GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - .xxx has its first piracy sites

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - .xxx has its first piracy sites (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1051947)

Fifty GFY pirates sweating the consequences of SOPA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 18663901)

Well so far we now know that .XXX isn't about protecting kids, and it isn't about curbing piracy. Off to a good start.

Yeah, I'm still reeling from the shock of it all myself :1orglaugh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18662046)

Hopefully the guys at .xxx will see this and take action

right...because they care about the industry :1orglaugh

Quote:

Originally Posted by topnotch, standup guy (Post 18663684)

It's a good thing that the vast majority of jews don't think like you.

Otherwise, that former German leader with the bad haircut and the funny mustache would be remembered a bit more fondly nowadays.

.

heheheh - well said :thumbsup

PhatNation is now a parked page. AssLovers is still up.

PhatNation done, AssLovers pirated content gone. In just a few days .xxx took care of piracy on their extension, .com can't say that.

wow xxx/icm did the right thing. impressed. yes, will a .com do that for you?

apologies are in order. :2 cents:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failed (Post 18667414)

PhatNation done, AssLovers pirated content gone. In just a few days .xxx took care of piracy on their extension, .com can't say that.

Well fuck me sideways. I honestly didn't see that coming. I'm impressed.

See how easy that was? Think of how fast piracy would die off if everyone (hosts, billing companies, registrars...) handled it like that.

guess icm doesn't give a single fuck about time shifting backing up in a cloud fair use rights?

I don't like domain registrars playing net cop.

In this case there was some legitimate complaint of theft.

However, had this been a frivolous assertion of copyright infringement would have the reaction been similar? This appears to be a non judicial ex parte decision. That means a unilateral decision ( by private enterprise, in this instance). Should private enterprise be granted the right to these decisions? Expediency is one thing but "killing" of a domain (or domain execution without trial to put in in the colloquial)? Is this is the right thing to do and will the next unilateral decision be correct also?

Had there been some issue of speech involved -- possible libel or questionable content sexual text speech -- would you want someone other that a court of law censoring your 1st Amendment speech rights?

Think hard about it ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 18667737)

In this case there was some legitimate complaint of theft.

However, had this been a frivolous assertion of copyright infringement would have the reaction been similar? This appears to be a non judicial ex parte decision. That means a unilateral decision ( by private enterprise, in this instance). Should private enterprise be granted the right to these decisions? Expediency is one thing but "killing" of a domain (or domain execution without trial to put in in the colloquial)? Is this is the right thing to do and will the next unilateral decision be correct also?

Had there been some issue of speech involved -- possible libel or questionable content sexual text speech -- would you want someone other that a court of law censoring your 1st Amendment speech rights?

Think hard about it ...

Three words: wac-a-mole

You know how that game works, right?

Without expediency there is no combating piracy. None, zip, nada.

That is precisely why DMCA doesn't work and we all know it.

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 18667737)

In this case there was some legitimate complaint of theft.

However, had this been a frivolous assertion of copyright infringement would have the reaction been similar? This appears to be a non judicial ex parte decision. That means a unilateral decision ( by private enterprise, in this instance). Should private enterprise be granted the right to these decisions? Expediency is one thing but "killing" of a domain (or domain execution without trial to put in in the colloquial)? Is this is the right thing to do and will the next unilateral decision be correct also?

Had there been some issue of speech involved -- possible libel or questionable content sexual text speech -- would you want someone other that a court of law censoring your 1st Amendment speech rights?

Think hard about it ...

It should all come down to if the violation is disputed or not. If I send you a DMCA and you don't / can't dispute it, you lose. If you can dispute it, it will escalate and whoever can prove ownership should win.

I don't see this as being a difficult issue. If you own something, or have the rights to use it, you should be able to prove it.