100 time travelling vcrs.

And we are off.

In lane #1 we have everyone.

In lane #2 we have Gideon, the swarm, a VCR and fair use.

In lane #3 we have Kane opting to sit this one out in order to go watch a movie with his hot Asian girlfriend :)

Almost every compilation video uploaded to adult tube sites uses copyrighted music...pass it on.

Jesus gideongallery. You get stupider and stupider.

I AM a musician. I have played clubs since 1978 and know for a FACT you can NOT use music like that. You have to pay BMI/ASCAP just to have a freakin' dj or a jukebox in the club.

If you think for one second that anybody can make a porn movie and put an artists music as the backing track to it...I don't know what to say to you.

Don't you understand that the artist has to be paid for that? Not only that...but they can also decline their work to be used in a project that they don't want to be associated with.

Fuck. Do you think Iron Man the movie just used "Iron Man" the Black Sabbath song without obtaining permission first and then paying for it?

I said it once, and I'll say it again...gideongallery is the dumbest person I've ever tried to have a conversation with. Instead of taking each thing on a case-by-case basis...he just has the kneejerk reaction to defend EVERY case of stealing another person's work.

Loser.

Maybe the producers time shifted it into the move :1orglaugh

Let me answer for gideongallery:
"Time shifting onto an infinite hard drive on a cloud the song was turned into a parody and now I will use the word sample. Matter of fact I can string lots of familiar words together and make it almost sound plausible, except for the fact that it's all bullshit. So here you go: VCR, Sony, time shifting, cloud, sample, fair use, parody, disney, and I can put even more words in as I go. I'm just making this shit up as I go along to justify stealing everything because of a complete lack of all talent."
</gideongallery>

Settle for what, 10 Million bucks and call it a day. :Oh crap

It really boggles my mind that a big porn company would use copyrighted music that way. There are so many talented musicians here in Miami and elsewhere that would be thrilled to create music as a work-for-hire for adult movies in any style from silly to serious and do it for peanuts. I have hired and paid a bunch of local musicians and talented amateur musicians over the years to create and record theme songs for some of my adult movie series with custom lyrics associated with the movie plots. Some of these were completely original instrumental songs and some were even even parody songs based on real copyrighted music.

But because the music itself was orininal in the sense that it was modified and made into a parody it was covered under fair use and never a problem. For example, I made a two part movie starring Shayla LaVeaux fifteen years ago called "Striptease" where I had some friends in a rock band record a cover of a cover as the theme song- essentially covering Anthrax's thrash metal cover of Joe Jackson's "Time" song from the 80's with the chrous being "Striptease" instead of "Time". In any case, if music is that important, you can simply hire someone to create it for you instead of taking something off of the radio!

Moral of the story here, we have tube sites that killed our own industry with our stolen content which seems nobody cares about anymore and we now care that RK is using music without proper licenses.

What happened to the Porn Industry.

Someone bring back 1999-2004

And For the Record, Nightclubs have to pay BMI/ASCAP. I know, I did.

you do realize that no fair use is licienced.
by that stupid definition all fair use is a copyright infringement since it is not licienced

the very nature of fair use is that it is without any need to get permission from the copyright holder


which is why i said

your trying to argue that only parody is allowed to be released commercially because that all this ruling allowed, well that bullshit

this ruling states that commercial does not automagically make it infringing

commentary has already been extended to this as well (ask micheal moore)

RK would be making the arguement sampling would also be so extended.


really care to provide the links.
your making arguements that sampling is only fair use because the uploader didn't profit from it.


good thing we are talking about video and not music

you were the person trying to argue that hitler parodies were only valid because they were a sample and not the entire movie.

RK is not selling the entire song, just a small piece
they are not even selling the song they are selling the porn, which just happens to include just enough of the song to establish the premise of the porn video (sex in a club)



wow i can't believe your trying to make the if it commercial it can't be fair use arguement again

sony made money from selling vcrs
2live crew mad money selling their song
micheal moore makes money selling his commentaries

profit doesn't automatically invalidate fair use
profit that cost copyright holder the profits from the direct liciencing of the work ...

which is why i said

i know that, hense why i mentioned the promotional use licience.

i never said they didn't it if the music studios licienced the content for porn videos and RK took it it would be a completely different issue.

copyright is being used as a censorship tool here, not to protect the income of the copyright holder

commentary, and parody make fun of the copyrighted work, they rarely get permission

prince didn't want his music used in the baby dancing video

do you think micheal moore could make fun of george bush if he need to get permission to use his news clips to do it.

or make fun of the nra when he used parts of charlton hestons speaches in his movies

you clearly want copyrght to have censorship power, the lenz vs universal proves that it doesn't


wow trying to use an example where the action would cause economic loss (because muscians do licience the music to movies) to justify using copyright as a censorship tool (no use in porn)


i do take cases on a case by case basis (see above)

you clearly want copyright to give you absolute control which it never intend to be (hense fair use )

you twist everything to fit this stupid view.

hell you tried to argue that disney snow white was based on the "traditional" snow white stories, even though even wikipedia showed that original printing had evil mother as the villian. The step mother aspect was a change made in a later revision BY THE BROTHERS GRIMM.

disney admitted they used the grimm fairytales, there was no way that used the original stoires since that had the mother not the step mother as the villian and yet you keep argueing your bogus statement to try and justify your bogus position.

If it's copyright infringement, it's not fair use.


I'm not arguing this at all... you pointed out a half quote and I provide the why, which if anything means it doesn't relate to the topic you tried to twist into meaning.


Under the definition of sampling, and what the courts have defined sampling as, they did not sample anything. It's not sampling simply because you think it is.



Lookup Sampling in the Wiki and Google. Sampling is not what you think it is.

Even better, they didn't grant the rights to use it on video, or "Digital Licensing" as it's called.

It's a parody that is a sample, that's why it's valid. Correct.

They don't have to sell the song... they don't even have to say it's in it, advertise it, talk it about it, or anything... they do have to tell them what it's going to be published on and provide a sample when they purchase the rights.




I never said it did... I replied to the Video and her case going (which she hasn't actually won yet) which again isn't what RK is doing either way so it makes no difference.

People for sure care about what's going on piracy wise with tubes... however what our Industry needs to accept is the law does and doesn't work in our favor.

What some tubes are doing is illegal... it's not user uploaded. To prove that you simply need to sue, go through discoveries, hope you get the info and you will probably win. This is a rather risky move though, if you're wrong - ouch.

Alternatively your option is use DMCA to your advantage. Several services in our Industry can help with this. monitor your content, auto send out take down notices, log everything... When one doesn't comply, take them to court - go through discoveries, find users aren't uploading the content and put them in the ground.

The problem is... most are complying, you can't sue when people comply. That's the bitch part of the law, unless you want to take some risk to prove the user upload - no law/act is being broken otherwise.

People have looked into it... very few have been able to do anything about it for a reason. I would expect more to come out as our Industry ups the technology that we use to monitor things.

retail stores playing music has to pay a price

I know for fact that pornhub wasnt user uploaded...I know the guy/company that scraped it for them. Is it possible to sue then subpoena them?

From what I understand... this is why Google doesn't get into trouble, they aren't uploading it.

This is from the wiki, end of it is the important part

"It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users."

Basically the tube is the provider, if users are uploading it the tube has a limited liability. Then based off what's going on with Google, they do major filtering, finger print filtering, and human monitoring as well as they comply with notices. So the liability is.... .. extended I guess is the word.

Anyway, if the provider is the infringer, and not users then they are aware of the infringements, thus it's not protected under DMCA and it falls under Copyright Infringement.

So to answer the question... I would guess so, just make sure you get an damn good IP lawyer to help and it should go smoothly.

Gideon,

Stop comparing sampling music to using a song in a video as background... That is just idiotic.
Sampling means using a part of a song and using it to create a new thing from it. The song is not the point of RKs videos, its Justin the background, it's not sampling!

Hey gideongallery...YOU are the one with a BOGUS postition. I told you 1,000 times now...
SNOW WHITE WAS A FOLK TALE. NOBODY KNOWS WHO WROTE IT

What part of that don't you understand?

This is from answers.com:
"Snow White is a character from "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (originally "Schneewittchen" or "Schneeweissen"), one of the folk tales collected and published by The Brothers Grimm in the early 19th century"

Just because the Brothers Grimm published stories (traditional folk tales) that ALREADY EXISTED, it didn't mean that they owned that story.

You are a fool. And again, I ask you...what is your purpose on GFY? What is your agenda? Why are you here? You are NOT in the porn business. You have nothing to contribute here. You have never made any money. And all you do is defend stealing.

You are a poor excuse for a human being. And all of your laboring on GFY would be much better put to use ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING.

But you prove over and over and over your character and your lack of talent and skill.

Again I quote "A Knights Tale" because it fits you PERFECTLY:

GideonGallery..."You have been weighed. You have been measured. And you have been found WANTING."

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

The sad part is...that pretty much sums up gideongallery

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Think about that young porn model that died recently. Zoey or something like that. She went from who? to I made $1xxx's off of people searching for her name.

I looked up google trends on realitykings.com which is what TMZ put in their story and not as big of an increase as I expected except that tons of people already search for it daily already... But I expected at least a 40% increase.

But lets look at Alexa...

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.rk.com#

It basically doubled the day(s) it was on their front page or still on peoples minds...

Don't tell me RK didn't make a grip of cash and that those people won't be a happy piece of the pie... I know for a fact that RK has 1000's of members that have been re-billing since 2004... Six years of rebills... plus the 1x,xxx's that join for a month or three or six and then go.... insane numbers...

I think RK will reach a settlement that will make both sides happy!

You're way off on this one. They are going to get smashed in the wallet for this and whatever sign-ups they get will be a drop in the bucket compared to what they will have to pay out.

I wonder if the legal hammer will fall on any affiliates for promoting same?

I know the music behind a lot of the clips in my network is not "cutting edge" but at least it is all legal!

This case is more complex than you may think if the scenes were shot in a "public" place & not a studio / rented house etc.

So lets see: I read that some of the sites seized by feds the past days, were embedding copyright infringements. Isn't Google (Google VIDEO/index) doing the same?
And what about photos and text? When they cache, then THEY are the "uploaders" of that content to their own site. They scrape the content into their own domain/server, it's not submitted. Why is Google "protected" and not others?

The sites shut down in recent days by the Gov were selling counterfeit copies of zero release movies that haven't changed a medium. It's piracy without question.

Cache is part of the technical aspect of being online or you could get into trouble for having cp porn on your pc simply through your browser cache and something you never noticed on some site. That would be why Google and everyone doing this is protected.

My point was, if you're illegally using copyrighted music they will be coming for you, cuz the music industry is changing & they need the money to stay in business. I never suggested people should be allowed to steal. I'm in the music biz...that's the last thing I want to see. But content creators will never stop creating content, so there will always be someone to steal from. You don't need a 'dinosaur' for that... :1orglaugh

Besides, when was the last time 'dinosaurs' have released anything we want or is "useful"?

Ok Doc, if they were doing that there is no doubt.
But if you use a cache for something commercial (like wrapping ads around it) you also have some responsibility to check what cache is published? Is it really true that everyone doing this is protected? I think Google is "protected" because of their money.

Protected by what? It's a cache for a search result "you" are asking for (ie the user). They're protected as a provider/isp - when you notify them of infringements or problems, they remove it as required by law.

Cached sites were around long before Google came around.

Side note.... The music Industry posted record sales and income last year and this year is kicking ass for them too. This isn't about 'needing money' - 75 million is a drop in the bucket to them.

Ok, so that means any statement like "all text, graphics, content... on this website must not be duplicated" is in fact a useless statement for legal use, if I sent a bot to "cache" it into my own "search engine" with all my own ads wrapped on it?

Every browser duplicates it, lots of ISP's cache the Internet, let alone search sites and backbones, and so on.

The text, a website must not be duplicated is about stealing a copy of the site and putting that site online at a different location, domain, etc.

Googles cache and all others, allows the org site to be visited and if any changes took place the cache updates. At that, Google isn't displaying your Website around ads... they display samples of text or thumbnail samples, which lead to the full version as a sourced reference.

Fair use makes it legal and makes any other version/idea of that text to be.... useless.

lol at you dummies arguing with gideon.

so brothers grimm story were public domain because they were based on public domain

so why exactly does disney snow white deserve copyright protection then smart guy

your so desperate to try and make your bogus arguement that you are actually talking in circles.

Public domain is not a viral licience it like BSD licience in software not the GPL.

oh and btw i caught how you deliberately dodged the fact that the brother grimm REVISED the traditional story changing it from the mother to the step mother in the 5th revision.

if the traditional story was mother as the villian, then by definition the step mother version was not simply "published stories (traditional folk tales) that ALREADY EXISTED"

the fact that they changed it from mother to step mother, means it did not already exist.

i am not the one makeing circular arguements.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Does anyone here think that gideongallery is NOT making "circular" arguments?

First he comes into a discussion about using other people's music.
Then he changes it to say that Disney "stole" Snow White from the Brothers Grimm.
And now he changes that to ponder how Disney is able to protect their re-written VERSION (by a team of screenwriters) of the story.

Stay on point much gideongallery?

Again, you are showing your character. Double talk and gibberish. On and on. Over and over. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

"Time traveling vcrs" indeed! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

If anyone needs custom original soundtracks for their videos, I am available. Any style of music you like. :)

damn thats pretty crazy.

what are the chances of them folding because of this?

and if it fair use it not copyright infringement

that a circular proof

you argued that it was an infringement just because it wasn't licienced

the fact that fair use isn't licienced proves that statement to be false

you can't reverse the false condition by repeating a circular cycle of the arguement again.


i specified the context

this is not about the music industry trying to collect a fair fee, it not like they had an open licience that said give us 5% of the gross of every video featuring our song and then suing RK for not paying that licencing fee.

This is about using copyright to censor the story, to prevent the free expression. by refusing to licience the music at any price.

that why covers are fair use, because you take only a piece (the lyrics).

it not based on timing only (x seconds) but any piece

exactly censorship not income protection.


wrong a parody was protected because it was a parody. if what you were saying there would be no need to have a seperate parody fair use.

if what you were saying parody songs that take the ENTIRE COPYRIGHTED SCORE would be illegal, they are not.

parody is a completely different fair use then sampling.
they are not dependent on each other for protection under the statute.


this is not an issue of RK choosing not to pay an open licience (5% of gross etc) but the music industry preventing the story from being told by refusing to licience their music.


actually she did, the court ruled what she did was fair use.
what is currently being argued is how much money universal owes her under the counter liability of the DMCA for sending the bogus take down request.

RK is doing exactly the same thing, the music is in the background, it only a small portion, and the story makes no sense without the music (sex in the "dance" club vs kid dancing to music)

censorship is not ok. If this was RK refusing to pay a fair and open liciencing fee, one that was not an attempt to attach a fee so high it was impossible to pay then i would agree with you

this however is an attempt to use copyright law to censor. which is wrong, and what fair use is designed to stop.

"Sample" any of my work and I'll sue too. RK will lose this all around. Their inability to produce a "story" that "makes sense" without stealing the property of others is not an excuse. Saying "Well, we needed it because the story must be told!" is not a proper defense. It's not a parody and it's not "Fair Use" and you know it.

It's Copyright Theft.

Ouch! That's not good...

Not exactly, more like they must have enough money to settle at a price that is worth your time to sue.

In a case like this, the 7.5 million or what ever they are going for will never happen. They will go bankrupt if a judgment that high happened then no one would win. I could see this getting settled, probably a closed door thing for some where in the 2-5 million range, if they have enough money to be able to do that and still stay in business.

just my guess.

The music industry is looking to pick up a couple extra bucks, make a point and try to deter others from doing this.

Win, Lose or Settle its not gonna be cheap.

Not sure if the actual contents of the lawsuit were posted, but I found this:

http://misstilaomg.com/2010/07/08/ex...m-their-piece/

Simply put, it doesn't fall under the rules of fair use, at all or even a tiny bit.

They could have used legal music and still had free expression, it didn't limit them when the rest of the Industry is able to comply. Limiting the free expression/censorship of it, would be the entire Industry and unfortunately for RK and your argument, plenty of music studios do lic to our Industry.



They don't have pieces, pieces would be seconds and in a loop and either way, sampling is not this as defined by the Courts and is not what RK is doing and that's the overall point.


Whatever you want to think... Courts many times have said the Parody is a sampling of the work, otherwise it wouldn't be a parody, it would be Copyright theft due to stealing/publishing the original work. Again though, this argument means nothing - RK isn't creating any form of a Parody.


Again, the music industry is not preventing this, some studios are which they're are legally allowed to do.

I tried to find the ruling and couldn't... however other rulings have been made based on the same situation. End of the day, she is not profiting from it, she is not damaging the brand/image of them, she is not duplicating it and selling it as an org, she is not using trademarked/copyrighted terms to promote it...

It's so not the same, any idiot can understand that.

Again, nobody is censoring them. They have 10,000's of songs they could Lic, many for free but of course most cost money... nobody is limiting them, stopping them from expressing anything. I have personally Lic music for porn, so have many others - how do they know if they would deny them if they didn't even try?

What they are doing is violating basic copyrights that have been easily established in the Courts at every level.

Truly, it boggles my mind you're trying to argue this... for sure with the argument you're providing.

When you were a member? WTF, you are a big supporter of stolen content but yet you going to tell us that you paid to be a member of a porn site ? hunh? :upsidedow

I think you are a decimal point off:

Max Statuatory damages of $150k x 500 infringements= $75Million (not $7.5Million)

But if your estimate is altered for that decimal point that would be a $20 to $50M settlement.

Big names like these don't care about settlement, if the settle, they set a trend. They have the money to go all the way to prove a point, and they most likely will. It will be something I'm sure we'll all be keeping an eye on.

I've been saying that since day 1. I guess no one wants to listen or try it out. DMCA hinges on "user upload". Sue the tube site, and then they will be forced to produce records (accounts, ips, time / dates (logs) of each and every video that was uploaded to their site. Then they will be exposed as the people who uploaded it, therefore no DMCA protection.

It's not rocket science.

I bet you they will settle.

If they wanted to prove a point they would have picked a company with a smaller budget who couldn't fight them. They would have smashed them into the ground and won before a court case even started.

They picked a company big enough to fight them but with enough money to write a big fat check and still stay in business. If RK has to cough up 10 million, I think they proved a pretty big point. The music industry is more concerned about collecting these days then proving points though. To sue them and win 75 million or what ever, they will never see any of that money. They want to get paid and make a point.

Quote from page 15 of the complaint ".....recordings and musicial compositions are contained in the "full" versions of the Videos (accessible only to paid members of their website), defendants have stripped the music out of the "sample" version of those Videos (accessible for free to the public), replacing it with "stock" music.

""In other instantces the title of the song (or a variation of the title the song) also is used as the title of the Video or the song is used to set the 'theme' for the video or drive the action during the scene."

Ouch not just playing in the background, not simply just recording it.

So basically the music industry followed the law... they registered the copyrights, sent take down notices, and then filed legal action.

This is exactly what the law was designed to do...

Where do you find time to write this shit?