not sue the people that produced the materials needed to build the road? Or the ones that sold the land for the road? Or sue the truck-manufacturer why you are at it...

There is only one reason why the downloader is sued, to make money. Its not to fight against piracy, that's just ridiculous to claim. You can not sue the website unless it ENCOURAGES uploading infringing content (see the recent lawsuits)... You can in theory sue the tracker provider I guess, but thats hard too I think, you can obviously sue the uploader, which is the only thing that in the end does anything against copyright infringement.

I disagree with your host comment, that's like suing the ISP of the user. Obviously never going to work either.

But we are not discussing this, we are discussing downloader / uploader... the rest is something that we should never start discussing since it will just end up in a big useless fight that helps noone and just pisses you off...

I think you should distinguish between piracy and pirate. Taking action against an individual is not the same as taking action against a worldwide crime. No one can fight piracy alone but they can do whatever they can to police their own work and get the money they are rightfully entitled to. This is about peoples work, ie. money, not secret documents at Wikileaks, so question the motive is pointless. If everyone else were doing the same, then fighting piracy will have bigger effect. Maybe organize it and ultimately go for the host who encourage it, like Pirate Bay.

Pirate Bay has been sued, the founders face possible jailtime, their host has been fined, the website and its tracker have been ordered by courts to be blocked by ISPs on DNS level. They are part of the problem, bigger problem than uploaders, and don't tell me all of that happened without reason.

If A is more damaging than B or C, we could still leave out A from the discussion, but that doesn't change the fact that A is still the one creating most damage. Each case is individual and unique, "what if" "then..", but the logic doesn't change. Even ISPs or software developers can be targeted if there are good reasons to believe they are bigger part of a problem.

[Paul Markham]

What illegal tubes do, is none of my business, since I own no illegal tubes... and as I said before, you can not subpoena info from surfers/viewers of our tubes, there is no legal basis for you to do so, none whatsoever...

You clearly do not understand copyright law...

Can you be subpoenaed of lists of people downloading content on your site you allowed others to upload and you don't own? If so you might want to inform people they are in danger of getting sued.

I fully understand why you're against this as it could screw up your business model.

[Robbie]

Sorry to let you know, but there is nothing exposed nor is there anything TO expose...

It is scary to see how few people understand tubes and dmca though..

Whatever man. You're right...guys like me don't understand dmca. While you, you've now owned Brazzers for like how long? A cup of coffee? And you are an expert?

How about this...since you are saying you sincerely don't agree with what happened in the past and want to do the right thing...Why don't you simply have your programmer redirect that URL that shows up for Jordan Capri in the search engines as number one, back to it's rightful owner. That would seem fair to me. Redirect it to Jordan's site. It's obviously a screen capture of the vid right off of Lightspeed.

That is simple to do and wouldn't hurt you one bit. My programmer could do that in 10 seconds time (and then claim it took him an hour so he could fuck off playing video games). So now that that particular URL to a vid on Pornhub has been shown directly to YOU (the owner), there is absolutely no excuse for it to be there or for it to EVER be allowed there again...right? I know I could have my guy script that up so easily it's a joke. You must have at least one smart guy working with you don't ya?

[Nathan]

Robbie, again, you do not understand the point of dmca... If the copyright owner sends a notice about this clip, it will be removed in a matter of a few hours.

But it does require a dmca notice, for various reasons I am not going to post here... It also can not be redirected, completely regardless of if this is technically possible or not...

Paul, you have simply repeated the same thing you said before without even reacting one bit about my reply, so you clearly have no arguments...

Dirty Dane, you are right that we need to distinguish pirate and piracy. I also think a downloader of a torrent is not always a pirate, an uploader though clearly is! I disagree regarding your ISP and software developer comments though. Unless again they actively advertise to pull in pirates.

[DBS.US]

Starbucks does not ask for ID when you use there wireless internet and Cable companies don't ask for ID when the set up internet in your home. Who do you sue?

[DWB]

you know almost nothing about my company, you know only what you read and what others like to claim without any inside knowledge. So telling me the stuff you said is simply an uninformed claim and not true.

Also this has nothing much to do with law, the laws you mean, like DMCA, can not change, but until you fully understand DMCA which only very few people in this industry do, you will not understand that fact either.

Why is Pink Visual suing Brazzers?

You didn't answer that from before. Do they also not understand the law and simply sued your company for shits and giggles?

[Dirty Dane]

I disagree regarding your ISP and software developer comments though. Unless again they actively advertise to pull in pirates.

Examples:

Forum:
I noticed on a porn piracy forum that a filehost was personally advertising their service. "Upload to us, and we pay you X per Y downloads". The thread was even sticky. At their website, however, their TOS said something like "do not upload without authorization, blah blah...". It's quite clear that such statement is only for cosmetic and legal protection. But the thread is evidence of encouraging piracy, also the context since it was only pirated files linked on the forum.

Tube:
"Upload to us, become a porn pimp/king". While that slogan and other "prizes" is not directly commercial, it still encourage and motives the uploaders to get a "name", just like the torrent sites or newsgroups. If additionally the tube uploads are to be approved before published and there are tons of full movies from different sources with same uploader, the chances of piracy (and the hosts knowledge of it) is close to 100% in most cases.

Torrent sites (and some tubes):
"You are not allowed to upload for commercial purpose. We delete "spam" ". That statement alone leave out anything else than piracy. Well, maybe 0.01% of the porn uploaded is someone made themselves...


It's not these activities alone that bring it to the next level, ISPs or software developers. If that happens, it's mainly a consequense of criminal investigations, ie. size and amount. The number of private lawsuits and reports and the number of users is a good indicator. An ISP can be ordered to block or close a website. Law enforcements can monitor traffic live if they believe there is a good reason, no tube, p2p, Rapidshare or even Google is excempt or protected from this. A software developer can be targeted if he construct or instruct users to obstruct police investigations etc. Together with changes in laws, that's not a situation most people want, especially the pirates but ironically they are the ones partially creating the situation. Pirate Bay was originally a "host" for pirates and laughing at US laws, today they hide in caves to withstand nuclear bombs and they are resellers of the illusion called VPN. Don't you see the patterns?

[Robbie]

Robbie, again, you do not understand the point of dmca... If the copyright owner sends a notice about this clip, it will be removed in a matter of a few hours.

But it does require a dmca notice, for various reasons I am not going to post here... It also can not be redirected, completely regardless of if this is technically possible or not...

Nathan...You OWN the site. You don't have to have a DMCA for ANY reason. You can simply remove it. How long have you been in this business again? lol

As far as you can not redirect it...BULLSHIT. You could do it right now. Nothing stopping you legally in any way. It's your site. I can take shit down and put it up on any site I own. So can anybody...but now you're going to claim that because of DMCA you can't do anything? What a joke!

Please explain to me what you would do if CP were involved? You would take it the fuck down is what you would do DMCA or no DMCA.

Why do you want to act so ignorant?

Anyway, I see now where you're coming from. You are going to keep fucking people. Fair enough.

This isn't about DMCA or you at all anyway. This is about COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT plain and simple. And the people uploading that to YOUR site are the criminals under copyright infringement. And the DMCA law doesn't apply in any way.

Yeah, Steve can definitely subpoena you for info on the person that uploaded that Jordan Capri vid. And you will comply. DMCA isn't even involved. Better get ready.

[DWB]

Please explain to me what you would do if CP were involved? You would take it the fuck down is what you would do DMCA or no DMCA.

Yes Robbie, but because you don't understand DMCA or the law, and are probably time-shifting as we speak, you lose. Noob.

[Robbie]

Yes Robbie, but because you don't understand DMCA or the law, and are probably time-shifting as we speak, you lose. Noob.

Yeah, there are laws...that can't be discussed here, that prevent a person from changing anything on their own website. So he is powerless to remove Steve's video or redirect it to Steve's site. But the reasons can't be discussed here.

WTF?!?!?!

Goddamn. Just say straight out that you aren't gonna do it because you don't want to. Cause that is straight up bullshit you're spinning.

I can go in my admin on my tube site and hit "Delete" on any video I want to. And NOBODY can do shit about it. But Pornhub must be "special" and just because you own the site doesn't mean you have any real power, but it's reasons that can't be discussed. I'm gonna have to re-read the dmca law to see that part, it must be in invisible ink when it got to the section that says you can't change shit on your own website. lol

I don't have a problem with you Nathan/Fabian, but please don't act like that around me. Save that crap for the people who didn't pave the block you've been around.

[DWB]

Yeah, there are laws...that can't be discussed here, that prevent a person from changing anything on their own website. So he is powerless to remove Steve's video or redirect it to Steve's site. But the reasons can't be discussed here.

Goddamn. Just say straight out that you aren't gonna do it because you don't want to. Cause that is straight up bullshit you're spinning.

I don't have a problem with you Nathan/Fabian, but please don't act like that around me. Save that crap for the people who didn't pave the block you've been around.

He either doesn't want to and it's business as usual as everyone expected, or he can't because he doesn't actually own it.

Otherwise it just doesn't make any God dammed sense.

[FlexxAeon]

sometimes i am ashamed to be in this biz, i swear

[RK]

Starbucks does not ask for ID when you use there wireless internet and Cable companies don't ask for ID when the set up internet in your home. Who do you sue?

Actually, cable companies ask for two pieces of ID when setting up a new account. Even if they didn't, you just sue whoever the account is registered to.

[RK]

I also think a downloader of a torrent is not always a pirate

The law on the subject is very clear. It is a criminal and civil offense, in the USA, to make an unauthorized copy of a copyright work. Downloading fits the definition of making a copy. The law doesn't care what you think.

With that being said, the criminal penalties for distribution (uploading) are much harsher than for downloading. The criminal penalties for infringing copyright for profit are even harsher.

It amazes me how many discuss copyright without fully reading the DMCA as well as Title 17 and Title 18. Here is how things look for a tube owner that uploads copyright content without permission:

506. Criminal offenses6
(a) Criminal Infringement. ?

(1) In general. ? Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed ?

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(A) of title 17?
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;

[Nathan]

Why is Pink Visual suing Brazzers?

You didn't answer that from before. Do they also not understand the law and simply sued your company for shits and giggles?

Pink Visual is suing Mansef and Interhub and not Brazzers. Why they decided to do that is their problem. The only thing that matters here is what a court decides.. I could sue you tomorrow, does that make you guilty?

Regarding the other people that claim they understand DMCA and are little lawyers... sorry, you do not see the big picture, its not that easy. I am not going to explain this here, and why should I, get educated by a real lawyer if you want to 100% understand it... Every single post here laughing at me about DMCA and copyright law has simple false understandings of the DMCA law _OR_ is not seeing the big picture. You have to see the law as a whole and not rip it out of context.

Robbie, regarding your comment about steve being able to subpoena me... I _TOLD_ him to do so. I also told him to send DMCA notices.
And Robbie, you are one of the few people that at least talk about the right thing.. yes, this is about copyright _infringement_ and not about copyright itself.. you all should educate yourself what the difference is.
Regarding me being ignorant, I am not, you are simply missing a part of DMCA. Also your CP comment does not fit at all. A basic misunderstanding of DMCA and/or 2257.

RK, as you said, "for a tube owner that uploads"... which is why I keep saying we do not run an illegal tube...

[Robbie]

Fabian you are still avoiding the fact that you CAN remove that video of Steve's. You know it is his. You are the owner of the site. Just go to the admin and hit "delete" then it's gone. Don't dance man.

If you're going to stand behind the dmca and say "I'm not doing anything illegal" and blatantly disregard the fact that that is Steve's video, and force him to take action then what kind of shit is that?

This isn't the same as claiming that you didn't know it was there...it's been pointed out to you specifically. You're not only stealing his content to make money off of prepaid ad spots...but you've also taken his spot on search engines. A double slap in the face.

Nothing wrong with out-seo'ing somebody...but you got that spot simply because that is a one of a kind video and was NEVER meant to be seen outside of the members area.

You know that. And you should have the decency to pull that shit down without having to have a guy who busted his ass all these years beg you to take it down...only to have it re-uploaded minutes later.

You SHOULD take it down and make sure it never shows up again. That is what a person with any sense of dignity and class would do. Instead you are spitting in his face. There is NO law that keeps a site owner from removing a video. Why not just do the right thing in this one freakin' instance and act like a gentleman?

[tony286]

If I understand the game as long as Nathan doesn't take down without a dmca he can claim safe habor. Now if he starts filtering uploads then safe Habor doesn't protect him. They have to change the law and they will not change it for us but for the motion picture biz. It also helps when you have VP of the us that calling it straight up theft it sets the tone.

[Robbie]

If I understand the game as long as Nathan doesn't take down without a dmca he can claim safe habor. Now if he starts filtering uploads then safe Habor doesn't protect him.

Yeah, I get that. But Jesus Christ...there are plenty of times that I see one of my vids on a tube site, and instead of bothering Eric...if I know the guy, I simply icq him and ask him to take it down. Boom, I get an apology and the vid comes down. It's just simple courtesy. Nobody getting their "safe harbor" threatened. He could just hit "delete" because it is a video that he knows for a fact that someone stole from a peer in the industry. Nothing is stopping him. He's not "filtering". He would just be doing the right thing.

[theking]

Yeah, I get that. But Jesus Christ...there are plenty of times that I see one of my vids on a tube site, and instead of bothering Eric...if I know the guy, I simply icq him and ask him to take it down. Boom, I get an apology and the vid comes down. It's just simple courtesy. Nobody getting their "safe harbor" threatened. He could just hit "delete" because it is a video that he knows for a fact that someone stole from a peer in the industry. Nothing is stopping him. He's not "filtering". He would just be doing the right thing.

I will try for the third time.

How many people have your attorney's sent a letter to that chose not to fight in court and chose not to pay...but simply chose to not appear in court and lose by default...and just say fuck it...try to collect the judgement? They then will have minimal exposure.

I have sued more than one person in small claims court that did not appear and lost by default...and have yet to collect a dime from the judgement against them...except for one person...who voluntarily paid the judgement.

[RK]

Why not just do the right thing in this one freakin' instance and act like a gentleman?

Because keeping it the way it is makes him $$$ and because he doesn't care what you think. But you already knew that.

[DBS.US]

Cable companies ask for two pieces of ID when setting up a new account.

Everyone I know that has a wireless network has it in a anonymous name. You can order cable online then when the installer comes out he dose not care about ID.

Why would you put anything like that in your name?

[Nathan]

Yeah, I get that. But Jesus Christ...there are plenty of times that I see one of my vids on a tube site, and instead of bothering Eric...if I know the guy, I simply icq him and ask him to take it down. Boom, I get an apology and the vid comes down. It's just simple courtesy. Nobody getting their "safe harbor" threatened. He could just hit "delete" because it is a video that he knows for a fact that someone stole from a peer in the industry. Nothing is stopping him. He's not "filtering". He would just be doing the right thing.

Robbie,

I am sorry, but Steve has _NOT_ icqd or contacted me OR posted here to remove this video!

_YOU_ have.. since when do YOU own lightspeed?

PLEASE understand DMCA, if you do not, stop posting your nonsense... You might actually want to consider that steve read this and decided NOT to contact us about it.. ever think of that? Why might that be? You do not understand DMCA or at least not the point of it, I am sorry.

[topnotch, standup guy]

What illegal tubes do, is none of my business, since I own no illegal tubes... and as I said before, you can not subpoena info from surfers/viewers of our tubes, there is no legal basis for you to do so, none whatsoever...

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

- Joseph Goebbels

You clearly do not understand copyright law...

I understand that you're full of shit.


.

[bjlover]

I love the fact that these "uploaders" to tubes remove watermarks and site url's, because that is the first thing a surfer would do, remove the site url before uploading the video


Very convenient

[Nathan]

Bjlover, tubes that do that are asking for trouble if they expect to be able to still apply dmca..

[RK]

Everyone I know that has a wireless network has it in a anonymous name. You can order cable online then when the installer comes out he dose not care about ID.

Why would you put anything like that in your name?

You are telling me that your Internet account at home or at the office is registered to a fake name? And your house/apartment also has a fake name on the title? And the credit card or bank account you use to pay the bill, that has a fake name too?

[Zyber]

Everyone I know that has a wireless network has it in a anonymous name. You can order cable online then when the installer comes out he dose not care about ID.

Why would you put anything like that in your name?

You have a bunch of people in the US hiding behind anonymous internet, legally? I thought there was a War on Terror and institutions like Homeland Security just for this purpose etc.

[ottopottomouse]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

- Joseph Goebbels

It also applies that if you make something up by the time you've told 50 people you probably have started to believe yourself too.

[SteveLightspeed]

This lawsuit is starting to pick up some mainstream press! Here is my favorite quote so far:

"These pimps (which they are - because they are paying their actors for sex) produce immoral material and while I think what they produce is disgusting, I think it's OK for disgusting people to have their disgusting goods abused by the public. "

[Kingfish]

Gosh, I don?t know what part of the country some of you are from, but here in the rural Midwest in order to get high speed internet you have to fill out an application with all sorts of personal information and then the service provider runs your credit to see if you qualify. So if someone subpoena?s your information it is all there in a nice little folder at the phone company ready to go. It wouldn?t take the service providers in my area 5 minutes to comply with a subpoena requesting information about one of their accounts.

[DBS.US]

Gosh, I don?t know what part of the country some of you are from, but here in the rural Midwest in order to get high speed internet you have to fill out an application with all sorts of personal information and then the service provider runs your credit to see if you qualify. So if someone subpoena?s your information it is all there in a nice little folder at the phone company ready to go. It wouldn?t take the service providers in my area 5 minutes to comply with a subpoena requesting information about one of their accounts.

How do the illegal aliens with no ID or S/S numbers get internet?

[DWB]

You are telling me that your Internet account at home or at the office is registered to a fake name? And your house/apartment also has a fake name on the title? And the credit card or bank account you use to pay the bill, that has a fake name too?

Not hard to do.

[selena]

This lawsuit is starting to pick up some mainstream press! Here is my favorite quote so far:

"These pimps (which they are - because they are paying their actors for sex) produce immoral material and while I think what they produce is disgusting, I think it's OK for disgusting people to have their disgusting goods abused by the public. "

Gee, Steve, do you think they think we are disgusting?

[DBS.US]

Bump

[gideongallery]

Steve,

We can provide what we store if we legally are allowed to provide it, I am no lawyer so I can not say what is required, but as far as I know a subpoena is, even under DMCA law data can not be given out until its subpoena'd.

This might sound stupid to you, but that's how it is. Obviously we provide you with the data we are legally allowed and/or required to give.

hell give current privacy laws you would be breaking the laws of many countries if you just gave that info out

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-...ountry-100909/

with fines as high as 10k per instance (ala pepida)
you would have to be a world class moron to just hand over the info to steve just because he asked you to violate those uploaders privacy.

[gideongallery]

People have been using flaws and gaps in the law for centuries to make money. Is it illegal? No. It is immoral? Well that never stopped anyone before.

Nathan I've been using DMCAs to get my content off piracy sites for over 18 years. You use it as a way to profit from piracy. It was meant to stop hosts being prosecuted for what their clients uploaded. Not for people with servers to avoid buying content to make a profit. The problem is the DOJ didn't change the 2257 law so they could come after people like you. But I guess you will use that loop hole for as long as it exists.

Talking to real customers you soon learn they know the harm piracy has done to this industry and will not complain at measures to stop it.

What I would like to hear from all the knockers is alternative ways of stopping piracy of porn. So far I've heard nothing except lock down content. And that's closing the door after the horse has bolted.

so you have been using a 12 year old law to get your content off piracy sites for over 18 years

how the hell did you do that ?

[gideongallery]

Examples:

Forum:
I noticed on a porn piracy forum that a filehost was personally advertising their service. "Upload to us, and we pay you X per Y downloads". The thread was even sticky. At their website, however, their TOS said something like "do not upload without authorization, blah blah...". It's quite clear that such statement is only for cosmetic and legal protection. But the thread is evidence of encouraging piracy, also the context since it was only pirated files linked on the forum.

Tube:
"Upload to us, become a porn pimp/king". While that slogan and other "prizes" is not directly commercial, it still encourage and motives the uploaders to get a "name", just like the torrent sites or newsgroups. If additionally the tube uploads are to be approved before published and there are tons of full movies from different sources with same uploader, the chances of piracy (and the hosts knowledge of it) is close to 100% in most cases.

Torrent sites (and some tubes):
"You are not allowed to upload for commercial purpose. We delete "spam" ". That statement alone leave out anything else than piracy. Well, maybe 0.01% of the porn uploaded is someone made themselves...

backup timeshifting, commentary, parody....
oh wait you keep ignoring fair use completely, carry on with your bullshit arguement

[Jake]

For those of you attempting to justify content theft by hiding behind certain legal constructs may I just suggest a single word that you all should have learned about in elementary school citizenship class: ETHICS

eth·ics   [eth-iks] ?plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

[Alprazolam]

there is no assimilation that you can make. people who are downloading porn illegally know they are doing it. they seek it out. they know its not free. you have intent. you have the act. you have them. they know they are receiving stolen goods.

[gideongallery]

For those of you attempting to justify content theft by hiding behind certain legal constructs may I just suggest a single word that you all should have learned about in elementary school citizenship class: ETHICS

eth·ics   [eth-iks] ?plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

since your trying to take the moral high ground here

how do you justify demanding that a person pay you a monthly membership to get old content that they just lost.

why doesn't your sites tag the videos they already paid for and give them access to only those videos forever so they don't have to pay for a backup service/ extra hard drives etc.

[johnsteele]

Hello there

As the attorney that has filed the actual lawsuits, I can say that most of the negative comments on this post miss the point of what we are trying to do. I wish to make a couple quick points:

1. We are not looking to end piracy. That will never happen.

2. We are trying to get some "lost" money back to content producers on a contingency basis. If my firm is full of idiots that cannot accomplish this task then our clients are not a dime.

3. I am not trying to push this solution on anyone who would rather not pursue illegal downloaders. If a content producer is comfortable with writing off illegal downloads as a cost of doing business, I respect that.

4. With respect to the comment that most down loaders don't know its illegal, I can't help but wonder if that commenter is serious. Besides, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

5. For the 95% of the people on here that think what we are trying to do is a good idea, thanks!

John Steele

Steele | Hansmeier

[chronig]

As the attorney that has filed the actual lawsuits, I can say that most of the negative comments on this post miss the point of what we are trying to do. I wish to make a couple quick points:

1. We are not looking to end piracy. That will never happen.

2. We are trying to get some "lost" money back to content producers on a contingency basis. If my firm is full of idiots that cannot accomplish this task then our clients are not a dime.

3. I am not trying to push this solution on anyone who would rather not pursue illegal downloaders. If a content producer is comfortable with writing off illegal downloads as a cost of doing business, I respect that.

4. With respect to the comment that most down loaders don't know its illegal, I can't help but wonder if that commenter is serious. Besides, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

5. For the 95% of the people on here that think what we are trying to do is a good idea, thanks!

John Steele

Steele | Hansmeier

[chronig]

so you have been using a 12 year old law to get your content off piracy sites for over 18 years

how the hell did you do that ?

Well he time-shifted of course... you fucking idiot!