Another Anti-Piracy Bill Moves Forward - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

GatorB · 06-20-2011, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Link to XBiz Article.

There is hope on the horizon.

There is hope if you are stupid enough to believe the feds actually care about porn. these laws are designed to protect MAINSTREAM not porn.

mynameisjim · 06-20-2011, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

really so if wanted to post an entire porn scene and with the commentary this is the greatest porn scene in xxx site.

this law would allow it.

that commentary statement makes no sense without the scene being show

see the quest crew example above.

Go back to my original post. I was not saying whether or not new IP laws were good or not, I was simply saying that one side is fighting and the other side is made up of opportunistic businessmen who have no interest in fighting back. So once a few laws make it too risky to make money from piracy, the major players in the piracy game will simply move on to the next money making venture or adjust their current models.

As for your example about showing a full movie with added commentary, that's so silly that I can't even begin to argue it with you.

If you want to discuss my original post, I would be happy to hear from you which pro-piracy groups plan to spend as much money as companies like Comcast does lobbying politicians. Once again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's how it's playing out.

Once again, I am not saying that ending piracy will ultimately be good or bad for the consumer as it may prove to be too restrictive, but rampant piracy is going to end regardless.

NemesisEnforcer · 06-20-2011, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

There is hope if you are stupid enough to believe the feds actually care about porn. these laws are designed to protect MAINSTREAM not porn.

Yes, the Federal government is not trying to do anything to help the porn industry. As evidence, read Section 181 of the IRS code for the "Domestic Film Production Incentive Program". You do not qualify for the deduction if you have to maintain 2257 records.

Quote:

Qualified films do not include sexually explicit productions as defined in section 2257 of title 18 of the U.S. Code.

If porn valley could take advantage of this incentive, companies would have an incentive to continue or invest more money into production.

gideongallery · 06-20-2011, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiracyPitbull

The current law doesn't allow that and nor would this one.

Commentary using copy-written works has limits on the amount that can be used, the purpose and the actual commentary.....they are far from what you describe and you know it.

one scene from a site
one episode from a series
one dance routine from a dance show
one comedy sketch from show

are all examples of taking a limited amount of the copy written word

the definition of fair use has no hard and fast time limit

it never had and it never should.

and you know that too.

oh and btw the safe harbor provision DOES in fact allow this

if your willing to defend your posting based on the 4 principles of fair use

so to claim that the current law doesn't allow this is total bullshit

gideongallery · 06-20-2011, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

Go back to my original post. I was not saying whether or not new IP laws were good or not, I was simply saying that one side is fighting and the other side is made up of opportunistic businessmen who have no interest in fighting back. So once a few laws make it too risky to make money from piracy, the major players in the piracy game will simply move on to the next money making venture or adjust their current models.

except that not true at all

look at the pirate bay

they have been raided multiple times

they fight each procecution

they are currently found guilty and they keep doing what they are doing

they funded an entire political party

they open sourced their tracker code

they spend millions defending themselves in court over and over again
and when they lose they appeal to address the 'injustices" of the prosecution

if they were as "opportunistic" as you claimed they would have done the same thing as mininova and just given in.

Paul Markham · 06-20-2011, 07:05 AM

Had to pitch in with my

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so now you only have freedom of speech when you produce ORIGINAL content

parody and commentary are both free speech even though they are derived work.

oh and btw what original content is produced by a vcr.

As someone who lived through the birth and evolution of the VCR I know about the piracy effect of them. You needed 2 or more VCRs to duplicate a video and the tapes weren't free. Most of the piracy was people duplicating and selling the videos. Also the duplication from a shop bought per recorded video tape to a shop blank video tape was awful. Most professional duplicators working for the owner of the original content used a Betacam master.

parody and commentary are both free speech and should remain free speech. Copyright material isn't free speech. Putting the 2 together doesn't make them both free speech.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB

Sadly, much of porn valley is in such dire straights they are whoring out their content at rock bottom prices to anyone who will take it.

And that is the amazing thing. These tubes could BUY all of their content so cheap and just be hassle free. But they choose to be crooks.

Because of years of free porn. Karma sucks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falabala

*sigh* The only reason why these bills are being made is mostly because the content providers/producers refuse to walk out of the stone age with their old business model, refusing to adapt to the new environments.

Should the train companies and banks adapted to people robbing them by opening their doors. Or by going after the thieves?

Your example of adaptation is stupid. You just want everything cheaper. God luck making a living as a n affiliate, because that's the only place left to cut costs in online porn.

Paul Markham · 06-20-2011, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NemesisEnforcer

Yes, the Federal government is not trying to do anything to help the porn industry. As evidence, read Section 181 of the IRS code for the "Domestic Film Production Incentive Program". You do not qualify for the deduction if you have to maintain 2257 records.

Quote:

Qualified films do not include sexually explicit productions as defined in section 2257 of title 18 of the U.S. Code.

If porn valley could take advantage of this incentive, companies would have an incentive to continue or invest more money into production.

Was that included in the law for a reason or what?

It's a step in the right direction. If it doesn't work for mainstream expect more laws. As I said a long time ago too much money is being lost because of piracy for it to continue. The EU might be the next one to come up with something similar.

This is my take on it.

Free porn has been killing offline porn for years. Karma is a bitch. As DWB says Manwin is so big they will just buy content. Online porn drove down the value of porn, both online and offline, Manwin and a few others can afford to keep going with full scenes. This will be a good thing for them, it will remove all the small players with unlicensed content. And ensure no competitors will threaten them.

Youtube might not bother to fight it, it loses money or the money it makes isn't worth fighting for. If they do will they have the political clout to fight industries losing billions?

If any law that porn can use against piracy, can only be enforced by the Fed. Forget about it. They will find a ton of reasons not to bother.

gideongallery · 06-20-2011, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

parody and commentary are both free speech and should remain free speech. Copyright material isn't free speech. Putting the 2 together doesn't make them both free speech.

i hope you realize how stupid that statement is

if copyright material isn't free speech then it not entitled to free speech protection
by definition that would mean all copyright porn is prostitution

no one here is stupid enought to make such an arguement and actually believe it.

btw

since copyright material is also free speech putting commentary together with it DOESN'T STOP it from still being free speech.

Joshua G · 06-20-2011, 08:01 AM

jonny law is not going to help the porno man. No clue why anyone thinks otherwise.

The only way the free ride will be cut down is if Apple computer's model for content distribution becomes the industry standard. When an entity can control both the hardware & the content that gets streamed to the hardware, like apple, then a closed system like that is very hard for the pirates (& public) to operate freely.

Sadly this appears to be exactly the direction the huge media companies are headed, with apple leading the way. This suggests the end of a free & open internet. Instead, you will need to have your content approved by your ISP in order to get on the web.

The ISPs know theres money in porn, so porn won't go away. Only the softer, less controversial porn will get through the filter.

Paolo · 06-20-2011, 10:15 AM

I have sued in Federal court and won in a copy write case..

The Judge at the time took it seriously and there was a jury that did as well.
Federal law is Federal law and they do not care what industry it is.. Who ever thinks that the Federal courts do not care about laws protecting content including porn is mistaken.

State courts maybe not, but thanks to the higher person above the copy write and other laws protecting content is not in the state courts.

Joshua G · 06-20-2011, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paolo

I have sued in Federal court and won in a copy write case..

The Judge at the time took it seriously and there was a jury that did as well.
Federal law is Federal law and they do not care what industry it is.. Who ever thinks that the Federal courts do not care about laws protecting content including porn is mistaken.

State courts maybe not, but thanks to the higher person above the copy write and other laws protecting content is not in the state courts.

disagree. the thread is about making streaming copyrighted content a felony. Felonies have to be prosecuted by jonny law, unlike civil complaints like copyright. Jonny has limited resources. He will prioritize his cases based on whats worth his time. Hardcore smut is not worth a federal attornies limited time. Not to mention the politics of a federal attorney working on behalf of Buttman. Not going to happen.

Robbie · 06-20-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

disagree. the thread is about making streaming copyrighted content a felony. Felonies have to be prosecuted by jonny law, unlike civil complaints like copyright. Jonny has limited resources. He will prioritize his cases based on whats worth his time. Hardcore smut is not worth a federal attornies limited time. Not to mention the politics of a federal attorney working on behalf of Buttman. Not going to happen.

Not sure that you are even close on that.

If I identify a site streaming my content without my consent...I will take them to court. And if there is a law in place (like the one being talked about), I win. My lawyer wins. Has nothing to do with the feds "going after" somebody in that scenario.

Joshua G · 06-20-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Not sure that you are even close on that.

If I identify a site streaming my content without my consent...I will take them to court. And if there is a law in place (like the one being talked about), I win. My lawyer wins. Has nothing to do with the feds "going after" somebody in that scenario.

are citizens allowed to go into court & prosecute another party for a felony? we're not talking civil law here. talking felony.

gideongallery · 06-20-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Not sure that you are even close on that.

If I identify a site streaming my content without my consent...I will take them to court. And if there is a law in place (like the one being talked about), I win. My lawyer wins. Has nothing to do with the feds "going after" somebody in that scenario.

do you even understand the difference between a criminal and a civil trial

the law talked about adds a criminal penalty

you can't enforce a criminal penalty thru a civil case, if your lawyers are telling different you need to get better lawyers

Robbie · 06-20-2011, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

are citizens allowed to go into court & prosecute another party for a felony? we're not talking civil law here. talking felony.

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But I do have our site copywritten and I do have Claudia Marie trademarked.

So I am going to go with the wild and crazy theory that if I find my stuff on a site and I take them to court...that the court and the authorities will plainly see that they are in violation of the new copyright law (assuming that it is in place at that time).

At that point...yes, I would theorize that federal prosecutors would definitely move on that.
Not to "help" the porn industry, but to nail a porn site. And in the case of guys like Manwin (whom they and interpol are already investigating and looking for something to take them down), they would literally jump at the chance.

Joshua G · 06-20-2011, 11:46 AM

thing is. Dubya wanted to take out porn, using obscenity. created a task force. when the shit hit the fan, the FBI & federal attorneys said they had better things to do. So even if a law is on the books, they dont choose to use it.

here. if there is a felony law regarding streaming. the Man cannot prosecute every case brought before him. The web is too large, many of the criminals are overseas. I question if Manwin can be touched by a US law when they reside in canada. Takes more resources to grab a person in another country & expedite them. I dont see how the US government is going to use taxpayer money to help the porn industry.

Laws are not going to solve the problem. It will have to come from technology. a future version of the internet that controls what is put online. Like what apple does with its itunes/ipad model.

PiracyPitbull · 06-20-2011, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

one scene from a site
one episode from a series
one dance routine from a dance show
one comedy sketch from show

are all examples of taking a limited amount of the copy written word

If a person wants to use even a small portion of the works owned by another (and much smaller than you are describing with whole episodes), Its advisable that they acquire the permission of the copyright owner prior to use.

If a case goes to court, you are going to have to prove your "fair use" .... so simply taking something and applying for example a News commentary, does not make it news, just because you said it was.

You'd have to prove it was news and thats not as easy as some might think and is going to result in an infringement in virtually every instance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

the definition of fair use has no hard and fast time limit

it never had and it never should.

and you know that too.

I didn't say it had a time limit

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

oh and btw the safe harbor provision DOES in fact allow this

if your willing to defend your posting based on the 4 principles of fair use

so to claim that the current law doesn't allow this is total bullshit

Good luck defending your posting of a full episode with the commentary "this ***insert whatever**** is amazing" ....seriously, best of luck ;)

mynameisjim · 06-20-2011, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except that not true at all

look at the pirate bay

they have been raided multiple times

they fight each procecution

they are currently found guilty and they keep doing what they are doing

they funded an entire political party

they open sourced their tracker code

they spend millions defending themselves in court over and over again
and when they lose they appeal to address the 'injustices" of the prosecution

if they were as "opportunistic" as you claimed they would have done the same thing as mininova and just given in.

They defended themselves because they had already been charged and faced jail time. They obviously had to defend themselves and the only way to pay their legal fees was to try to continue to make money.

Once again, you are trying to confuse my arguments. I said that once it becomes too risky, the pirates would move on. Obviously, once they are arrested and charged, they will have to defend themselves, but that doesn't mean that they will all be fighting for your cause, they will be fighting to keep their asses out of jail. But once a few are charged and the others see that the loopholes have all been closed, the rest will start to close up shop or change their models, like I said.

For example, if the top 5 largest tube sites were raided and the owners sent to jail or hit with huge fines, do you think the remaining tube sites would organize and try to fight the laws? I would put money on the fact that most would simply close up shop. The only ones fighting would be the ones who had already been charged.

Do you see the difference in what I'm saying and what you're saying regarding the Pirate Bay and pirate sites defending themselves?

Even if I accept your case about the Pirate Bay as a counter argument to mine, it's still clearly an exception and not the rule. My point still remains that the number of media companies that want to fight the laws far outweigh the number of piracy site owners who want to risk their freedom and money by fighting for the right to stream videos. And that's why the media companies will eventually win. Not saying it's right, but that's what will happen.

Robbie · 06-20-2011, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

T
Do you see the difference in what I'm saying and what you're saying regarding the Pirate Bay and pirate sites defending themselves?

Of course anybody with any intelligence can see what you are saying jim.

Having said that, let me answer that one on behalf of gideongallery:
"No"

Put him on Ignore like everybody else does. Remember:
gideongallery = clown

GatorB · 06-20-2011, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paolo

I have sued in Federal court and won in a copy write case..

The Judge at the time took it seriously and there was a jury that did as well.
Federal law is Federal law and they do not care what industry it is.. Who ever thinks that the Federal courts do not care about laws protecting content including porn is mistaken.

State courts maybe not, but thanks to the higher person above the copy write and other laws protecting content is not in the state courts.

I call bullshit. I seriously doubt a person that can't spell COPYRIGHT can actually win a COPYRIGHT case.

Dirty Dane · 06-21-2011, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and you can bet youtube won't stand for it

as i have pointed out before

the free speech comment "this dance routine is amazing"

is completely worthless without the ability to SHOW you the dance routine in question

if commentary like that is recognized as free speech this law is as unconstitutional as a classifying porn as prostitution.

if you don't think youtube lawyers are planning out exactly how to make that arguement your dreaming.

You're missing the point of the bill. Free speech is not the case here. Profit from streaming pirated movies is.

gideongallery · 06-21-2011, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

You're missing the point of the bill. Free speech is not the case here. Profit from streaming pirated movies is.

and if you outlaw making money from providing people the RIGHT to make commentaries i just documented

how many companies do you think will provide those services

do you think youtube would continue to host videos like the one i just showed you

if such an act would criminalize the ads that surround the video.

of course not

The consequence is the free speech is CENSORED.

Captain Kawaii · 06-21-2011, 04:06 AM

I love watching pirates squirm...

Once laws are in place, companies who have been pirating will be dismantled, their assets seized and people jailed. I am going to throw one hell of a mofo party on that day and dance as they swing in the gallows...

It will be poison for any company to be linked to any of these people. their affiliates, their feeders...I hope program peeps are keeping lists of these peeps...This is one adaptation they won't be able to crawl away from...

Ask the guy from Blue Music about "commentaries." He fucked with the Beatles and the Beatles pretty much fucked him 9 ways to Sunday...

gideongallery · 06-21-2011, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

They defended themselves because they had already been charged and faced jail time. They obviously had to defend themselves and the only way to pay their legal fees was to try to continue to make money.

Quote:

Once again, you are trying to confuse my arguments. I said that once it becomes too risky, the pirates would move on. Obviously, once they are arrested and charged, they will have to defend themselves, but that doesn't mean that they will all be fighting for your cause, they will be fighting to keep their asses out of jail. But once a few are charged and the others see that the loopholes have all been closed, the rest will start to close up shop or change their models, like I said.

but if the only way that they can keep their asses out of jail is to defend their actions using the free speech arguement

then that win automatically defends my free speech rights.

That the point i am making, no matter how much money the copyright cartel puts together to change the law, they can't over come the 1st ammendment because every law ever created must comply with the constitution

Quote:

For example, if the top 5 largest tube sites were raided and the owners sent to jail or hit with huge fines, do you think the remaining tube sites would organize and try to fight the laws?

seriously you don't believe that google and all the other tube site owning companies don't have their own lobby group.

their banding together right now
that why the pro ip got blocked

the point i am making and your ignoring is that when your public justification for blocking the bill is the constitution it doesn't take a lot of effort to block such a bill

1 guy in the committee can do it and if anyone tries to argue how it represents millions of dollars in losses

all he has to do is say "cotton farms lost the equivalent of billions of dollars when slaves were set free, loss of money should never be a justification for taking way peoples freedoms"

Quote:

I would put money on the fact that most would simply close up shop. The only ones fighting would be the ones who had already been charged.

why would you believe that youtube would be so stupid as to wait for the law to pass before fighting it.

they are going to make the free speech arguement early
and you will get a safe harbor equivalent in this law too

there no way you can stop it because to leave it out would lead to 1st ammendment violations.

the supposed "loophole" will never disappear because it not a "loophole" at all
simple the balance in the law to counteract the over reaching power.

Quote:

Do you see the difference in what I'm saying and what you're saying regarding the Pirate Bay and pirate sites defending themselves?

Even if I accept your case about the Pirate Bay as a counter argument to mine, it's still clearly an exception and not the rule. My point still remains that the number of media companies that want to fight the laws far outweigh the number of piracy site owners who want to risk their freedom and money by fighting for the right to stream videos. And that's why the media companies will eventually win. Not saying it's right, but that's what will happen.

except your arguement is flawed in the fact that every law created must obey the constitution

the religious right outweight this industry for example

yet the 1st ammendment prevents all that money from changing the laws to outlaw this free speech.

if what you were saying was valid then this industry would be dead already

the wonderful thing about the constitution is it holds back the tide of injustice no matter how many people support that injustice.

Dirty Dane · 06-21-2011, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and if you outlaw making money from providing people the RIGHT to make commentaries i just documented

how many companies do you think will provide those services

do you think youtube would continue to host videos like the one i just showed you

if such an act would criminalize the ads that surround the video.

of course not

The consequence is the free speech is CENSORED.

You do not have the "right" to pirate. Learn the difference.

Lamis · 06-21-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Nice! One step closer.

Now if everyone would just stop selling out to Manwin...Pornhub and all those other tubes would be out of business when these laws pass and we could all get back to making money in this business

I'm confused...

Back to making money in this business???

But there are some people like FRIS who says that he does plenty of money.. and other saying that they convert like mad..

FRIS said he just made 1 million sending joins to a sponsor..

Again, I'm confused..

Some people say that they make lots of money and others that the biz is ruined and no more money.. Strange. Somebody is definitely full of shit, and I guess that Sponsors closing on a daily basis, adult webmasters quitting and adult webmaster forums going offline and broke every day are a CLEAR SIGN of who's full of shit...

Period...

gideongallery · 06-21-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

You do not have the "right" to pirate. Learn the difference.

you do realize that this

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and you can bet youtube won't stand for it

as i have pointed out before

the free speech comment "this dance routine is amazing"

is completely worthless without the ability to SHOW you the dance routine in question

if commentary like that is recognized as free speech this law is as unconstitutional as a classifying porn as prostitution.

if you don't think youtube lawyers are planning out exactly how to make that arguement your dreaming.

was the post you made your "Free speech is not the case here. Profit from streaming pirated movies is."

how is was the commentary i just posted "piracy"

06-20-2011, 10:15 AM	#60
Paolo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Henderson, Nevada Posts: 491	I have sued in Federal court and won in a copy write case.. The Judge at the time took it seriously and there was a jury that did as well. Federal law is Federal law and they do not care what industry it is.. Who ever thinks that the Federal courts do not care about laws protecting content including porn is mistaken. State courts maybe not, but thanks to the higher person above the copy write and other laws protecting content is not in the state courts. __________________ [

06-20-2011, 11:46 AM	#66
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	thing is. Dubya wanted to take out porn, using obscenity. created a task force. when the shit hit the fan, the FBI & federal attorneys said they had better things to do. So even if a law is on the books, they dont choose to use it. here. if there is a felony law regarding streaming. the Man cannot prosecute every case brought before him. The web is too large, many of the criminals are overseas. I question if Manwin can be touched by a US law when they reside in canada. Takes more resources to grab a person in another country & expedite them. I dont see how the US government is going to use taxpayer money to help the porn industry. Laws are not going to solve the problem. It will have to come from technology. a future version of the internet that controls what is put online. Like what apple does with its itunes/ipad model. Last edited by Joshua G; 06-20-2011 at 11:50 AM..

06-20-2011, 08:01 AM	#59
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	jonny law is not going to help the porno man. No clue why anyone thinks otherwise. The only way the free ride will be cut down is if Apple computer's model for content distribution becomes the industry standard. When an entity can control both the hardware & the content that gets streamed to the hardware, like apple, then a closed system like that is very hard for the pirates (& public) to operate freely. Sadly this appears to be exactly the direction the huge media companies are headed, with apple leading the way. This suggests the end of a free & open internet. Instead, you will need to have your content approved by your ISP in order to get on the web. The ISPs know theres money in porn, so porn won't go away. Only the softer, less controversial porn will get through the filter.

06-21-2011, 04:06 AM	#73
Captain Kawaii So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,748	I love watching pirates squirm... Once laws are in place, companies who have been pirating will be dismantled, their assets seized and people jailed. I am going to throw one hell of a mofo party on that day and dance as they swing in the gallows... It will be poison for any company to be linked to any of these people. their affiliates, their feeders...I hope program peeps are keeping lists of these peeps...This is one adaptation they won't be able to crawl away from... Ask the guy from Blue Music about "commentaries." He fucked with the Beatles and the Beatles pretty much fucked him 9 ways to Sunday...