GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - "you can't get licensed content. But who gives a fuck? ..."

rhizome · 02-06-2001, 02:42 PM

APIC is totally fucked up - they're just a bunch of fascists that don't have a clue what they're fighting for. One example. On APIC's site, under celebrity issues, they have one thing and that's a link to Cyber-Tracker. So I go to Cyber-Tracker's site and what do I find?

"There are literally millions of pictures on the net that incorporate the use of a celebrity's face pasted on the picture of a naked body. There are many other millions of illegally obtained images used on sites. There are then tens of millions of viewers who believe these photos to be legitimate. Consider how this affects the image of the celebrity!"

O.K. so what are "these photos"? Are they the fakes or the illegally obtained real ones? And what's this about appealing to the image of the celebrity? What does that have to do with copyright law?

And the elsewhere on the site, there's this:

"Milano added that she did not "want to be Big Brother" or chill First Amendment freedoms. Cyber-Trackers does not, for instance, go after fans who merely post pictures and information on Alyssa. Cyber-Trackers primary mission, she said, is "to make people realize they can't capitalize on a celebrity's image without authorization."

So one can merely post pictures - in other words it's o.k. to violate the copyright so long as you don't cast the celeb in a bad light. The only reason why APIC is associated with such a backwards organization like Cyber-Tracker is because of their blatant political motivations. If I was the slightest bit interested in the truth, then APIC would be the last place I would turn and it's word would be the last thing I would listen to.

02-06-2001, 02:42 PM
rhizome Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 788	APIC is totally fucked up - they're just a bunch of fascists that don't have a clue what they're fighting for. One example. On APIC's site, under celebrity issues, they have one thing and that's a link to Cyber-Tracker. So I go to Cyber-Tracker's site and what do I find? "There are literally millions of pictures on the net that incorporate the use of a celebrity's face pasted on the picture of a naked body. There are many other millions of illegally obtained images used on sites. There are then tens of millions of viewers who believe these photos to be legitimate. Consider how this affects the image of the celebrity!" O.K. so what are "these photos"? Are they the fakes or the illegally obtained real ones? And what's this about appealing to the image of the celebrity? What does that have to do with copyright law? And the elsewhere on the site, there's this: "Milano added that she did not "want to be Big Brother" or chill First Amendment freedoms. Cyber-Trackers does not, for instance, go after fans who merely post pictures and information on Alyssa. Cyber-Trackers primary mission, she said, is "to make people realize they can't capitalize on a celebrity's image without authorization." So one can merely post pictures - in other words it's o.k. to violate the copyright so long as you don't cast the celeb in a bad light. The only reason why APIC is associated with such a backwards organization like Cyber-Tracker is because of their blatant political motivations. If I was the slightest bit interested in the truth, then APIC would be the last place I would turn and it's word would be the last thing I would listen to.