No retrial for The Pirate Bay

apple and orange are both round - that's the only similarity you have about them

both make "copies" but thats the only similarity in torrents and vcrs - they work totally different on all levels. with vcr you cannot record a show you don't have on your tv/cable, with torrents not only you can do that, but also feed many other leechers at ease.

To me it is like comparing an apple to a truckload of apples. The first guy gets to sell the one apple he has. The second guy will sell 10 apples, but he has to give away the rest of the truckload to do so.

It seems like as technology continues to evolve we adapt business to be more giving then selling. You have to be willing to give more and more away to make sales. When do we hit the wall? When do you suddenly realize you have given away too much?

Hah-hah-hah

SnakeDoctor, How can you say that? If it were true...as I pointed out to gideongallery...then we should all be making GREAT money! Sales should be through the roof because of all this great branding we are getting from torrents.

The only fact that I'm aware of is that every content producer both mainstream and adult is AGAINST piracy for the simple reason that it is stealing and killing sales.

All this other talk is a bunch of theories that gideongallery makes up pretty words for.

And if you really feel that all of the paysites out here who spend fortunes on shooting content are "shitty" then why are you on an adult industry board to begin with.

The tone of your post sounds a lot like you don't enjoy adult or have any desire or passion to be in this business. That's cool.

But my point is that gideongallery has many times said that we should all be taking "advantage" and "monetizing" the torrents.

And I say it's already been done in the only way it can...the owner of the torrent site selling prepaid ad spots to dating and cam sites.

And yeah, if you want to buy an ad spot on a big torrent you could probably get some sales that way.

But as far as a person's own content that is being used to draw the traffic that makes those thieving bastards the money they get for those prepaid spots?

Well, according to gideongallery we should all be rolling in money from our watermarks.

I think that those of us that are in this business (he is not) know that is NOT true.

And that is why I have challenged him to practice what he preaches and buy some content, start a little paysite and just put the entire members area up on a torrent and watch the money just roll in.

You know, and I know, that AIN'T gonna ever happen.

sorry 1/20th the money
not 1/24th the money
2.5*8 is 20

If you plan on using watermarks and "branding bugs" on your content to be viewed for free by everyone on torrent sites as your advertising strategy...then you can just make BOTH of those ratios 0:0 because you aren't gonna make anything in mainstream or adult.

The only way you'll make money off a torrent is to either be the owner of the torrent site or to buy an ad space. Either way you're making money off of other people's work. Stealing.

I stopped reading at this sentence.

I am against piracy. As far as I know, gideon is against piracy too.

What I think is stupid, is saying you have to kill all torrents because people use them for piracy, or that you should have to prove you have a right to use something before you can create a torrent or tracker.

That's fucking asinine.

Yes piracy is bad, piracy hurts sales.....but just like you can't outlaw the VCR or the CD burner because people can use them for piracy, you can't outlaw torrents either.

So that being the case, you ought to look for ways to use the situation to your advantage in ways that your competition isn't.


It's no wonder you can't get along with gideon, you keep accusing him of being for piracy when he isn't. Whenever he says something about copyright law, you read that as him being ok with people stealing your shit. He's not ok with that, as far as I know.

If he is "pro piracy" then I'll stand corrected.

could sell an ebook on "making money through timeshifting."

You name your site "pirate bay" and of course your going to walk the plank

no he want me to do it for free, i have no problem proving to him that it works if he was willing to pony up the cash

If i posted a bank account info, you would have no way of knowing how much of that money came from this opperation or from my other business.

the only way i could prove this works is
1. showing you how to do it
2. showing you the results

that gives him a lot of value for free, and really give me nothing.

He keeps saying that he knows my ideas will not work, i have told him point blank what he has to do get me to prove that it does.

He only pays out if i am right.

you got it right

like i keep saying
leave the trackers alone
leave the seeders alone
leave the leachers who have a fair use alone
go after the leachers who don't have a fair use right (this is the only group committing piracy).

Just another facet of big brother's bullshit! Ftw!just another facet of big brother's bullshit! Ftw!just another facet of big brother's bullshit! Ftw!just another facet of big brother's bullshit! Ftw!just another facet of big brother's bullshit! Ftw!just another facet of big brother's bullshit! Ftw!just another facet of big brother's bullshit! Ftw!just another facet of big brother's bullshit! Ftw!just another facet of big brother's bullshit! Ftw!

then yoiu got nothing to lose by agreeing to pay me 20:1 bonus.
20 X0 is still zero

If you truely believed i was wrong you jump at the chance to prove to everyone you were right about me.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How did you say it a few minutes ago: "he wants me to do it for free"

WTF are you talking about? YOU are the one who keeps telling all of us that we don't understand marketing and that we are all missing out by not making tons and tons of money by watermarks and "branding bugs" on all of our STOLEN content.

You can't even understand the discussion that we are having with each other Gideon.

I NEVER asked you to do ANYTHING for FREE. I simply said that if you are so sure that your bullshit works...then just do it and MAKE A TON OF MONEY as you claim you can.

That's not me asking you to do shit for free. I'm saying prove your point by getting rich.

But you can not. That's the bottom line. Meanwhile people who have been marketing porn and making fortunes are losing money thanks to piracy.

But somehow YOU are smarter than them. But yet you've never made a damn penny at it. Weird how that works isn't it?

Just keep on chugging away gideongallery. You have put all your eggs in what is essentially just another fast way to make a buck. I've seen similar shit come and go. People do a money grab for as long as they can and then it's over with.

Just watch and see. And as I said earlier...if you are correct and you can make MILLIONS of dollars as you claim by simply using "branding bugs" and watermarks...then I will be the first to apply for the job of washing your car and mowing your lawn.

GideonGallery...the marketing genius. Teaching guys who have made millions of dollars on the internet how to market. Even though gideon has never made one thin dime from it. What a joke.

The problem is you seem to think everything is fair use. Earlier in the thread I posted that The Pirate Bay had the Woverine movie on it before it was even in theaters. You actually said that downloading a workprint was "fair use". You actually said, "fair use is an affirmative defence, you need to accused of something to be able to argue your actions are not an infringement because of fair use

using wolverine (work print) as proof of no fair use presuposes that the fair use right of access shifting would not be recognized (Which most certainly would have covered an unreleased work print)."

When I read it over again I can't really tell what you are saying. It is all some kind of double talk.

So please clarify for me by answering these two questions.

1. Is downloading the work print of Wolverine fair use?
2. Now The Pirate Bay has torrents up for the actual Wolverine movie. This movie is available in theaters only so you can't be downloading a backup of something you have already paid for. Is downloading this movie a copyright violation?

I'm not against all torrents. I know that there are companies out there that use it as a legit form of distribution. What I am against is pirating and I feel like companies should be allowed to go after anyone who runs a torrent site that links to copyrighted material. Sure, there might be some people using it for legit downloads, but let's be honest, many people are not they are just getting stuff for free. So the question is how much illegal activity is okay. If 40% of the traffic on a torrent site is illegal is that acceptable? How about 50% or 60%? Where do we draw the line?

To me running a torrent site where you provide a service to people that you know are breaking the law is being an accessory to a crime. Before you make the argument and say, "well, gun manufactures make guns and they know people will use them to commit crimes." I am not comparing a torrent site to smith and wesson. I am comparing it to the guy on the street who files the serial number off a pistol and sells it to someone else. He knows a good number of the people who are buying his guns are using them to commit crimes and by providing them with that gun he is aiding in that crime.

The hell it is. Making money, or even being able to stay in business, is exactly what this fucking discussion is about.


The Pirate Bay judge seems to think differently.


More often than not it's "fairness", or to be more specific "the big picture", that those who write, and those who interperate, the law pay the closest attention to. The Pirate Bay ruling is a case in point.

While it's true that no one gives a rats ass if honest adult webmasters can keep their heads above water, there ain't no way in hell that the power structure will let a pack of thieves take down hollywood, the music industry and the rest.

And that, Doctor Snake, is a fact.

1. currently no, however if access shift was established as a fair use yes. Quite simply how many sales of the work print they did not sell did they lose (0). Therefore there was no economic loss. If they choose to sell it then access shifting would not apply and it would be an infringement. That being said, if they sold a branding bug rights to an advertiser who did a product placement for example for 6-12 cents then they would have made more money from the workprint being released than they lost in ticket sales. Most people 86% who said they downloaded the movie still saw the movie anyway. I was one of them i downloaded the work print after i went to the movie specifically to see what the work product looked like. But that me i watch dr who confidential because i want to see the behind the scenes stuff.

2. it could be fair use or it could be infringing. let say i am from a country where the movie is being released, even if i wanted to buy the movie there is no way i can do so
which again means the company can't lose any sales, that would also be covered by sampling. Do the same thing from a country where it is showing that infringement.

or how about the fair use of sampling (think what mr skins does with nude clips). so let say that i want to know if black panther was one of the kids in the village that wolverine attack. I heard it was true, and they mentioned him by his real name but i am not interested in paying the full price for the movie just to find out. so i connect with swarm player, fast forward to right point and watch the scene to know the answer. Does it cost marvel a sale, no, in fact now that i know the truth i am going to be more interested in seeing the black panther movie when it comes out.

watch the entire movie without paying and that would be infringement.

you have no idea how much money i have made
i have no idea how much money you made

The guys who own the torrent site aren't the ones creating the torrents, so far as I know. They just facilitate users creating their own, the same way that youtube allows people to upload a video.

In the case of youtube, they respond to DMCA requests, but they are still being sued by Viacom, and I think alot of the things we are discussing here will be decided in that case.

Based on the logic you're presenting, youtube would be illegal also, or people would have to provide legal documents before they uploaded a video of their dog doing a trick.

Why don't we make highways illegal because people speed on them and drive drunk on them?

As frustrating as the current situation probably is for a lot of copyright holders, their proposed solutions, interpretations of the law, or pontifications on the way things ought to be are plain fucking stupid. Yet when a logical person points that out, they get burned in effigy by the bro club.

No, this is a discussion about a court case and the particulars of copyright law, not your business problems.

And that judge obviously has a conflict of interest and was biased, based on the overwhelming lack of evidence that led to the conviction.

Also, this is a trial in Sweden, so it really means fuck all to U.S. and/or international copyright law. It's only going to affect sites based in Sweden, if the conviction holds up on appeal, which is doubtful.





I have no idea what the fuck you just said. Perhaps you should wait for the meth to wear off before you post again.

Also, directing your anger over piracy at me is pretty foolish, considering I don't engage in it or profit from it. All I do is point out the stupidity of what seems to be the conventional wisdom around here from time to time.

The work print was leaked, it wasn't released by the studio. So now you are saying that studios should release work prints of their movies with some ads in them to make extra money? You also say " Currently no, however if access shift was established then fair use yes." That means that currently fair use doesn't apply to this product correct? There is no access shift because it wasn't for sale yet anywhere, it was a stolen and leaked copy. A studio shouldn't have to be forced to put ads on their work prints and release them before the regular movie is released just so they can make money from the thieves.



Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. It says right in the law that fair use is : "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright"

Please show me where in the fair use law it says that just because something isn't available in your area it is okay to download it without paying. So maybe Wolverine isn't playing in your area in a theater. That doesn't mean it won't be available on DVD to you or on pay per view or even on regular cable. It just isn't there right now. So to argue that you are not taking a sale from them is bogus. Maybe you download the movie because it isn't playing anywhere around you. You watch it. Then a few months later it comes out on DVD. You decide not to rent or buy it because you have already seen it. If you hadn't been able to download it you might have bought it or rented it.

Again I say this all about the entitlement generation wanting it now and wanting it free. Honestly how many people do you think downloaded Wolverine so they could fast forward and see if Black Panther was in the movie? Mr. Skin takes clips from the movie and he provides commentary and criticism with them. You can't watch the full movie on Mr. Skin, you can only see that one scene and he gives you info about the actress and movie. That is what fair use is about. You use part of the movie to comment or critique or make a teaching point. Again, please show me where it says that fair use means you get to have it if it isn't playing in a theater near you.

if i offered you a job at 5 dollars an hours working in my call center providing technical support would you take that job
if you can make 100 an hour in porn.

You want me to build a pay site (porn thing) instead of doing the unaired tv show thing (mainstream thing) for a lot more money.



who says i never made a penny at it
not every test worked but most enough did that i turned a profit over all. I flipped the profits from the success into the next test so $121 652 in testing cost was only a 5,000 original investment.
we did more than 200 tests out of which 121 worked. do those 121 things and only those 121 things and you can make money from torrents.

you would be suprise how much people will pay to get 56,484 views to a youtube video in 4 days. Especially when such an action will get them on most ... list and get them on the refered bar for years to come.

When average price is 15 cents/click if you just bought the traffic from youtube. you can make petty good bank by tweeking their title and keyword to duplicate the traffic levels naturally.
i learned those tricks with submitting porn videos to porn tube sites. but in a world where the average price is of tube traffic $4/k, that same technique is practically worthless.


again you have no idea how much money i make a year so your just talking out of your ass.
my income has been going up each and every year. Each time i learn a new technique with my adult content test, i sell my services to the mainstream equivalent for way more money.

I make enough money so i can work on the real long term project that will have a serious pay out (like bit torrent distributed tv shows thing). But even if that does fail miserably (i don't think it will given the tests), what i have learned from those porn video test will make me a very good income for years to come.


if you can raise the number of type ins by 327% that going to raise your income, if you can increase conversion by 20.65% that is going to raise your income.

If you stop doing watermarks wrong and start doing them right, those increase can and will happen.

The reason I harp on Gideon is because he points out every little loop hole that makes illegal downloading okay. It is like he supports the pirates and loves to see them succeed. to hear him say it you would believe that only about 2% of the torrent users are doing anything wrong. I won't get into that though, let's talk about Youtube and torrent sites.

I agree, the Youtube/Viacom lawsuit will have dramatic effect on the internet. If Youtube loses it will open a can of worms that will fundamentally change the way the internet operates at least as far as that type of stuff goes. The question at hand is this: Does Youtube filter their content before it gets on the site? They say they do not that anything can be uploaded and that the users flag it and it gets removed then. Viacom is arguing that they have some sort of pre-filter in place. Porn is a great example. There is never any porn on that site. But you know a lot of people are trying to upload it. So this means one of two things are true. Either the Youtube users flag it so fast it is removed before it is seen by hardly anyone, or they have some kind of pre-filter in place. If it is discovered that they have a pre-filter in place then it will most likely null and void thier DMCA status and they will now be responsible for every clip on that site and anyone who has stuff on there that they don't want on there will be lining up to sue them.

Much the same can be said about a torrent site. some argue that they have no real knowledge of what is on the site. I disagree. I think they just use that as a cover. They sell ads on the site. They look at the site. They have to at least be moderately aware of what is on there. If somehow they aren't then this poses a good question. Should a site that allows and encourages illegal activity be allowed to exist?

You can't compare it to roads. First off roads have a posted speed limit and rules you have to follow. If you go above that or break the rules you risk getting fined or worse. Roads have cops patrolling them making sure you are staying under the speed limit. Torrent sites are a free for all. If you post something you have no rights to post and others who have no right to download it then download it and someone calls you out on it you hide behind 100 different technicalities and loopholes in the law to justify your actions. To me it would be like getting pulled over for speeding and telling the cop he can't write you a ticket because you have a yellow car and since there is a 25year old law on the books that states that this shade of yellow car is actually the same shade as state officials cars should be then you are technically a state a official while driving that car so you are not subject to the speed laws at that moment. Maybe that is a little be far fetched and crazy, but is it any more crazy than saying that seeding a torrent is not distributing the product because you are technically not giving them the full file, you are only giving them a tiny piece of it?

Like I have said, I know there is legit uses for torrents and that some people use them for legit reasons. But there are a lot of people who don't and at some point we have to ask ourselves how much illegal action is okay.

first of all there is no proof that it was stolen,
three theories on the list is that an employee of the editing company leaked the video
it was thrown out and someone got by dumpster diving
it was a pr stunt by the studio

which it was has not been established
but once released/intentionally or by accident the protection and the responsibilties under the act apply. No one has successfully argued that right of access shifting
although the wolverine work print would be a good test case. because it has nothing to do with lost revenue and everything to do with the company just not wanting people to see that behind the scenes stuff. That being said it appears to be another you can't watch it because we say so not because it cost us money thing. (see timeshifting, formating shifting)

do you see format shifting in that list of rights
do you see timeshifting in that list of rights
no
do those rights exist as fair use rights absolutely. Just because they were not explictly defined in the act does not mean they don't exist/

The courts created them, but it doesn't matter they are just as valid as those explictly defined in the act.

it comes down to the principle that was established in the court created fair use rights.

Timeshifting was created as a right even though it could have resulted in your not watching the repeat that aired months later.

The fact is at the time that the fair use right was established the act of watching the tv show on tuesday instead of monday didn't cost a sale.

Access shifting makes the same arguement, under a slightly different context (geography instead of time).


fair use is anything that meet the four point test listed under the act

timeshifting is the act that stretched it to it uppermost limits and established in court the only critical condition.

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

1. sony sold the vcr for 1k so it was obviously commercial
2. the copy was an exact copy of the content broadcast
3. all of the work was copied
4. no sale was lost on the day the content was timeshifted too because the content was not available for sale on that day even though it potentially cost a sale months later when the show ran in reruns.

timeshifting failed on every one of those points except for the last.

All you have to do to determine if the concept of access shifting is a fair use under the law is to apply the 4 test. If it passes the last one, that really the only one that is important. Does it cost a sale at the time of the infringement.
And quite clearly it does not, just like the vcr and timeshifting.

paul tried to make this arguement before and i proved it was wrong
even if they have pre-filtering for porn does not mean that DMCA would be null and void.
Anyone with eyes can tell the difference between porn and not porn. If you see the naughty bits it can be blocked.

Despite the fact that viacom has some very expensive lawyers they have sent take down notices to things that were ruled fair use
http://www.eff.org/cases/moveon-brav...films-v-viacom

which means if viacom own lawyers can't get it right then there is no way to expect every day grunts to get it right even though they are smart enough to tell the difference between porn and not porn.

Fair use would require highly qualified lawyer to review each and every video before it was uploaded and that would be cost prohibitive.


telling the difference between fair use and infringement is not an easy thing. Look at how hard people are arguing what isn't and is fair use.

you yourself ignored all of the court created fair use rights even though they are just as valid as the original explictly defined ones.

What's all this talk about using the VCR as precedent?

Yes, the VCR is legal, but making your copy available to millions of people for free or for profit was never legal.

The torrent technology may be legal, but making copyrighted work available for millions of people will never be legal, nor should it be.

Are you trying to argue that because the underlying technology is legal, that everything that you do with that technology is legal as well?

Nobody is arguing that.

The copyright holders in this business seem to think that because something illegal can be done via torrents, that torrents should be illegal altogether, or that you should have to prove you have a right to something in order to create/seed/download a torrent, or that some other onerous restrictions should be placed on them.

Yes, infringing on someone's copyright is illegal, however, it's not the torrent tracker sites fault, torrent search engine's fault, or youtube's fault, etc...that someone is using their technology in an improper fashion....nor is it their job to be the internet copyright police....anymore than it's your ISP's job to monitor your emails and chat logs to make sure you're not a predator or that you don't rip someone off on ebay.

Nobody is arguing that.

Doesn't matter what you think, only matters what you can prove in a court of law. Alot of people consider pornography an abuse of free speech rights....that doesn't mean we take away people's free speech rights.

You could make this same argument about google, because torrents are at the top of the SERPS for alot of terms. Should google be allowed to exist since it allows and encourages illegal activity?

This is what I hate about these discussions. People try to drown you in the fucking minutiae and miss the bigger picture.

This is new stuff, uncharted territory, of course there's no perfect analogy. Yet all I hear is "you can't compare it to the vcr because of blah" "you can't compare it to cd burners because of bleh" "you can't compare it to the hair on my ass because nah"

The fact of the matter is, most copyright law has been made by the courts (fucking activist judges....LOL) so if all you're doing is reading the statute, then you're only getting about 10% of the story.

Alot of the stuff gideon is talking about is from court cases that established precedent. These are just as powerful, in a legal setting, as the actual statutes themselves.

Another thing to remember is that this is an international issue, and you can't enforce U.S. laws on other countries. Other countries are where alot of the torrent tracker sites and torrent seeders and downloaders are.

It's a very complex issue that's still being worked out in the courts, there are probably more laws to be written in congress, and there will probably be some international treaty action on this subject before it's all over with.........but to just say "Torrent owners and users are assholes who should eat a dick".....or "this is costing me money so it should be illegal" is pretty fucking stupid.

What's funny is how many of you think gideon is an idiot or some kind of troll....yet he never loses his cool, and backs up everything he says with case law and statistics.....while you guys just say "well my sales are down so fuck you torrents can't make money" or "they stole my shit it's mine and I get to say when and where you can store it".

Sure you have alot of guys backing you up on here, because most people here are on the short end of the economic stick in this scenario, but when it comes to what's actually legal and what's not, you guys have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Bullshit. Everyone here arguing with gideon is arguing that.

Either torrents shouldn't exist, torrent site/tracker owners should be held liable for copyright infringement, or people who create torrents should have to prove they have a right to do so before creating a torrent or downloading a torrent.

These three things are precisely what you guys are in here arguing about. (Well that and the fact that you think it's a good thing that guys can get convicted with no real evidence because, hey, we all "know" what they were doing anyways)

I just caught this in that jumble of words you posted (the enter key is your friend) and want to respond to it.

This is utter bullshit. I haven't said it's ok to post something you have no right to post, or to download something you have no right to download, or that anyone should get off on a technicality.

What I'm saying, is that trying to hold torrent sites liable for infringement is like trying to hold your ISP, or google, or Dell, or Microsoft responsible because their technology also facilitated your infringement.

By all means go after the people doing something illegal, which is downloading something they don't have a right to view.

The problem you have is with the law, not me, because the law spells out what is and isn't fair or acceptable use. Fair use is what the law says it is, not what you think it ought to be.

You keep giving gideon examples of torrents (like the wolverine workprint) and asking if there's any legal reason that torrent should be allowed to exist. Then, when he gives you one, you accuse him of siding with thieves, when all he did was answer your question based on the case law.

What the fuck?

See, that's my point. People say they hate the torrents then Gideon comes on here and defends the technology of the torrents. It's two separate things. The legality of the technology and the legality of what people are using it for.

There is no question that a majority of users are taking advantage of the torrents to gain access to copyrighted material they have no usage rights for. Sure, some TV shows may fall under the fair use example Gideon claims but for the most part, even TV shows fail his "4" test for fair use if a torrent is downloaded.

Right and if they are looking at the movies before they are approving them to be listed on the site then they are pre-filtering their content which means that they are controlling the content of the site. Viacom can then argue that if they can set up system to catch porn they can also set up a system to catch copyrighted material. To be covered by DMCA you have to just be a host, by controlling the content on the site before it is listed they are no longer just a host.

You see I guess that is where I get frustrated. I ask Gideon what he thinks about the Wolverine work print situation and he answers yes and no to the same question. He says no it isn't fair use, but it could be and if they put branding in it they could make money and if a court ruled this way it would be fair use. Then I ask about the Wolverine regular print and he goes off on a tangent about access shifting and this law and that law yet he posts no links to these laws or rulings and how it may or may not be infringing. He posts stats that come from graphs that anyone with basic photoshop skills could make. I could spout off a bunch of stuff and with no proof of it it is meaningless. He says 86% of the people who downloaded the Wolverine work print also paid to see the movie. How does he know this? Did they contact everyone of them and ask them this?

Allow me to make it clear how I fell it should be. Of course this may have nothing to do with how the law really is.

1. Should google be sued for linking to sites like The Pirate Bay? Probably not. They are simply listing the sites they are not linking directly to the torrents.

2. Should sites like The Pirate Bay be held accountable for what they have on the site? Yes. As you said a lot of this is gray area stuff. They are deciding to exist in a gray area. When you do that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If you run a site you should be responsible for what is on it. You use the example of porn and you are right, there are many people who hate porn and would like to see it destroyed and all of us thrown in jail. In the past there have been court battles (and there still are court battles today). The porn industry has won some of those battles and lost some of those battles. Over time it has created a legal president. Now you know that if you show pictures of topless or nude women you are probably ok. If you put out movies that show graphic simulated rape or scat then you are edging back into that gray area again and could find yourself in trouble. I feel the same should go for a torrent site. If you decide to link to stuff you know is copyrighted so you know there is a very high probability that people will be bringing you to task for it, that is the risk you take. If the Pirate Bay eventually ends up losing it will set a president that will be used again in other case. The same will happen if The Pirate Bay eventually ends up winning their case. If you operate in a gray area don't be shocked when someone knocks on your door and takes you to court.

3. Should dell, microsoft or companies like that be held liable for helping you get a computer you might do something illegal with? No. As I said before this is like suing a gun manufacturer. There are many people who buy guns and use them legally. Some people will buy guns and use them illegally. You can't hold the manufacturer responsible for that.

4. Should ISPs be held responsible? No. It is much like the answer to number 3. They are simply providing a broad based service, what you do with is up to you.

So then you might be saying what is the difference? Why do you not go after ISPs or Dell or a gun maker or Google, but you want to go after a torrent site? Here is the difference. A torrent site links directly to the torrents and torrent sites directly facilitate the downloading of copyrighted materials. It is that simple. The people that run these sites know they are helping people break the law and the people on there know they are breaking the law. No, not every single person using the site breaks the law. No, I have no idea what percentage of the downloads are illegal. This then brings us back to the question of how much illegal activity is acceptable in a modern society? Anyone who thinks that there are not a lot of people illegally downloading torrents off these sites are fooling themselves. Just go to the sites themselves and you will see for yourself. There are comments all over them with people saying they will never pay for a game or song or movie again or claiming they are pirate for life or bragging about seeding the movie they just downloaded 24/7.

Since this is all in a gray area I guess over the next handful of years we will hash this out in court. I have never said every torrent site needs to be torn down. But those that facilitate illegal activity should be taken to task for their actions.

I agree. To me it really is two separate arguments. There is the argument of the technology and the ethics argument. There is nothing illegal with a company using a torrent to distribute its product. The technology itself is fine. It is when people use it for illegal means then hide behind the technicality of the technology to claim their innocents that things get messy.

I have to disagree. On the last point you say that "No sale was lost on the day the content was timeshifted because the content was not available for sale on that day." But your 4 point test the criteria is: "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work."

po·ten·tial (p-tnshl)
adj.
1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent:

So if people download a movie today that is not being shown in their area they are not taking a sale away on that day. However, if 4 months later the company is now selling/renting the DVD in that area and they lose sales because people have already downloaded it then it fails the timeshifting criteria because the potential market has been damaged. If the company doesn't do as many pay per view sales or they don't get as much for first run cable or TV rights in that area because of the downloads then the downloads hurt the potential market.

This post shows a lot about GG's business acumen and even his reliance on selling scripts. Thought about it for a while and decided it's very flawed and shows who he is.

A. Are each of his scripts so well written ad unique that no one can find the tracking and remove any identification from it? Before he can sue the first thing he would need to do is identify the license holder of an individual script. Then he needs to employ a lawyer, probably out of State or even out of the US to pursue the license holder. Then at the end the license holder can easily claim his computers were hacked into and the script stolen. Let's face it the "rogue programmer" is a well used excuse.

B. After spending a lot of money to pursue the license holder and get a conviction, we all know getting money is another matter. A lawyer could be costing thousands with little to o chance of the infringer paying anything.

C. All the time his script is out there and being shared. After getting a conviction and damages the script is still being shared Is GG going after everyone sharing it?

D. It does not even matter to his bottom ine if it's his script being shared. It might be someone else's script that does the same job as his. Therefore lowering the value of his work. Photoshop, Premier, NATS and more are successful because they are hard to duplicate or need back up. If they were duplicated and handed out for free they would be worthless.

I truly doubt now if he's serious about his business, because if he was he would be more protective of it. Setting up a tracker and issuing a license is a joke.

Or am I thinking too simple?

Paul, I would seriously doubt that gideongallery even has a business or has ever created anything...much less a script to do anything.

He talks and talks. But has nothing to show.

He makes a lot of claims. But if you call him on even ONE...he backs down immediately.

He's simply another delusional soul on a message board who likes to talk like a big shot, but if you ask them to show you their work? Oh hell no. Somebody might "copy" it. lol at that irony.

Reality is...if you really kick ass creatively you rise to the top.

Gideon has babbled about his watermarks and "branding bugs" and made reference to a mysterious "we" doing "tests"

And then he has admitted that NO hollywood studio is interested in his ideas. Then he claims that his time is too valuable to prove his theories work because there is so much more money for him in mainstream than in porn.

As I look back on his talk...I see a guy who says on one hand that mainstream won't have anything to do with him...and then on the other hand says his time is too valuable to make a million dollars in porn with his ideas.

Sure works out nicely for him doesn't it? Just like the hundreds of other guys that have come and gone on this board fantasizing that they are some kind of marketing genius or business mogul.

He's good for a laugh only.

Think about it...he's not in the porn industry in any way at all.
He claims to be a marketing genius with the ability to make a fortune in "mainstream"

And yet...he is constantly here on an adult webmaster board spending hours trying to convince everybody that stealing isn't really stealing.

Funny how he can't spare the time to prove his theories and make millions. But still has the time to defend content theft every day of the week.

Keep it up gideongallery. Just let me know when you become mega-wealthy from marketing on torrent sites. I still want that job mowing your yard for you.

Don't forget us little people when you hit the big time.

I don't think anyone wants to ban the technology of Torrents What we want to do is make sites clearly living off piracy held responsible for their actions. If we can see the number of links to illegal content the so can the owners. They are able to hide behind the DMCA law that's clearly inadequate for today.

The Internet is largely the West doing business with the West, few care if China blocks porn sites. Once you start allowing people who would buy, get it for free you lose customers and profits.

I doubt if you make any money from scripting. Your thinking on getting some one for "breach of contract" shows that you have never gone after anyone and even talked it over with a lawyer.

Your business acumen came through from your own post.

If I'm wrong it's time to prove it.

Robbie said it all so much better than me.

The whole world is trying to figure out how to make a living when the consumer either doesn't want to pay or can't afford to pay. It's the cashless society alright.

I kind of feel like we are reliving things from 2000-2001 again when the dot com bubble burst. Before then everyone just wanted to give everything away. They didn't care about profit, it was about getting viewers on the site and eyes on content. Then they realized that most of those people weren't buying anything and ad revenue wasn't enough to sustain the industry. Companies like Yahoo nearly went under.

Soon after more people started charging for their content and cutting back on what they gave for free. Now it seems like we are heading back down that road only this time is consumer driven. Now people demand it to be free so companies are stepping in and giving them what they want. We are racing to see who can give away the most. Eventually I think we will hit the wall again.

A great post. Has the Internet really created the wealth it should of or moved wealth from one place to another?

An industry can't be based on giving product away. Be that product, porn, information, music, or what ever. Because it gets to the stage (or has it got there?) when people expect everything for free from that industry. What we pay for on a mobile phone we expect and demand for free on he Internet.

Even with a "low" ratio as 1:100, "only" 1% are willing to pay - but it is still a good ratio for salesmen of online porn. Most people can get their kick by just surfing TGPs or something, so I think what we see today is greed. It is not giveaways (the free stuff), but the suppliers of stolen content that is a problem.

that because your trying to squish copyright infringement into box based on the content
not the peoples right to the content.
I understand why you are doing it, because if you can do that, you can see they are putting up that content that is always an infringement so they are guilty (got ya)

The point is that it is not the content it the right to the content. The same swarm could have infringing and non infringing actions within in. You can't seperate the two, and issolate the two into two groups (unless you setup a private tracker , but then your talking about cede the point about copyright law/fair use and suing based solely on the breach of contract status).



2. Should sites like The Pirate Bay be held accountable for what they have on the site? Yes. As you said a lot of this is gray area stuff. They are deciding to exist in a gray area. When you do that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If you run a site you should be responsible for what is on it. You use the example of porn and you are right, there are many people who hate porn and would like to see it destroyed and all of us thrown in jail. In the past there have been court battles (and there still are court battles today). The porn industry has won some of those battles and lost some of those battles. Over time it has created a legal president. Now you know that if you show pictures of topless or nude women you are probably ok. If you put out movies that show graphic simulated rape or scat then you are edging back into that gray area again and could find yourself in trouble. I feel the same should go for a torrent site. If you decide to link to stuff you know is copyrighted so you know there is a very high probability that people will be bringing you to task for it, that is the risk you take. If the Pirate Bay eventually ends up losing it will set a president that will be used again in other case. The same will happen if The Pirate Bay eventually ends up winning their case. If you operate in a gray area don't be shocked when someone knocks on your door and takes you to court.



3. Should dell, microsoft or companies like that be held liable for helping you get a computer you might do something illegal with? No. As I said before this is like suing a gun manufacturer. There are many people who buy guns and use them legally. Some people will buy guns and use them illegally. You can't hold the manufacturer responsible for that.

4. Should ISPs be held responsible? No. It is much like the answer to number 3. They are simply providing a broad based service, what you do with is up to you.

So then you might be saying what is the difference? Why do you not go after ISPs or Dell or a gun maker or Google, but you want to go after a torrent site? Here is the difference. A torrent site links directly to the torrents and torrent sites directly facilitate the downloading of copyrighted materials.
[/QUOTE]

but that is absolutely not true, the torrent does not DIRECTLY facilitate the downloading of copyrighted materials
the technology prevents that, you don't go to the seeder and get a complete copy of the file (that would be direct) you get a little piece of the file. You never get the full file from the one seeder (that woudl be direct) you get different pieces from multiple locations.

on a purely logical basis there is nothing direct about the copyright infringement that happens. Which means if that is your ownly justification for supporting going after torrent sites like the pirate bay and leaving sites like google dell and the isp alone then you have no arguement anymore.


but that the point to make your point of view make sense you have to make to logical leaps that don't make sense.

You are discounting my explaination of how work print can be both infringing and non infringing depending on the actions of the client (hense my repeated statement go after the leacher who doesn't have a fair use right) as a wish washy yes no answer.

And you are ignore the fact that the technology by design does not directly infringe on copyright material.

they are not deciding to exist in a gray area.

that is not what they are doing at all.

they have been very clear about what they are doing and very clear about what their position is and very clear about the fact that everyone's work should be free... that movies should be free, that software should be free and so on. their intent is not in a "gray" area.. their intent is to facilitate the stealing of protected works.

Gideongallery you should just stop. You argue with people that will bend the law/rules if it works for them, but they can't see/understand/comprehend law, when it's abused, simply because they think it helps them.

Outside of that, people act like PB is going out of business, that piracy has been stopped. These guys are going to a resort not a prison, the site isn't being shut down, money will still be made, "millions and millions on piracy" and people still think piracy hurts business?

I love how this industry has been allllllllll over sending notices, to tubes, to torrents, forums, etc... and yet people can't figure out why sales are down... They KILL the free traffic flow, branding, etc.. and can't figure out why sales are down.


Gideongallery my advice...Let them bask in their own misery and failures.

i said i would do it
IF
you paid me 20 buck for every dollar i make in porn
it a fair market compensation for diverting my time into the more competitive and less valueable marketplace.

the only reason it not happening is because you refuse to step




if you want to teach you do something right (yes showing you how to do watermarks correctly

if you are going to quote me at least do a half assed job of quoting me correctly.
the big companies like cbs, abc, nbs who are talking 22/26 commercial would view this as competition so of course they would not be interested

the small companies who are currently getting screwed by the system (the guys getting the 4/26 commercial spots) are very interested.

you just would not recognize them however considering that you don't really know who produces the shows you are watching on tv now (you didn't know c2 produced Terminator:TSCC- like most people you associated with fox who is really the distributor).


i am not saying a marketing genius the stuff i am telling you to do is so simple it funny

it like when jack Valenti was testifying to the congress that the vcr was to the movie industry what the boston strangler was to women alone
http://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm
the movie industry was using the vcr technology wrong
but at the exact same time the porn industry was using the technology correctly (by selling their movies on cassette)

it was only when the movie industry copied the porn industry that they started to make money.

that btw was the statement that convinced my partners to commit resources to the porn tests (that and me saying i would do most of the labor for a payment on the backend).

They had the same attitude that you guys did but in reverse (what works in porn, will never work in mainstream)

fighting with you has been very helpful, if you haven't guessed you gave me a lot of objections i have to deal with in advance

psychotherapy teaches us that self convinced delusions are the hardest to break because people will defend opinion iregardless of what facts are presented

knowing those objections in advance means i can pre-deal with them when i talk to the real money making customers.

get them out of the way before making the pitch, and guess what when that happens i get more sales.

i get value out of my time here, very good value.

You on the other hand are taking time way from your work, to try and convince me i am wrong which is never going to happen (weather you realize that i am legally right, or believe i am delusional) with no upside benefit.

here the problem with the arguement you are making
reruns existed at the time the betamax case was happening
the same concept of potential sales being lost at the time should have applied.

in fact the arguement was similarly made

and it was rejected by the court. (people who watched it live, also watched the rerun again when they aired, so timeshifting could not be proven to cost potential sales)

That being said your trying to use current market conditions to invalid an already established right. Tv shows are in fact timeshifted to death. 5/6 of the tv shows cancelled this year died not because they could not find an audience but because the audience doesn't want to watch it live.


access shift get established as a fair use right when the challenge appears in court
once establish it will be there forever even if later on we "discover" that it has detrimental economic impact (see timeshifted to death above).

If you want to stop the right from being formed you have to counter the liciening inequality with fair liciening (think about how much differently the betamax case would have been had the studios responded by fulfilling the timeshifting right by offering video on demand).

access shifting is a response to the abuse of staggered liciencing. While it was ok when there was no technology that allowed world wide simalcast distribution, now that we do have the technology that can provide that using copyright to block access to those locations is just as valid as when studio said you can only watch this tv show on the day i give it to you.


that being said the vcr proves that the gain (home viewing market) more than balances the loss (timeshifted to death).

nobody arguing that torrents should not exists

you want to have your own distribution channel set up your own tracker and give it all away if thats your business model.

sites like PirateBay whose only intention is piracy probably won't be around for long. they have no business freely distributing other's intellectual properties being middle man and ground base for crime and that will catch up on them and bite their asses, in my opinion

we understand that the technology behind is genius and makes it look like no one does the crime especially connecting grounds like PB, according to laws that were based on VCR cases, that's why they still online, but it will certainly catch up to them just like it did with Napster.

Ali Baba and the hundred and fifty theives

(dammit - too early )


exactly Paul


SOMEONE has to be held accountable