-
---
ICQ 14-76-98 <-- I don't use this at all -
Anyone see that 60 Minutes piece last weekend on hollywood movie piracy? They basically arrived at the conclusion that they had no idea what to do about it, aside from somehow making it illegal to use bit torrent, which would never happen.Comment
-
I couldn't tell what you were replying to because you deleted what you were replying to.
This, right?
Can you elaborate on your hip hip lingo? What do you mean by "don't hate the player, hate the game?"
I ask because it feels like you are using that in an imperative sense, as though there is some player or game that I, personally, am to stop hating. I'm just getting into an ethics discussion, not hating games or players or whatever.
Help me understand what you mean by that. Is it just a comforting aphorism for you? Or are you hinting at something deeper?Comment
-
I mean the laws/DMCA are set up the way they are now (game) and there are many (players) who are taking advantage of that loophole for financial gain.
Same as big coal, banks, oil and credit card companies, and other industries do the exact same thing even when they know it is fucking the planet, the consumer, the economy.
That said, most of the people doing this are idiots who do not have a proper LLC in place, business bank account, separation of business and person or legal counsel to C.Y.A.. So they are playing a dangerous game, and should someone actually enforce their copyrights AND go the distance. They are royally fucking fucked.
Which is on par for most of this industry. Invest nothing in your business, spend it all trying to impress a bunch of fry cooks on an industry message board, or drinking and partying it all away. Or not investing in the future, and think you are going to get away with it forever.
The point being, this is a business like any other and some are taking advantage of the rules as they exist today. Whether unethical, immoral or whatever you would like to call it. It is the rules of the game that exist right now in 2009 for the online industry.
So they are gaming that system for financial gain. So hating, metaphorically, for being intelligent enough, ruthless enough, uncaring enough to make money doing shit like pre-checked cross sales, and driving a mack truck through the loop holes of DMCA is just business.
Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Thanks for humoring me.I mean the laws/DMCA are set up the way they are now (game) and there are many (players) who are taking advantage of that loophole for financial gain.
Same as big coal, banks, oil and credit card companies, and other industries do the exact same thing even when they know it is fucking the planet, the consumer, the economy.
That said, most of the people doing this are idiots who do not have a proper LLC in place, business bank account, separation of business and person or legal counsel to C.Y.A.. So they are playing a dangerous game, and should someone actually enforce their copyrights AND go the distance. They are royally fucking fucked.
Which is on par for most of this industry. Invest nothing in your business, spend it all trying to impress a bunch of fry cooks on an industry message board, or drinking and partying it all away. Or not investing in the future, and think you are going to get away with it forever.
The point being, this is a business like any other and some are taking advantage of the rules as they exist today. Whether unethical, immoral or whatever you would like to call it. It is the rules of the game that exist right now in 2009 for the online industry.
So they are gaming that system for financial gain. So hating, metaphorically, for being intelligent enough, ruthless enough, uncaring enough to make money doing shit like pre-checked cross sales, and driving a mack truck through the loop holes of DMCA is just business.
Mainstream -- or perhaps better put, "much larger, much more mature industries" -- certainly has its share of loophole leapers, but it's not a prerequisite to survival and success. Furthermore there's always a concern to appear ethical (not necessarily to be ethical.) For example, you'll never hear Boone Pickens wave off a detractor by saying "don't hate the player, hate the game" (I would love to see it though :D). You would not see a "mainstream" entity so obviously pushing a loophole at a supplier or competitor's expense because the deniability is hardly plausible.
My gut feeling is that abuse continue simply because the licensors whose IP is being leveraged without consent are so small that they are unable, individually, to defend their rights. Meanwhile the RIAA zaps $100k from an individual with a lot of MP3s.
While there are certainly people who feel a visceral disgust -- "hate" -- for those whom you describe as "ruthless enough, uncaring enough to make money doing shit," I think there's a higher plane with a more interesting conversation to be had.
Would one be a "hater" for acting to correct a broken system, in other words, to change the game?
Or is a "hater" anyone who is NOT taking advantage of the loopholes?
ORRR does this whole mess highlight that it's just IMPOSSIBLE to protect IP in the information age? That DELIVERY is what people are paying for, not the CONTENT itself?Comment
-
Location is well known. I have more than one. Do I have your content? No. So cool the fuck out black man.
If you are shooting content in the first place, like both you and I, and do not have a LLC you are a fucking idiot. You are just begging to be sued by your models and lose your ass. It is common fucking sense to be an LLC to protect yourself.
Just like paying models. You think I pay them out of my personal checking? Cash maybe?
Comment
-
Something I would like to correct here, there is no loophole in the DMCA.
The DMCA itself is a loophole.
Of course the alternative is probably worse. That would be that you could sue someone for damages if they violated your copyrights, and there would be no safe harbor to hide behind.
BUT, your stuff wouldn't be taken down until a judge ordered it, and that would take at least 6 months, and if the pirate had half competent counsel, more like 18 months....at which point you'd be suing out of principle because your "new release" is now in the bargain bin.....also if it was found that the defendant had a fair use right, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and costs etc.sig too bigComment
-
Semantics.
None of that changes the facts of the matter. Business is business.
No matter how technical you want to get on the legal, the moral, or choice of language in my example it's legal. The fact remains that in current form, those loopholes exist just like in other industries, or the tax code. People take advantage of them, and that is the plain and simple fact of the matter.
Whether you approve or not matters none. They do not pay their bills with your opinion or endorsement, and despite what is said on message boards. Most do not care.Comment
-
That is just as entertaining as all the cases you read about every month in the trades. Nothing by a lot of sabre rattling that almost never goes to trial. In last month there were a good half dozen cases dropped, thrown out, or settled. Never going to trial.
So get a pair of good cowboy boots and do the cabbage patch, or greasy chicken. You are going to be dancing awhile, and as well proven over and over again. Few people have the balls to do anything, and those that do make a half hearted effort in the end still fold.
Comment
-
Yeah, but let's call a spade a spade. Under the law, you are not an ISP if:
1. You upload your own content.
2. You run your site for a profit.
3. Moderate uploads.
4. Don't allow uploads at all.
The ISP provision just says states, "We leave the flood gates open and wharever comes through comes through, if you find something copy-written we will remove it."
Even BUYING your own content takes you out of ISP land.
Comment
-
Responding to you last post. Which again would be common sense. You post, I responded. Guess that is too complicated.
I'll leave you to your shadow boxing or devil's advocate arguments that have no conclusion to the current situation. The spicy language, or legal technicalities you like to cite do not change anything professor. As I said, get some good shoes so you can tap dance around the turd in the punch bowl.
Your approval, ethics, morals do not change the DMCA loophole, nor the fact people will use it as a strategic advantage. Period.
Carry on.
Last edited by Barefootsies; 11-04-2009, 04:46 PM.Comment
-
Wow you have completely failed to comprehend any of this.Responding to you last post. Which again would be common sense. You post, I responded. Guess that is too complicated.
I'll leave you to your shadow boxing or devil's advocate arguments that have no conclusion to the current situation. The spicy language, or legal technicalities you like to cite do not change anything professor. As I said, get some good shoes so you can tap dance around the turd in the punch bowl.
Your approval, ethics, morals do not change the DMCA loophole, nor the fact people will use it as a strategic advantage. Period.
Carry on.
Comment
-
Actually, no.
I responded directly to your original question and explained it in detail. You wanted to get off on some tangent about use of language, and jive turkey or your lack of understanding and compare it to Madoff, and all this other nonsense.
The fact remains as described a number of posts ago. DMCA is a loophole and business is business. Some will use it as an advantage, and others will not. In the end, none require your endorsement.Last edited by Barefootsies; 11-04-2009, 04:55 PM.Comment
-
well put your money where your mouth is and lets see ya hire some lawyers and sure, make some legal precedence for the rest of us to make it cheaper and easier for the smaller fish to sue.Yeah, but let's call a spade a spade. Under the law, you are not an ISP if:
1. You upload your own content.
2. You run your site for a profit.
3. Moderate uploads.
4. Don't allow uploads at all.
The ISP provision just says states, "We leave the flood gates open and wharever comes through comes through, if you find something copy-written we will remove it."
Even BUYING your own content takes you out of ISP land.
Contact me: \\// E: webmaster /at/ unprofessional.comComment
-
Dude, I BELIEVE that you are ruthless and intelligent, and that you REALLY feel strongly! And that you're proud of that! Way to go, Gecko, I am CONVINCED it's not an act! Really! STOP! I believe you!
Here's a hint: NOTHING I am talking about has anything to do with my approval, or any of that whiny bullshit you're SO eager to destroy even when that's not what you're hearing.
I'm saying, with what is happening, who is winning, who is losing, WHY? If they are winning today, are they winning in five years? What is driving this movement? How can I figure out a way to profit in the long-term?
You know, shooting the shit on a messageboard.
Chill with the Rand-Hammer man, that was nail was pounded in long ago.
(you can keep calling me professor, that's cool)Comment
-
Frankly I do not care what anyone believes. That should be more than apparent by now I would think. But that's me. None of it effects my business.
I do not think anyone can answer the two year question much less 5 years. But you see many of the BROgrams and old timers are selling out, or retiring. So your best guess is as good as anyone else's.Comment
-
that the stupidest thing you have ever said and you have said a lot of stupid things.Yeah, but let's call a spade a spade. Under the law, you are not an ISP if:
1. You upload your own content.
2. You run your site for a profit.
3. Moderate uploads.
4. Don't allow uploads at all.
The ISP provision just says states, "We leave the flood gates open and wharever comes through comes through, if you find something copy-written we will remove it."
Even BUYING your own content takes you out of ISP land.
i suggest you re read snake doctors post, and go back and try and remember what a pain it was to get your content dropped before the takedown notices
safe harbor is the balance to that new power period.
no loophole it does exactly what it was designed to, to prevent that takedown request from turning into a censorship tool.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
Comment
-
i found this really cool place to download free shit ... napster.combest host: Webair | best sponsor: Kink | best coder: 688218966 | Go Fuck Yourself
Comment
-
that makes no sense. If someone is stealing from you and you just got a big payout, and this is all really bothering you, sue em. The more people that do, the more legal precedent there is and eventually people will think twice before ripping your members area and posting it all on tubes like stile did.
Contact me: \\// E: webmaster /at/ unprofessional.comComment
-
Comment
-
I'll just blame tubes... mmkay? kthxbye...i like wafflesComment
-
Wow, I don't know who gave you all of that advice, but you should fire them.Yeah, but let's call a spade a spade. Under the law, you are not an ISP if:
1. You upload your own content.
2. You run your site for a profit.
3. Moderate uploads.
4. Don't allow uploads at all.
The ISP provision just says states, "We leave the flood gates open and wharever comes through comes through, if you find something copy-written we will remove it."
Even BUYING your own content takes you out of ISP land.
Last time I checked all of the hosts I know make a profit and they're still ISPs. Same thing goes for Charter who provides me with internet access locally.
Alot of this other stuff will (hopefully) be resolved by the Viacom v Google case.
My point still is still the same and still valid though. If you wanted to throw out DMCA completely so you could sue the bastards violating your copyrights, you'd have to wait 6-18 months to have your content taken down, AND if the defendant somehow won the case, you'd have to remunerate them for attorney fees and other expenses.sig too bigComment
-
18 months so fucking what? With DMCA we'll have to wait FOREVER until our content is removed - although they have to comply with your TDR the next day your clip will be there again.
If you have a solid ground for a lawsuit it is worth waiting, maybe your compensation for damages will be higher than what your site's going to make in it's entire lifetime. But even if it's not doesn't matter - 99,9999% of those motherfuckers who steal nowadays all day long would not do that knowing there's a good chance they'll get sued and they have NOTHING to show in court. Now with the damnable DMCA around all they have to do is to show their upload button to a judge and that's it, rock solid proof they're clean.
I'll go back into the pre-DMCA era any day of the week. It isn't a big deal to sue, the big deal is when your content is all around and you cannot even sue, only to send piles of worthless DMCA notices which do nothing in the grand scheme of things - the next day your content will be all over the place again..
.
FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries
New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet
Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)
Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.
ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.comComment
-
-
You are absolutely right.If you are shooting content in the first place, like both you and I, and do not have a LLC you are a fucking idiot. You are just begging to be sued by your models and lose your ass. It is common fucking sense to be an LLC to protect yourself.
Just like paying models. You think I pay them out of my personal checking? Cash maybe?
It amazes me how many shooters pay by personal check and/or cash. Even some of the "bigger companies."Comment
-
Exactly. Scary fucking shit anyone would do this, but there are a TON who shoot content, and do not have an LLC and pay by check or cash. That is just BEGGING for trouble.
Comment
GFY Hall of Famer 
Comment