naw I only do that with my undies

As I've said, subtitled/censored content isn't available for purchase. Innocent until proven guilty blah blah blah. I can't bend the space-time contium to prove that the content is stolen, to make a point with a bunch of message board hicks. The license proves that the content isn't stolen, and so far there isn't one.

For example if I posted a gallery here full of pics and someone questioned whether they were stolen or not. I should produce a license to show that they weren't stolen.

Thats what the license is for. When someone accuses someone of stolen content, they show a license. The license will prove that he owns the content. Don't have one? Then he doesn't own the content.

He'll need to produce it when Deluxe Pass, A-Pic and his host contact him. Nobody is going to shut shit down if the correct documents are produced. Its simply a matter of "yeah i've got them here they are".

If a webmaster doesn't have a license for his content....... is it stolen? YES, it is. You can't PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that content is stolen because there is no documentation to prove so. Its not like there is a "stolen content" license, that people with stolen content use. Duh. But I am 100% sure that the content is unlicensed, hence this posting.

How would you want me to prove that the content is stolen? What should I show?

Also what should eru show to show that his content isn't stolen?

Hey bulldog..

http://members.optushome.com.au/mega.../wheelfuck.jpg

Well as I said, I don't have a legal document to show that the content is unlicensed. The NON EXISTANCE of a content agreement is what shows the content is unlicensed.

Content providers will agree with me on this. For example, you open a content site. Later that week you find a webmaster that has your content but no legal documenation for it. The webmaster refuses to / can't produce any legal documents for that content. Is that content stolen? Yes. Its very simple, people.

There is no other way to prove that content is stolen besides the NON existance of a legal document. How else can you tell if content is unlicensed? There is no other way.

As I've said, I am 100% sure that content is unavailable for license. Maybe I'm wrong? Then post the content provider here. Content provider doesn't have an URL? I never heard of an internet content provider that doesn't have a website before. I'd love to see that license and provider, maybe then I'll shut the fuck up and admit that I'm wrong.

*points to the picture again*

http://members.optushome.com.au/mega.../wheelfuck.jpg

just be glad its not your content being stolen.

:thumbsup

I report people for using stolen content on a daily basis. I always get at least one shithead that submits a gallery to my TGP that's using stolen content. The difference between you and me is this, i don't try to publically humiliate someone. And if i was, i'd make damn sure i got the "thank you for reporting this asshole" email back from the content provider/sponsors or whoever the hell i report him to.

If he was using stolen content, your stupid ass post just gave him a good chance to get rid of any stolen content. I wouldn't have a clue whether or not the content is stolen, i don't know eru, and i've never been to his site.

But, your post has just made you look like an ass, regardless of whether the content was stolen or not.

The way I've heard it from legal types is that there are only three kinds of content you can legally use: 1) content you have explicit permission from the owner to use (e.g., by purchasing it); 2) content that you can document has been put into public domain (the owner explicitly and in writing surrenders copyright to the public domain); and 3) content which is so fuckin' way old that it couldn't possibly be copyrighted any longer. So, which category to these movies fall under? Things don't just fall into PD.

2) content that you can document has been put into public domain (the owner explicitly and in writing surrenders copyright to the public domain);

Actually you are supposed to :

1) have a written permission made out to YOURSELF from the original owner or...

2) Be able to produce a copy of a publically displayed document stating to the effect that it was released to PD AND be able to provide evidence that it WAS the right person that posted it. (THAT could be real hard to prove)

The ONLY legal PD that you can use without license is any photo taken By someone in the employ of the US Govt. Whether military or whatever.

But that I believe is only legal for US citizens to do.

You are not a court, and no-one has to prove their innocense to you. Simply failing to prove your innocense it not a crime. Perhaps you should focus more on demonstrating guilt than demonstration a failure to prove innocense.

now someone else that makes sence :thumbsup

Unless these claims are proven to be true in a court of law, this post, which clearly has the intent of harming Eru's business, is slander/libel.

and that would have to be proven in a court of law as well.....

It was a conditional statement. It wasn't an accusation.

If you stab someone to death, it's murder -- that's true whether you stab someone or not.

You may have to prove your innocence to people who want to do business with honest businesspeople. Our civil rights (e.g., due process) are mainly rights we have with reference to the government. If I choose not to deal with someone who can't prove he owns the content he uses, that's my right. More than once someone has inquired about my content, I go to his site and see stuff I strongly suspect is newsgroup material, and if he can't document his right to use it, I refuse to let him even look at my stuff. When I see stuff I think is stolen, the burden of proof IS on him, because I don't have to do business with him.

My more successful clients value their businesses too much to fuck around with stolen or dubious material.

That's fine, but choosing not to do business with someone and posting libel are two different things.

There you are right. Anyone who thinks he is exempt from slander and libel suits for things he says on GFY is sorely mistaken.

Bulldog, care to post a link to one of your sites? Id love to see what kinda licensed content ya use.

Fuckin pricks like you piss me off, I buy all of my content through my friends at matrix, phoenix, garill, ounique, etc.

Do I have a license to every one of the pics? Yes. Do I have it in 8 file cabinets? Yes.

Its just a bitch to go through everything, once one of you pricks decides you're bored. I end up contacting my provider, and have them deal with it, which they are happy to do, just because I've got years worth of BS, Id have to sort through.

Again, dicks like you piss me off, anonymous fucks.

Yeah.. understand, I'm not defending Eru *if* he's using unlicensed content, but it's REAL IRRESPONSIBLE to make claims that someone is breaking the law without one shred of evidence.

Even the idea that he has to have a written license is flawed. Maybe a buddy of his shot the film, and said "you can use it on your website" verbally. It's hard to prove, but it's 100% legal.

I totally approve this ...