And btw i have no problem with muscians being as rich as they want to be. I fully support bands like radio head in what they are doing (cutting the middle man out of the opperation). Did you know that they made more money from all the free loaders who took the album for free then the record company would have paid them if they sold the album.

They made a deal with the venues that they toured to get a commission for every ticket they sold. Since artist only get like 1.05 per album, that commission x the number of buyers exceed the 1.05 they would have gotten if every one of those free loaders had bought the album.

The only one who got screwed was the record company, because they got cut out of the deal. And considering how much they rape artist every single day.

The real porn producers (the pornstars, camera men,etc) will make a lot more money in the free economy, it the distribution agents (vivid, hustler etc) which will see the money dry up. Considering how much money these companies made off scenes they paid the artist 3k to make, i don't feel sorry for them at all.

Using the suffering artist as a strawman is just as bogus as when the record companies do it.

Way way way back, I used to run Free Hosts, some of the first ones. It was free of charge other than my ads. I would make just over $100k a month, and spend $90k a month in bandwidth. Bandwidth was far more expensive back then than it is today.

I was running on less than a 10% profit margin, I was like a major oil company and didn't even know it.

Today every tube has way more ways to make money than I did back then. I have looked around, tons of tubes are doing pre auths (allows for one click upsells), then free memberships for an email address, a few are doing per clip microbilling and/or some type of upgrade service for better clips. This is about .1% of the list of things they are doing or can do.


Anyone that thinks Tubes will hurt our business, end our business, and/or do anything other than provide traffic/sales for our business, needs to take a basic business 101 logic pill.

Here we go again...gideongallery. The communist who does NOTHING on the internet himself. The man who isn't even in this business at all. Once again trying to tell us that the government "gave" us a monopoly on the benefits of our own work!

Our fathers and forefathers would roll in their graves listening to such bullshit. I could see it now: "Yes, I worked my entire life to build this shoe business. I'm so glad the government gave me the right to 'monopolize' the money I made for myself from my work and my product"

Guys, gideongallery is nothing more than a troll who doesn't even have any business to be here. He doesn't do anything in this business, he doesn't own anything (excuse me....I mean he hasn't asked the omnipotent govt. to grant him a monopoly to allow him to own something and monetize it)

His only purpose is to come on here and troll the people the he knows actually do own things and actually do have everything invested in their work.

He loves to make everyones' blood boil by laughing at them and stirring drama.

What he needs is his Mom and Dad to come to his bedroom and take his computer away from him and then give him a good spanking.

He is just another surfer. No more involved here than klaze (with his "investigations" using wikipedia, and his current attempts at making his posts have html tags...and since he doesn't KNOW html he is misunderstanding the whole concept lol)

Just surfers, stirring shit. We all know where this tube thing is gonna end up. It's going to be in the same place as all the other "threats" over the years. Legislation will eventually catch up to technology. The thieves will make their quick money grab in the meantime. gideongallery will continue to reveal his hatred of capitalism and his love of free-loading.

And then, when the dust settles. The stealing will be stopped.

Of course now gideongallery will come back and TRY to parse words and infer different meanings. And that's cool. Everybody is free to speak.

So have at it gideongallery. Tell us all how we are all full of shit for believing that content that we made is free for you and others to just take and monetize. And tell us all again how the government GAVE us a "monopoly" by allowing us the luxury of not only working 12 hours a day/7 days a week to run our businesses...but also granted us the fantastic fun job of adding more work and MORE expense by looking at thousands of rip-off tube and torrent sites trying to find our work and have it removed. And then having to write each one a dmca. And of course there is always the real fun thing of reading the thieves "Rules" to having them take your stuff down. And how if you have an "attitude" in your email they will ignore you.

LOL! You have no idea gideongallery because you merely troll. You don't know the feeling of violation that this causes for people. Or maybe you do? Maybe that's why you kick back at your parent's house and laugh and laugh at the stupid porn people. Now don't forget to clean your room so your mommy and daddy don't put you on restrictions.

You've confirmed in this thread, many times over, that you are stupid beyond my wildest dreams.

But after reading this...

... you are just a complete fucking retard.

:disgust

I don't think he's a retard barefootsies. I think he is a person who is lazy and a freeloader. He owns nothing. Does nothing. And is resentful of people who do own things and do work hard and do reap the rewards of their efforts.

gideongallery is a wannabe who never was and never will be unless he changes his sloth-like, lazy work ethic and channels his intelligence towards being productive instead of his never-ending quest to find ways to make money off of others work.

Frankly,.. I do not think he has any.
:2 cents:

What the fuck are you babbling about here? I know it is English but it makes no sense. You stat with some nonsense supposition about lifetime access to some content and then you go on in another paragraph saying I (me, Jim Gunn?) chooses not to do something? Do you know anything about my business or services? You didn't address or answer any of my questions because you don't have a reasonable answer. It's clear that you are a bona fide idiot who gets his jollies simply being a contrarian who riles people up on a message board. What do you even do for a living and are you working in the adult industry or other online industry in any capacity? Your posts make as much sense as those nutcases on Yahoo news comments section who used to just repeat the "N" word like a excitable thirteen year old.

and that why i am 4/4 on my predictions about how the case are going against you guys.
so far i have been right every time. When i predicted veoh would win, dmca would stand and the court case should be thrown out, even though tube sites changed the format (everyone less in the thread kept arguing it would let them get around the dmca safe harbor provision) i was right.

IF anything i think your position is going to get weaker with the court ruling that you now have to consider fair use before sending out a single take down notice. With the consequence of not doing so is getting sued for every penny of legal fees and economic damage.

every time you claimed i did not buy anything but only licience you are doing so because of the copyright act exclusive right to distribute (that the monopoly), however that monopoly excludes fair use explictly.

same government different law, and the safe harbor provision is designed to be the balance of the new takedown request power it gives, a power that has been abused with a shot gun approach.

A shot gun approach which now has a HUGE civil liablility. Now ignoring the rules not only get you "attitube" but a potential multi million dollar counter suite.

I'm a real producer, who not only films for other big porn companies that hire me, but also an independent who puts up his own hard earned money to pay talent, crew, locations, etc, not to mention labor, to film movies for DVD & internet distribution. Explain to me how it benefits me to see one of my movies being seeded online for free? There's' no "Man" to stick it to in this case, just me, the hand on individual who needs to make a living and make a profit for my work.

I doubt that there has ever been a single case of a porn site or individual who legitimately fairly used a porn scene or porn movie for any critical, artistic or other legitimate purpose and none of your half-assed sophistry will make it otherwise. None of those cases you invoked have any bearing on the argument, and you haven't been right about a single thing since you started annoying people on this forum despite your preposterous claim that you predicted one thing or another.

you one of those nitwits who also thought that musicians are all rich rock stars who ought to let their music be 'shared' for free as well and tough shit for the pornographers too?

answer : I fully support bands like radio head in what they are doing (cutting the middle man out of the opperation).

Radio head kept 100% of the money from those people who bought the album when they offered people pay what you want (instead of 10%). They made MORE MONEY from the freeloaders who gave them just their email address to get the entire album for nothing because they sold a portion of them tickets to their live events.

The artist would make more money in a free economy/ pay what you think is fair economy system, and the record company are using artists as a strawman in their battle with piracy All trying to ignore the fact that if you cut them out of the loop and use a free /pay what you want methodology the real content producers would make a hell of a lot more.




How does that pass a fairness test in your mind?

answer because people have a fair use right to back up/time shift/recover the content they bought a right to view. IF you don't want to fulfil those right with your distribution methods then others (tube, torrent sites) do.

i answered both your question now answer mine

But you don't want to invest in fulfilling your fair use responsiblity, and you want to prevent others from filling that void. Do you really think that is fair ? why ?

Your question is a loaded non-nonsensical question akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?". First of all you have no understanding of fair use so the entire question is invalid since there is no fair use component . Secondly, you also suppose that "I" (do you mean me personally or any producer, as we aren't all equivalent) don't want to fulfill my fair use right (how would you know that?) and that I am also trying to prevent other from filing some imaginary void that doesn't really exist. People can easily back up or time shift any of my scenes or movies that they purchase online or offline without relying on torrents or rapidshare or the like. When I occasionally purchase a scene or movie I sometimes will make a backup for myself, but I don't give it away to other people who never paid for it. Those tools are just used by people who simply want to avoid paying, not for any times-shifting backup or other nonsense reason. This whole discussion is one step above banging the keyboard and making random characters come up.

Jim, gideongallery is a troll who is trying to justify theft so he can sleep well at night. Bottom line is...we make money. He doesn't. Now THAT is funny. :) Keep on trolling gideongallery. I already spoke to Ron at pussycash about your account by the way.

every person who first creates a torrent file, is backing up content he bought a right to view. backup is a fair use right defined by the courts. So right there you have 1 fair use for each torrent that exists. Every person who signup for the pay site before and uses the torrents to recover the content they bought a right to view by signing up to the site in the past. Again another fair use right established by the courts. So that two for every torrent that exists.

Your arguement is to deny these people their fair use rights just because some people may use the technology to illegally gain access when they have not bought such a right to view. The problem with that is that you are unfairly denying people right the law has given them when you refuse to fulfill these needs for the actual customer. Considering you know who these customers are, and have an ability to service them fully, while the tube sites/torrent sites don't have such information at their finger tips and it is therefore harder for them to exclude all the pirates.

It not an arguement which is fair or unfair, it is which side of the arguement is fairer.

your argurement can be summarized into we want to deny you your fair use right to our content because i want to not provide your fair use rights and put the money in my pocket instead.

vs

we want to use a techology that has fair use implementations which can be used to pirate your content only so long as you refuse to fulfill the fair use right the law grants me, putting the money right in your pocket anyway.


Stop putting the money in your pocket, spend a portion of that on meeting those legitimate fair uses, and you are perfectly within your right to stop all alternative distribution of your content (torrent, tubes). The courts have recognized that arguement already (decss case).

As long as you refuse to the "pirates" arguement is the fairer of the two.

And there gideongallery revealed himself in 7 words. And those seven words can be compressed to one: ENVY

And that envy that gideongallery has can be further brought down to another word: LAZINESS

Please gideongallery. Leave this forum. You are a surfer and you don't own anything and you're not in this business. Just leave.

Either that...or be a man and show up at The Atlanta Forum (if your parents will give you the money for the trip), and speak at one of the seminars so you can educate all of us on why you and other thieves have the rights to our work.

You don't have the balls. :pimp

and your are you a nitwit question was not as loaded a question

I took the time to put it in the correct context and answer it.

i am only talking about court establish fair uses like backup recover, timeshifting. so i do understand what fair use is.

ok this is a strawman arguement here is why. Let suppose you setup a private tracker which only granted access to former members of "your" (to represent you and any other paysite owners) paysite. Only people who bought a right to view would have a right to download from that tracker (0 pirates). Then you would fully supporting the fair use right to back up the content

Why because such a torrent tracker would be an order of magnitude better than traditional backups

1. it would be free
2. it would be free
3. and it would have a redundancy of (#seeders)

to duplicate the same effect using traditional backups i would have to make x copies of the video and put them in x different locations. IT is so much better than a normal backup and it is free.

And under this circumstance there is no piracy, because everyone could be limited to only the content they have a fair use right too.

until you setup such a private tracker this arguement is at best a circular proof and at worst a rationalization to justify not meeting a need.

The funny part is meeting such a need is in fact the way to stop the piracy, because once you implement such a solution, you can legitimately claim that torrent sites have no fair use protection for their actions becuase anyone who has a fair use right to the content is already being services. They can not claim a privacy right, because all those who have a legitimate right have already given them your information. You could legally demand their distribution of your content be stopped automatically (steganography signature + auto removal) and you would legally be within your right (decss case).

God, this guy is an idiot, I have to stop responding to this nonsense. A torrent is a backup, LOL, sure whatever you say dude. Why does the backup *have* to be a torrent? Nothing he says makes a bit of sense and if it did I would at least give him the benefit of his theoretical argument. This guy just has to be a no pussy getting loser who is so angry at the world.

taking it out of context again to make a false point.

So i suppose you would claim that it ok to not pay your taxes and put that money in your pocket.

Or not pay for insurance and put that money in your pocket instead.

Not meeting your fair use responsiblity (see private tracker example) has a legal consequence as not paying these other bills and instead just putting the money in your pocket.

Does not mean i envy you in one bit.

Your so blinded by righteous indignation you fail to see the solutions right in front of your face (private tracker).

and open yourself up to massive liability when you "accidently on purpose" stomp over fair use rights (lenz vs universal)

No gideongallery. I'm blinded by the tears of laughter in my eyes at your pathetic attempt to tell professionals how their business works when you're not even in it. You have no rights to take my content and put it on a tube site for instance. You can claim torrents are "backups" until the cows come home. But anyone with any sense knows better.

And what about tube sites? Is that "backing it up" too?

Keep thinking the way you do gideongallery. It just makes it that much easier for guys like me to excel in the world. I couldn't be a winner if there were no losers. So I thank you for your attitude and your thought process. It ensures that you will always be a perpetual loser in life. Thanks bro! :)

take a file back it up to a tape, delete the file, restore it from the tape what happens you get the file back

take a file make a torrent, seed the torrent, after it is fully seed , delete the file connect to the torrent again what happens you get the file back.

There is no way you can claim that a torrent can not be used to fulfill the fair use right of backup the end result is exactly the same and with the lenz vs universal ruling (timeshifting using a cloud) it is legally the same thing too.

never said it have to be a torrent just that it could be, if you want to provide me with a tape backup solution that give me 10,000 point of redundancy for free, i will use that one instead. But i shouldnot be forced to use the more expensive, less efficient method just because you refuse to embrace the newer technology simply because your exclusive rights don't apply to fair use.

so you misrepresent what i say so you can ignore the theoretical arguement, just as long as you realize that your proving your arguement is false by doing that.


so now i am wrong because i won't fuck everything that moves, bill clinton would be proud.

I think with my brain, not with my penis, you might want to start doing the same, you will make more intelligent statements :winkwink::winkwink:

good luck with that court recongized timeshifting in a cloud(cablevision vs 20th century fox), backup up is not that far off.

As long as the courts keep agreeing with me who cares how many of you smart business men "know better". :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

already said it was access shifting.



your welcome, we will talk after someone has the balls to counter sue you for violating their fair use rights (lenz vs universal).

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! gideongallery....PLEASE come to The Atlanta Forum and speak at a seminar. PLEASE! There will be quite a few attorneys there who can and will show you how totally ignorant you are.

"time shifting" and "fair use" are NOT gonna work on FOR PROFIT sites like torrents and tubes. The only person who can't see the transparency of it is you. That is if you were stupid...which you're not. You know damn well the stealing that is going on.

But your intelligence can't overcome your greed, laziness, and freeloading instincts.

I have every right to be as "greedy" as I want with my own work. You don't.

How about just for once...you try to make money on your own instead of spending all of the computer time your parents give you daily trying to come up with a million ways to justify theft?

Bro, you are a piece of work. Keep on talking! You reveal yourself more and more and more. Who you are and what your agenda is was clear to me on day one. Now others see it too. You really should leave GFY and go over and join a tube or torrent forum so you can brag about stealing in peace and be a hero instead of a joke.

With each post you make it crystal clear you do not have a fucking CLUE about

1. How DMCA/Copyright enforcement even works.
2. What "fair use" actually means.

One thing CRYSTAL CLEAR is...

Thunderous Applause
 

Sweet justice.
:thumbsup

My God you are one ignorant piss ant.

There is not legal "fair use right" that content providers, bands, or companies have to provide for. You might as well start calling it the free loader or boogie man rights. :disgust

You are just making this shit up as you go to continue your board troll agenda.

As I have stated before shithead. There is no "safe harbor" or 'fair use" for full length overwritten videos, music albums, DVD's, mainstream movies, programs, video games, tv shows, or ANYTHING like that in the mother fucking law.

Anyone with some sense knows this. Personally, if you are practicing the bullshit you preach, I can't wait for you to get sued off your fucking ass. Your funds frozen, and hosting account closed.

Make sure you are posting the full length versions you think you have the "free loader bill of rights" to. We'll see how that stands up in court.

Pure genius.
:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

barefootsies....you ignorant slut! :1orglaugh (I "time shifted" that from Dan Ackroyd circa early 1970's Saturday Night Live)

gideongallery does NOT have any funds or hosting account. Oh wait...he does have a couple of parked domains LOL What a businessman. gideongallery is a bum and a freeloader. He doesn't have anything to sue him over. If he did he would keep his dickskinners closed and make money instead of trolling everytime he gets on his parent's computer.

Um, actually there is homo.

Most websites have a T.O.S. that you apparently forget to read. It covers things such as downloading the material is for private use only, and it not for distribution. A torrent is a mass illegal distribution network, and anyone with a clue knows this.

Oh, but I am sure you missed that day in law school too eh?

Apparently you missed EVERY DAY. Now, for that case you like to keep quoting. "Fair use" in that case did not apply to the song as infringement because the tube clip was not just a song. It was a baby dancing and in the background, you could hear part of the song playing.

It was not put on youtube, torrents, or other 'back up' things as a distribution channel for Prince's song. It was a clip of some stupid kid dancing, and some song on faintly in the background.

What you are talking about is full length clips, where the CLIP is the download, and what people are coming for. Do you see the difference now asshat? Stop quoting case law like you have any fucking idea what it means.

Furthermore, you are arguing with content producers who deal with enforcement of copyright, DMCA's, lawyers, and know about this shit more than you would. You are just a board troll who gets off shadow boxing, and dropping case law.

As I've said before. You do not have a collective clue what you are talking about, and with each post you reinforce this further.

your so right and sony lost the betamax case because they were selling their vcr for 1k each. Oh wait the supreme court ruled in their favor. considering i have pointed you to the independent research that proves that fair use economy is 6 trillion dollars, and i said it once in this thread already, and i have pointed out the fact that sony sold their vcrs for a profit when they won their case i don't understand why you keep trying to make this same bogus point.


funny how you seem to make both arguements, weren't you the one who complained because i bumped an old thread after i came back.

Most of the time i am working making money. I rarely show up. When i do i have time to spend, and then i leave comming back when i again have free time.

you keep bring up the same bogus arguements, veoh case is a perfect proof that making money does not invalidate fair use. For GODS sake they were charging a membership fee to get access to videos and the court still ruled in their favor.


you could completely eliminate torrent based piracy of your content by setting up a private tracker, the same is true for tube sites.

you want to avoid that cost, the consequence of that is you legitimize their actions under the law.

I don't get why some idiot tube owners want or seem to need this "fair use" farce. There is enough legal content out there to fill a tube up (unless you are one of those tools promoting 10-30 min clips).

Hell I just had to rotate 5000 clips off my tube to make way for more legal fresh content from sponsors. I have good traffic, make money and hell I don't even really need to take submits too much anymore because my sponsors feed me with shit loads of content. Hell having no submits would also solve the problem of occasional uploads of illegal or stolen content which are a real pain in the ass to spot.

The tube model is here to stay, but if you believe in this "fair use" crap and hide behind that to steal content you shouldn't be using you deserve for someone to come and take everything you own.

I'd tell you to run that by any copyright lawyer, but I know you do not have one. Any lawyer, but I know you do not have one of those either.

I'd ask if you have ANY fucking sense, but that would be rhetorical as well.

Exactly.

Go ask Perez Hilton, of TMZ, how his 'fair use' and 'safe harbor' case worked out. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

No gideongallery. You once again have mistook me for someone else as you do in most every thread after you become flustered.

I hate to break it to you...but "no": "weren't you the one who complained because i bumped an old thread after i came back"

I'm gonna try to let you down easy here...you are nothing more than a source of amusement on GFY. We don't give you much passing thought except when you make your outrageously stupid and funny posts.

Sony selling video recorders has nothing at all to do with thieves putting stolen content up and selling pre-paid ad spots because of all the traffic it attracts.

Keep thinking the way you do. It makes great sport for me to follow you around and bash the fuck out of you on here. And judging from the messages I get on ICQ, it's very entertaining for the whole forum. LOL.

And hey...you keep side-stepping my "Are you gonna come speak at The Atlanta Forum" question. Why?

After all...we are all just a bunch of idiots who don't even understand our own business. You can just show up at The Atlanta Forum and get us all a drink at the open bar and we'll call you "bro" and "topnotch"

Isn't that the standard surfer line of b.s. on GFY? Come on down "bro" Get me a free drink and slap me on the back and then give a lecture at a seminar.

I'm sure your parents won't mind giving you some extra money in your allowance to make the trip.

nope i am just aware of the class action suit against microsoft when they tried to make the arguement they had a right to tos away fair use rights. When they demanded that we as consumers pay them $19.95 for a backup of the windows cd we bought. When they used to stamp do not make copies on the cd and in their liciening agreement.


They lost, paid out a settlement to all people who paid their extortionary pricing and changed the wording to say "do not make illegal copies"

you can verify it yourself if you have older cd copies of windows from back in the day.

But be my guess go to court and claim that while trillion dollar company like microsoft does have a right to TOS away fair use, you do.

Tell me how well that goes over.



that was a partial mistake it should have said (lenz vs universal + cablevision vs 20th century fox)

the latter established timeshifting to a cloud, and the former established a liablity for takedown notices for fair uses of content.

considering i mentioned the case multiple times in this thread already, i am surprised your jumping down my throat about a miscopy and paste. But since you now have the correct case reference i suggest you look it up.

i deal with this issue when we dmca takedown notices for our company, we changed our policy when the lenz vs universal case came down (since it effects all fair use equally not just sampling as was the example arguement). One of us is right one of us is wrong. 4/4 is my record. and considering your arguement about TOSing away fair use i would continue to bet that i know a little bit more about this than you do.

good luck with that, i would love to see the consequence of you making these arguements in court. like i said one of us is right one of us is wrong.
And now that you can get counter sued for sending out a bad takedown request, the liability is just as great for you as it would be for me.

Damn gideongallery...I'm glad you're back off of the "time out" your parents gave you this afternoon from the computer.

What on God's earth could Microsoft losing a case where they tried to re-charge people for a backup copy of their OS have to do with thieves stealing content and making money off of other peoples' work?

LOL! Oh and here's the best part of you post: "i deal with this issue when we dmca takedown notices for our company"

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You mean that "magical mystery" company that you own but you won't reveal what it is or what your website is or ANYTHING about it at all?

Hey everybody...does THAT sound familiar? LOL! Go away surfer. Go away.

1. they are not putting up content, they are letting users put up content, as i have said more than a dozen times if you have proof they are doing it themselves then the safe harbor provision does not apply.
2. when you don't misrepresent it as something we both agree is illegal, then the parallel to sony is perfectly valid, both provided a service/technology that could be used to infringe copyright material. Both are not responsible for that potential infringement.

just as long as the courts keep agreeing with me, i don't care what all your buddies think.
I am right or wrong based on what the judges end up saying, not based on the number of people who agree with me (because of the bias they have).


i am not that shallow, i don't need to buy friendship.
i realize that i am right when the judges agree with me, so i don't need to waste my money comming down to the convention
finally why should i if there is no financial benefit for me to do it. That like me asking why don't you give all your money to the poor.

Nothing, it however has everything to do with arguing that fair use does not apply because it TOS away. Which is exactly the point i was addressing.


I have already said i have no financial insentive to give you that info.

I am right or wrong based on what the courts say, not what you say.

If your so certain that the company doesn't exist why don't you give me a financial insentive greater than the potential risk that would be cause by you using the info to try and poach my customers. I thought you were the person who said you made 500k last year you can certainly afford it.

If you truely believe it does not exist, you should have no problem making an offer.

this thread has officially done exactly what i intended it to do...

congrats to me.....

i am the winner...

now do you see what i did here?

Yeah you goaded gideongallery into getting computer privileges from his parents. He still hasn't said a damn thing! LOL

No gideongallery. Putting up a tube site and then soliciting pre-paid advertisement spots based on traffic generated from stolen content is not legal.

No court has YET addressed that. No matter how you try to mince, parse, and twist words.

And no. You don't any company. And if you did you wouldn't hide it on GFY, which is a board originally designed for PROMOTION. lol

You're just another angry freeloading bum trying to armchair lawyer about something you know nothing about.

Fucking trolls make me laugh. That's all your good for. You have no business, you have no reason to be here EXCEPT to troll. That's your only purpose. And that makes you no better than the rest of the trolls and their pathetic "Look at me, look at me" bullshit when they have NOTHING to offer. Nothing.

Loser.