UnseenWorld

Is this you? Do you think this way?

I got an inquiry today from the owner of http://www.astroxxx.com wanting access to my content. Lately, I'm always verifying anyone who wants "the keys to the kingdom," and when I got to his site, I saw several shots (including one of the shots of the impact on the NY Trade Towers and another one which looked like a medical photo of a man with a very severe deformity). I politely informed him that I don't do business with copyright violators and wondered if he could tell me from whom he got permission to use those photos. Here are some key comments from his response:

"Those two photos, as well as other single photos on my site were sent in from viewers and I don't charge admission for them."

Would you feel free to borrow your neighbor's lawn mower (without his knowledge) simply because you weren't going to use it for making money mowing lawns?

"I also understand that I have the legal right to publish any photograph I see fit to on my website if I am not gaining from it in any way, as long as I have not been asked to remove the image."

This is just plain false. You have an obligation to obtain permission first, not wait for the owner to discover your use and then give yea or nay on it. Besides being totally wrong on the legal point, wouldn't it be more ETHICAL to ask permission first?

"If I find out someone owns a photo I have up, and they have a site, I send them hordes of traffic as well, just to show I meant no harm."

Gee, rather than kiss and make up after being caught in the cookie jar, wouldn't it be more ethical to ask for permission first and MAKE SURE the owner of the photo gets some traffic?

"I have yet to have one webmaster/photographer say anything negative so either I'm doing something right."

And...your point?

"I think I'll stick with Matrix and the others out there (instead of buying content from you)."

I'm sure they'd love to hear how you treat copyright. Why not just break into their site, steal some content, and then wait for them to object, since that is your apparent technique?

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

Amputate Your Head

"The unauthorized use of copyrighted photographs has been allowed under the fair use provision when the images contributed to the public's understanding of important issues or events. Sketches based upon the copyrighted photographs of President John Kennedy's assassination, for example, were held to be a fair use of the original images because of the public's interest in the event. The publication of a copyrighted photograph of John Belushi in a book about his death was also a fair use of an image because it helped to promote "free expression and robust debate" on the story."

I don't know what that guys site is about, but I thought I'd toss this on the fire.

Gemini

Let's get to it then! He's also stolen a camgirlies pics... And he mentions 'dumb as a post' referring to others??? This fits him very well, "a rock collector happily piling rocks to carry home in a box with no bottom". Each time he moves his box to a new place he happily discovers he has even more room in his box to stack more!

Registrant:
Hush Media Group, LLC.
1120 John Street, P101
Seattle, WA 98109
US

Domain Name: ASTROXXX.COM

Administrative Contact:
King, James [email protected]
1120 John Street, P101
Seattle, WA 98109
US
206-844-0910

Technical Contact:
Walker, Ryan [email protected]
1120 John Street, P101
Seatlle, WA 98109
US
206-844-0910

Billing Contact:
Walker, Ryan [email protected]
1120 John Street, P101
Seatlle, WA 98109
US
206-844-0910


Record last updated on 24-Jul-2001.
Record expires on 24-Jul-2002.
Record Created on 24-Jul-2001.

Domain servers in listed order:
NS.WEBAIR.NET 216.130.161.1
NS2.WEBAIR.NET 216.130.161.6

UnseenWorld

It appears he's taken the NY Trade Center pic down. BTW, I didn't mention his ultra-sensitive caption, which went something like, "I thought I'd post this because this may be the only time in your life you'll see thousands of people killed at once." No thought given that perhaps a father or son of a victim might someday see this image and caption.

As for the fair use comment made by Amputate Your Head, according to my understanding of fair use, it normally involves very limited use (e.g., if it were a written work, quotes from the work, but certainly not thw entire text) and not for profit. He claims his site is not for profit, but it didn't seem to be a charity organization's venture, either.

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

Amputate Your Head

When a photographer discovers a photo has been published without authorization, the photographer maybe able to secure an injunction, recover actual damages and lost profits. The legal advantage to writing a copyright notice on the photograph consisting of (c)1995 Artist's Name. That advantage is possible elimination of the innocent infringer defense.

Innocent infringers (meaning they successfully claim ignorance) may only be liable for a fair licensing fee.

An order to sue an infringer the copyright holder must register the photo. In order to register the photo, the photographer must possess the photo. Traditionally this is not a problem because the photographer would have a negative, or a print or a slide or some tangible object as a photo. If the photographer has scanned the photo onto a home page or provided the photo to a gallery then there would be no problem if the photographer retains the original.

Similarly a CD disk photo would also be tangible to register. However when a photographer uses a filmless camera this projects images directly onto a computer for real-time adjustment. If a photographer were to upload this kind of photo, some tangible print would still be required for registration.

The problem of "fixation" as it relates to photos on the Net will usually arise in the context of whether or not a photograph was "copied" by an infringer. Certain ephemeral artworks like the type produced by Christo, have been the subject of controversy in terms of the fixation requirement for copyright protection.

In the context of copyright protection for computer programs the Ninth Circuit held in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc., that "copying for purposes of copyright law occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM (random access memory)."

The court described fixation as "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit (them) to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."

This decision as it relates to photos on the net may be a practical problem of proof. Net photos, like Christo's sculptures, may be here today, gone tomorrow. Consequently the problem will be a whether a copyright claimant will be able to provide a court documentary evidence of the copyrightable subject matter.

It's not an easy task to "go after" someone regarding copyright infringement. IMHO, unless you are being robbed for alot of money via infringement, it's really not worth the time, effort, and expense to try and crucify them.

My .08 cents worth.

UnseenWorld

Amputate Your Head:

I'm not all that concerned with the law or injunctions, which seem to be the thrust of your postings. Rather, I'm more concerned with the ethical consideration of recognizing that photography is PROPERTY, just like a lawnmower or a diamond ring, and that asking permission to use a photograph is as much a matter of ethics and etiquette as it is a legal matter. I will leave the law to the lawyers.

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

Amputate Your Head

That's cool Unseen... I'm just pointing out some legal depth on the subject before the witch hunters show up with their torches.

And as I have had pointed out to me in the past, as well as been made an example of due to my own ignorance of copyright law, I ought not discuss such things without some practical knowlege of the topic at hand.

Hence,... a small but relevant lecture on copyright issues. I understood your ethical approach to it, and wasn't arguing your point... only trying to balance it somewhat.

Gemini

You'd better re-read the newer laws concerning the fact that you are open and liable without holding a LEGAL LICENSE to use a copyrighted item. The new laws state specifically that photo's etc do NOT have to be registered to be filed over in a civil action. And it further states that not charging for access does not allow for the infringer to get away with the illegal use.

The first argument about fair use is really lame too. Don't try to confuse legal definitions of news sites-publications etc into a plain theft of copyright. It doesn't float. Precedence is set and guess WHO pays the legal fees??? Not the person with the rights to the picture.

Amputate Your Head

Clearly the copyright laws are in favor of the holder vs the infringer. All I'm saying is that depending on what that guys site is about and the manner in which he is using photos of events "to make the public aware" is as yet still unclear, is it not? Proving his intention & intelligence is even more difficult.

My main point being that fair-use is always open to interpretation in each case, and that trying to obtain damages from a situation like that is not an easy task.

That is ALL I said. Nothing more. I didn't say he was right... and I didn't say he was wrong. Those things are not for me to decide.

UnseenWorld

I forwarded his e-mail to what is apparently his prior main content source, Matrix Content. They may not be very amused with his views on copyright, either.

I lost his business: good riddance! I'm not rich or even getting particularly rich. I do what I do because I enjoy it, not out of greed. I'm sure that had one of his visitors sent him one of my pics in e-mail, he would have gladly posted it until when/if I were to find out about it, at which time (and not until then) he's have taken it down. (Not PAID for his use, you'll not...just taken it down).
Think about if someone treated your car in a similar way!

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

Amputate Your Head

Here's an interesting snipet from his site:

"REALLY IMPORTANT.... All Images are COPYRIGHTED by ME
AND I WILL SUE YOU ASS IF YOU STEAL THEM. "

FADE19

Oh Boy! an Unseen/Gemini combo thread...this could get ugly...but on a serious note for both of you...how does a site like www.findaceleb.com able to post pics of celebrities and stuff with out getting toasted?

[This message has been edited by FADE19 (edited 09-17-2001).]

UnseenWorld

Oh, great. Not only does he steal other people's images, but he then claims they belong to him. What an ethical paragon this guy is!


------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

gaby

good point Fade, I was wondering the same. There are hundreds of celebrity sites on the web.

Amputate Your Head

And as you can tell, it's a well thought out legal statement:

"copyrighted by ME"

Who the fuck is "ME"? No name, no company,... just "me". Are you sure this guy isn't a 10 year old kid?

Gemini

Celeb sites will get their turn. The stars will finally have enough of it, have some spare time and do a National Enquirer on those sites. And the NE was proclaimed to have a marginal 'fair use' since they *are* a publication. The laws that were made for net copyright really nail down what is and is not fair use. So if your site isn't www.cnn.com then don't plan that as a defense.

No one else rememeber the falconfoto win awhile back? They drilled a copyright thief dead to rights.

But under no context can what the webmaster is using the pics FOR come under the actual ruling in the cases UNTIL it comes down to the monetary award. Then the tab goes up if there are banners to make $$ there, go up more if its under a member area etc. This infringement thing doesn't allow for changes to be made to 'make it yours' on an existing pic either. As long as some one elses model, background, etc are present in ANY form... Bang.

So if you don't have a legal release-license in your hot little hand then better not be using something. Sites doing this can also open up their host companies as well as others to the same charges.

Amputate Your Head

Wrong or not, the majority of them will never be prosecuted because it's not hard to see that some 18 year old webmaster operating from mom's basement doesn't HAVE anything monetary to be taken. Most would take the pics down at the mere threat of lawsuit, (which is all most people really want to be done anyway) but reality dictates that there's no point suing someone that's broke.

As for modifying something... only a fool would modify or alter an existing pic owned by someone else and then claim ownership. But if, for example, someone pastes Britney Spears face on a nude porn model's body and let's it fly loose on the net... the logistics of tracking that back to the person that modified it out of the billions of possibilities and branches of other possibilities are beyond comprehension. No one is going to waste their time with it.

Doesn't mean stealing the pics was right in the first place... but who are you going to serve the court papers to?

You found it on Joe Snuffy's Home Page. Well that doesn't mean he did the modifying.... it could have been passed around through 4 million computers before it ever reached him. Is he right in posting it based on that? No. But if push comes to shove, he's gonna pull it down. The odds of him getting prosecuted for putting it on his home page are a billion to one.

I'm sorry Gemini, I know you are very passionate about copyright law.... but the reality, as I see it, is that prosecuting a copyright infringement at such a low level is virtually impossible because of its impracticality. I'm glad the laws exist. They need to. The threat of lawsuit is a powerful deterrant. But no one is gonna sue "Billy Webmaster" because it's a tremendous waste of time.

Dopy

Why do celeb sites get away with murder, for god sake use some common sense.

Words from FHM "Tell them to take our pictures down, are you fucking joking, the site gets 10,000 hits / day and our logo is stamped all over them.

The wheels of popularity make eyes go blind.

Britney and Anna are so pissed about their pictures being plastered all around the net and the sponsors hate it too LOL LOL NOT

Gemini

Snuffy may NEVER pay *me* but as he looks at the garnishment amount on his McDonalds check for the rest of his life (or until the tab is paid) he WILL remember facing the attorney that he is NOW paying the bill for.

It doesn't matter WHO modified the picture. Got it on your site? Down comes the gavel and its on the person with the site. Thats what so many fail to see... If you are found guilty you pay the attorney that sued you. And the attorneys will be treating this sort of thing just like car accidents not too far in the future. Collecting from the WIN of the case. Want to guess how many lawsuits start flying then??

For crying out loud... keep encouraging them to think they can get away with it. This is illegal activity. With this way of thinking then we can therefore retaliate by the same means, correct? So Snuffy's Mom is now fair game for us to do some creative editing with say a horse? Or just a simple gangbang. That will go over very well eh?

UnseenWorld

These discussions always devolve into discussions of the law and what one can get away with. The fact remains that even if it's technically legal (which it frequently isn't) and even if the use isn't worthwhile prosecuting, it is still unethical and bad manners to use other people's work without permission EVEN if no financial gain is involved.

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

Amputate Your Head

I can agree with that Unseen.

But...

then we must also not forget, there are many other forms of infringement being performed daily as well. It's not limited to just net images.

Has anyone ever videotaped their favorite soap opera or football game or prime time show because they were going out to dinner and didn't want to miss it? Copyright violations.

Ever recorded something funny off the radio? Or burned a CD with a compilation of your favorite tunes? Copyright violations.

MP3 and wav files... unless you created the file with your own voice, music, or sound effects... copyright violations. Yes, all that music being shared through Gnutella software is illegal.

Ever make backups of your computer data? Ever make a copy of your software installation (setup) programs in case you need to reinstall after a nasty crash? Copyright violations.

Ever sent somebody you know a poem, picture or story you liked through the email? Copyright violations.

Mpeg snipets of movies... ANY movies. Copyright violations.

Photocopies and scans of photos, poems, literature..., any reproduction without license of motion pictures, musical scores, dramatic works including the music, sculptural works, no matter how small... all copyright violations. The 7th grade teacher that photocopies the score to a Hans Zimmer symphony for her class to play... copyright violation.

Think all this is extreme?

If you do, then tell me where we draw the line between what we enforce and what we don't.

UnseenWorld

Amputate:

Before you engage in these discussions, you might want to inform yourself a little bit. It is NOT illegal to tape a television show for your own personal use. In other words, as long as the reproduction doesn't leave your possession. It isn't even illegal to have your friends over or take it over to their house to show. What is illegal is charging to see it or publishing it in any way. The word "publish" comes from the same root as "public," with the implication that it is going beyond your household and circle of friends to a more general audience.

I know the law makes some fine points, but let's try to help you understand. The whole Napster thing was never about the end users, it was about Napster, which was in effect publishing material it had no rights to. If you want to make an MP3 at home from a CD you bought, you aren't violating anyone's copyright. Unless, of course, you offer it to the public (publication).

The "fair use" doctrine allows certain types of copies for educational use, for use in parodies and other legitimate derivative works (e.g., quoting a few bars of a well known song in another), and for use in serious research projects. Some of the examples of infringement you cited aren't infringements at all.

Anyway, all you are proving here is that you are woefully ignorant of copyright and I implore you to educate yourself a bit more before posting.

And what is your argument? That because many people break the law we should repeal it? No more copyright. No more speed limit? No more murder trials?

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

Amputate Your Head

Napster was in fact NOT publishing anything. When you go to download an mp3 or wav file, even through Napster, you are connecting directly to another users system where the file resides. Napster simply made that connection possible. The actual file never existed on Napster's hardware. The same as Bearshare and other Gnutella protocal programs.

And by making that mp3 of your favorite Boxcar Willie tune and connecting to one of those programs, that is enough to constitute "offering it to the public".

Thank you for being so quick to point out my sheer ignorance in the matter. As I have said in the past, I do not claim to be an expert in the field. And I don't think I need to study copyright laws for seven years before I'm 'authorized' to say what's on my mind.

You still failed to address a number of things I cited.

What about copying your setup programs for all that wonderful software? What about emailing a story to someone? Is that not offering it to the public? What about posting an mpeg on this board? Or a funny snipet off the radio about felching? Those are okay?

What is my argument? Simple. People are getting awfully high up on the copyright horse and using the copyright law to single out and target people of their choosing. Is that how laws work now? If you're going to take on the job of copyright police and condemn & enforce copyright violation, then condemn them all. That means the 40 year old mom that's sending pictures through the email system to her bingo pals too.

UnseenWorld

Amputate wrote:

"Napster was in fact NOT publishing anything. When you go to download an mp3 or wav file, even through Napster, you are connecting directly to another users system where the file resides. Napster simply made that connection possible. The actual file never existed on Napster's hardware. The same as Bearshare and other Gnutella protocal programs."

I notice that while that was Napster's argument, the courts weren't buying. I think most people laugh up their sleeve at that argument.

"And by making that mp3 of your favorite Boxcar Willie tune and connecting to one of those programs, that is enough to constitute 'offering it to the public.'"

True. At that point, the private individual is breaking the law. That goes beyond personal use.

"Thank you for being so quick to point out my sheer ignorance in the matter. As I have said in the past, I do not claim to be an expert in the field. And I don't think I need to study copyright laws for seven years before I'm 'authorized' to say what's on my mind."

When you use quotes that imply I used a term, you might want to cite the whole passage. I never used any expression indicating or stating you needed to be 'authorized' to express ignorant views.

"You still failed to address a number of things I cited."

I'm not obliged to answer every single point someone raises anymore than you are obliged to inform yourself before writing. But, let's see...

"What about copying your setup programs for all that wonderful software?"

Backups, to my understanding are allowed (under the law, despite what the terms of use sent with them might lead you to believe), as long as they are just that, and not for handing out as free software to other people.

"What about emailing a story to someone? Is that not offering it to the public?"

Depends. There is a concept of "implied publication" which would cover a lot of that. If the story were from a public part of the NY Post site, you're probably not violating anyone's copyright. If you sent them material from a part of the site they collect money for entering, you're in a totally different area. Certainly, lifting the page and putting it up in toto, even on a non-profit site, would probably be going too far.

"What about posting an mpeg on this board?"

I would probably try to find the copyright holder.

"Or a funny snipet off the radio about felching? Those are okay?"

Your point being that there are gray areas? What conclusion do you draw from that? Once again, it depends. If you are passing along a story you heard on the radio to someone in a face to face situation, that's one thing. If you put it up on a site and publish it, that is something else entirely, and then the rules of fair use are applied. Unfortunately, unless it's a very obvious case, a judge will probably end up deciding.

"What is my argument? Simple. People are getting awfully high up on the copyright horse and using the copyright law to single out and target people of their choosing."

Yes, it's a regular fuckin' witch hunt, isn't it? People with the purest of motives, like the guy who runs http://www.astroxxx.com being sullied by the likes of me and Gem. At least now you can say you have seen The True Face of Evil!

"Is that how laws work now? If you're going to take on the job of copyright police and condemn & enforce copyright violation, then condemn them all."

I hereby condemn them all!!! (write that down: I condemn ALL copyright violation).

"That means the 40 year old mom that's sending pictures through the email system to her bingo pals too."

Pictures her son took of his kid or a picture some poor shmoe is trying to make a buck off of? Fair use may or may not apply.

Now it is really YOU who have ignored my central point from the beginning, which was not to dwell on whether or not it was legal, but whether it was ethical or good manners to use someone else's PROPERTY without their authorization. It's your turn to comment on that now.

Why would a story or a photograph or a song be any different than more standard examples of property (lawn mowers, cars, diamond rings)?

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

FADE19

Unseen....you need to get laid!

UnseenWorld

Bend over.

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

FADE19

hmmm think I will pass...but I can recommend some great gay sites for ya, that may be able to tie you over until you find something screw...

Amputate Your Head

Unseen wrote:

"I notice that while that was Napster's argument, the courts weren't buying. I think most people laugh up their sleeve at that argument."

I'm not laughing. Just because the people in those courts were ignorant to the inner workings of today's technology does not make them right. Whether they banged a gavel or not. Facts still prevail.

"When you use quotes that imply I used a term, you might want to cite the whole passage. I never used any expression indicating or stating you needed to be 'authorized' to express ignorant views."

I wasn't quoting you. I used an apostrophe to express emphasis. Had I intended to quote you, I would have used a quotation symbol: "

"Yes, it's a regular fuckin' witch hunt, isn't it? People with the purest of motives, like the guy who runs http://www.astroxxx.com being sullied by the likes of me and Gem. At least now you can say you have seen The True Face of Evil!"

This ridiculous statement is of your own making. I never said nor implied anything remotely close to a witch hunt in that post.

"I hereby condemn them all!!! (write that down: I condemn ALL copyright violation)."

I'm writing.

"Pictures her son took of his kid or a picture some poor shmoe is trying to make a buck off of? Fair use may or may not apply."

What difference is there? If her son took the pics, he then is the copyright holder, is he not? If she's sending them through email without a license to do so, she is in violation. In your own words, "Would you feel free to borrow your neighbor's lawn mower (without his knowledge) simply because you weren't going to use it for making money mowing lawns?" And this time I AM quoting you.

"Now it is really YOU who have ignored my central point from the beginning, which was not to dwell on whether or not it was legal, but whether it was ethical or good manners to use someone else's PROPERTY without their authorization. It's your turn to comment on that now."

I have not ignored your point. I've acknowledged it at least twice already in this thread. However, it is somewhat difficult to maintain a conversation about the topic at hand without the two areas of focus overlapping. Ethics and legalities often collide in numerous discussions.

I feel it is you who has missed my point.

I did not say the atroxxx moron was right or justified. I did not say you and Gem were riding black horses carrying torches to hunt down the witch. I DID say that intent makes no difference. And so did you.

Mom is just as guilty as atroxxx. Are we going to bring the copyright hammer down on her too? This does not imply "gray area"...

it implies hypocrisy.



[This message has been edited by Amputate Your Head (edited 09-18-2001).]

Vengeance

Bump.

Gemini

Wow Unseen, we'd better not argue with such an expert in all these fields! Never mind that he's talking out the wrong end.

im·be·cile (mb-sl, -sl)
n.
A person whose mental acumen is well below par.

UnseenWorld

Amputate:

I think a mother can assume consent on her son's part to pass around some baby pictures. I think you'll find there is a concept of "implied consent" when it comes to copyright.

But there you go dragging the discussion back to copyright again, whereas I've made clear the question for me comes back to one of property rights and etiquette.

I think what a mother and son do in the context of their family is a bit of a stretch when the discussion started in terms of a person using someone else's photos for his own benefit without permission from the owner.

If my mother borrowed my lawnmower when I was away, her chances of presuming my consent would be a lot different than if you did the same thing.

You who quoted Ted Nugent. I think we all know what good ole Ted would do to someone who violated HIS copyright!

------------------
Check out the new teen/young woman content at Wonders of the Unseen World

Vengeance

Gemini,
You are obviously the expert here:

ex·pert (kspûrt)
n.
A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.

The highest grade that can be achieved in marksmanship.
A person who has achieved this grade.

adj. (kspûrt, k-spûrt)
Having, involving, or demonstrating great skill, dexterity, or knowledge as the result of experience or training.

Yet you have demonstrated none of the above. So shut up.

Hypocrisy n
1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction [syn: lip service]
2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

This seems to be more appropriate.

Unseen,
"I think a mother can assume consent on her son's part to pass around some baby pictures."

A mother can ASSUME? Nobody better fucking assume anything when it comes to my property. My own mother ASKS me for permission to use my graphics, as well as my fucking lawnmower.

"a bit of a stretch..."

A bit of a stretch.... and how stretched it is. Stretching seems to be the primary tool of hypocrites.

"If my mother borrowed my lawnmower when I was away, her chances of presuming my consent would be a lot different than if you did the same thing."

Is that so. Gosh how your philosophy bends.

"I think we all know what good ole Ted would do to someone who violated HIS copyright!"

Ted has intelligence and common sense. Something I've not yet seen here.

Oh wait... I skipped over one... "property rights and etiquette"

That's right. Property rights and etiquette. Maybe you should re-read what that really means.

Gemini

Oh Yes Sir your intelligence sir! I'll shut up or you might pull that 9mm you're wearing out on me. I am SO scared. You just aren't worth the bother whatever your REAL handle is. Which I could care even less about. You truly deserve an award for being able to generate the highest amount of BS in a 6 week period on any bbs tho.

Vengeance

Let me guess... anti-gun advocate too?

[This message has been edited by Vengeance (edited 09-20-2001).]

Vengeance

.

[This message has been edited by Vengeance (edited 09-20-2001).]

Vengeance

.

[This message has been edited by Vengeance (edited 09-20-2001).]

Vengeance

Have a nice fucking day.

[This message has been edited by Vengeance (edited 09-20-2001).]

Blondy

lol



------------------
************************
Private Label Resources: A great source for marketing adult sites.

PLR Radio: High volume exposure.

MichealK74

I Love it when usage violations are discussed.

Why has no one taken on http://www.pictureview.com ? I know, the Sweets swear they have lawsuits in progress, but they told me that maybe a YEAR ago, if not longer. Those guys infringe to the highest degree and are on virtually EVERY password board there is to boot. Because nobody wants to spend the money, because legally anyone going after those guys is going to spend a buttload of green. And, nobody wants to do that, it is far easier to point to the next guy and say you go after him. And at the end of the line, well, just bury it, there is no-one left to fight. And the latest celeb site from hooper? LOL! He is buddies with the guys at APIC! Yet he is spamming his celeb site all over the adult forums? And Apic is cool with that? When I approached them about the legalities of a celeb site I was building I was basically viciously attacked just for having one in the works...
So regarding cw violations the real questions and answers are super vague, of course content providers will publicly extoll the virtues of lawsuits, yet for the BIG infringers nothing changes. Why is that?

Vengeance

Thank you.