GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Artists Make More Money in File-Sharing Age Than Before It (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=987371)

kristin 09-15-2010 12:40 PM
Not even reading the thread.

50.

BFT3K 09-15-2010 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17505918)
Not only that...but one can only imagine how incredibly lucrative the music industry would be right now without piracy but with all the new technologies.

For instance...I'd LIKE to go buy The Cult "Sonic Temple" CD to put in my car (I'm gonna go see them on Thursday night). But...thanks to piracy of music, every music store in the world is shut down. So I have to go to Walmart or Best Buy. And guess what? They don't have it!

So now the only choice I have would be to try and find .mp3 compressed versions online and get each song one by one...or order it off of amazon and wait for it to be delivered.

No more going to the music store and getting what I want when I want. And my fond memories of going to the big music stores like Peaches (I lived in Florida) were finding the record I wanted, and THEN seeing something else and impulse buying.

Those days are gone. Buying it all online can sometimes be real convenient (if a song is brand new), but it took away all the fun of getting an album and it also made music seem sort of insignificant compared to what it used to feel like to go find the record, open the package, etc.
Exactly, and the loss of "album" sales to "single" sales hurts as well. You used to buy an album for maybe 2 or 3 great songs, but overtime you would often gain an appreciation of the songs that didn't get airplay too. Sometimes the album conveyed a "feeling" that carried throughout the tracks. Now people are buying one single track at a time. There is no time to decide if you even like any of the other songs the artist has made, because you never allowed them to grow on you. In addition, the sound quality of these compressed files often suck, but since that's the easiest way to consume them, you even lose out on rich full quality sound now as well.

Robbie 09-15-2010 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17506027)
Exactly, and the loss of "album" sales to "single" sales hurts as well. You used to buy an album for maybe 2 or 3 great songs, but overtime you would often gain an appreciation of the songs that didn't get airplay too. Sometimes the album conveyed a "feeling" that carried throughout the tracks. Now people are buying one single track at a time. There is no time to decide if you even like any of the other songs the artist has made, because you never allowed them to grow on you. In addition, the sound quality of these compressed files often suck, but since that's the easiest way to consume them, you even lose out on rich full quality sound now as well.
Yep...if Exile On Mainstreet were released for the first time today, everyone would just buy the single online to "Tumbling Dice" and one of the greatest rock records of all time would be mostly unheard.

And think of Led Zeppelin. Very rarely did they have a big single. Whole Lotta Love was their only top ten track. What a loss it would be.

PornMD 09-15-2010 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17506027)
Exactly, and the loss of "album" sales to "single" sales hurts as well. You used to buy an album for maybe 2 or 3 great songs, but overtime you would often gain an appreciation of the songs that didn't get airplay too. Sometimes the album conveyed a "feeling" that carried throughout the tracks. Now people are buying one single track at a time. There is no time to decide if you even like any of the other songs the artist has made, because you never allowed them to grow on you. In addition, the sound quality of these compressed files often suck, but since that's the easiest way to consume them, you even lose out on rich full quality sound now as well.
Well christ, when you can go to YouTube and hear all new tracks of an album on demand the moment it's out. That's not some seedy pirate site behind the scenes but right in broad daylight so to speak as the 3rd highest traffic site on the planet!

I'm not sure I'm entirely against the music biz going more towards song by song vs. album - it had started getting to the point where record companies stuff a few radio singles per album and fill the rest of the space with crap. That said, I'd imagine it might hurt smaller artists who may get 1 of their songs seen and consequently get only 1 of their songs sold. Music has never been an industry where a significant amount of its participants see success, but it's also not exactly comforting to know that the most visible artists in the past decade have been for the most part glorified whores with millions of dollars of marketing behind them.

candyflip 09-15-2010 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17506037)
Yep...if Exile On Mainstreet were released for the first time today, everyone would just buy the single online to "Tumbling Dice" and one of the greatest rock records of all time would be mostly unheard.

And think of Led Zeppelin. Very rarely did they have a big single. Whole Lotta Love was their only top ten track. What a loss it would be.
Now you've got artists like Kanye West putting out a new single every week. There's got to be a loss in quality if they're pushing them out the door that quickly, just to capitalize on the buzz and single sales.

You can find a lossless version of Sonic Temple to download with a quick search :winkwink:

kane 09-15-2010 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 17506381)
Now you've got artists like Kanye West putting out a new single every week. There's got to be a loss in quality if they're pushing them out the door that quickly, just to capitalize on the buzz and single sales.

You can find a lossless version of Sonic Temple to download with a quick search :winkwink:
Yep. The music business used to be about selling art and albums, now it is about selling singles.

I can't fully blame them. The consumer has spoken and most of them just want to buy individual songs and not entire albums, but what it does is kill the art form. These days artists are more interested in making the hit single that they can sell a million of, sell as a ringtone and create a catchy video for instead of writing a quality album that can be taking as a full work of art.

It is all kind of sad to me.

DWB 09-15-2010 02:49 PM
Jesus H Christ. I need to get this guy on ignore.

Robbie 09-15-2010 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy (Post 17506524)
Jesus H Christ. I need to get this guy on ignore.
And miss all the fun of laughing at gideongallery? Please rethink it. He is a goldmine of fail.

gideongallery 09-15-2010 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SykkBoy (Post 17505618)
Face it gideon, you don't give shit one about anything or anyone's property...you're one of these entitlement people that feels anything ever created should just be given to you for free. You feel you shouldn't ever have to pay for anything. Let's face it, broke losers who steal from others are never going to pay for anything anyways. A bunch of self-entitled idiots who should be suffocated by their own "I don't care if you created it, it's all mine mine mine" like a 5 year old on sugar binge motto. You can defend this stuff all you want, but deep down inside, you have no problems stealing someone else's work for your own selfish wants. People like you have never ever worked hard for anything in your lives. You've had things handed to you and all you do is want more more more.

Just because something is created digitally rather than physically, it does not mean you have a RIGHT to take it. Just like someone who builds things, someone who creates movies and music have COSTS associated with those. People like you never ONCE ever consider this. You can deny it here on GFY or wherever, but deep down inside you know this is true. I'll never be convinced otherwise.

It doesn't matter if revenues are are up, it doesn't matter if an artist has a mansion and private jet. They WORKED for those revenues and are still missing out on revenues. Just because someone has a lot of money, it doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take away their money. It doesn't give someone the right to say "you make too much money". That would be like me coming to your house and saying "hey dude, you made $350 last month, that's way too much money in my opinion, so I'm going to take your couch."

Now, I know that stealing crybabies like you will say there is a difference between a digital product and a physical product, but I'll call bullshit on that. There is still a cost associated with producing a digital product. For someone like you to sit there and claim that the time and money spent producing that is worthless is bullshit and I'll call you on that bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 17505784)
Without the creators of said content, consumers wouldn't be able to enjoy it, and you are clearly only a consumer looking at the now and not a creator. Perhaps if you were a creator you'd be at the very least sympathetic to what creators have to go through to avoid their content becoming worthless through piracy.

Consumers not paying for the content of the creators when it is up to them to pay for it (i.e. not radio where advertisement money is in play) is NEVER going to benefit the creators and is only going to devalue their work to the point when they much stop creating...I don't care what kind of study you want to throw out there to prove otherwise. You are trying to say that piracy spreads awareness of the content for more people that might pay for it, except you have no clue how many people who pirate the stuff would have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. Sure, there's a significant percentage of people who wouldn't have, but definitely nowhere near all, and ultimately people who pay for it see what pirates are doing and get enticed into doing the same when they see people getting stuff for free with no downside whatsoever.

Perhaps in the 24th century when money is non-existent and people can thus create simply to create, Picard and the crew will look back on these funny little GFY conversations laughing at the unnecessary intricacies of life that money creates, but we're not there yet.
show me one single example of me ever saying everything should be free.

i defend fair use and the use of technology to provide superior service in a way consistent with the rights already established

using the torrents like a vcr
using torrents like a radio station

using the tube sites to make commentaries.

the adaption is how to change your content so that when people do that stuff you still make money.

think of tit this way, if you refused to put your shit on the tape cassette, you ONLY lost money from the VCR.

same thing here, the three live interaction stuff is just a small example of what is available there are more than 100 (103) that will work in porn too (even more in mainstream).

Dirty Dane 09-15-2010 03:38 PM
The paper says the artists made the increase on live performance and less on digital/physical sales. In adult industry that would correspond to making more money on live sexshows or dating, which is also happening (by various sponsors paying and profit indirectly such thievery). But that doesn't mean the ones not perfoming live make more money and it's not an excuse for stealing others artistic work to promote another service. So the argument using file-sharing as "promotion" for an "overall" industry is basically flawed.

The paper is also limited to an isolated economy. They didn't include trade export or import. In adult industry that would correspond to excluding worldwide internet trade.

You can't compare two complete different products, complete different market situations (including laws), one industry that is subsidiziated with one industry that is not and never will be, and then conclude and talk about adaption.

There are many great photographers especially within the art niche and they can't (or will) adapt to live performance. Asking them to do so is like asking a painter to paint live. It's stupid and without any respect for his artistic talent. When some assholes reduce the value of his work by promoting something else or distribute it for free, the result will be less quality or in worst case he move to another niche. No matter how much Torrentfreak troll with their propaganda, Manwin troll with "what our laywers say", it destroys the economy for these artists and, it destroys cultural freedom which is the most shame about it all.

gideongallery 09-15-2010 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 17505889)
Oh so you are saying their "piracy tax" is also used for state subsidizations of porn? I don't think so and no government or porn industry is going to "adapt something from it". You must be illusional...
have you read any of the different countries piracy tax laws. Change a couple of things in how you produce your porn and you could get money from that funds in 21 countries.

there and hundreds of things you could do.

hell look at robbie product placement will not work in this industry bullshit statement

go back and look at the arguements made about product placement not working in music videos



and then look at the way companies successfully changed the game and you can quickly realize how to do the "impossible" task of getting product placement in porn.

Socks 09-15-2010 03:45 PM
I'd say file sharing started in 1997.

So you're saying that ~14 years later, artists are making more than they did 1.5 decades ago?

Smooth.

And the top graph shows total revenues going sideways.. That's bad business gideon.

And maybe Norway had a shit music scene 15 years ago?

gideongallery 09-15-2010 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopottomouse (Post 17505829)
That was the whole point.

gideongallery is trying to imply piracy has increased sales when there are whole new ways and reasons for people to buy music that didn't exist in 1999.
diamond rio created the mp3 technology in 1992 (actually earlier than that they legalized it )

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/MP3/rio.html

the concept of selling songs individually cheaply in digital format was something that was repeatedly proposed by diamond and copycats of their technology.

The record companies refused to do it.

Napster forced the issue
and itunes became viable because piracy forced those companies to adapt.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17505918)
Not only that...but one can only imagine how incredibly lucrative the music industry would be right now without piracy but with all the new technologies.

For instance...I'd LIKE to go buy The Cult "Sonic Temple" CD to put in my car (I'm gonna go see them on Thursday night). But...thanks to piracy of music, every music store in the world is shut down. So I have to go to Walmart or Best Buy. And guess what? They don't have it!

So now the only choice I have would be to try and find .mp3 compressed versions online and get each song one by one...or order it off of amazon and wait for it to be delivered.

No more going to the music store and getting what I want when I want. And my fond memories of going to the big music stores like Peaches (I lived in Florida) were finding the record I wanted, and THEN seeing something else and impulse buying.

Those days are gone. Buying it all online can sometimes be real convenient (if a song is brand new), but it took away all the fun of getting an album and it also made music seem sort of insignificant compared to what it used to feel like to go find the record, open the package, etc.

fact is it is easier to find new obscure artist you have never heard of or would never hear of if it were not for technology now available

dan bull
JC
10,000 of artist release their content under CC-NC-A
people can freely share their content and they get paid, leveraging piracy taxes, open store fronts (where they keep 100% instead of 10%) and tours

there are all kinds of things you can do if you understand the difference.

The techniques are there for a no nothing band to do the impossible job of getting a product placement deal for their music video. Get the entire video paid for and pocket 4-10k extra. You just have to understand how the market has changed, and what you have to do to change your content to respond.

SykkBoy 09-15-2010 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506666)
using torrents like a radio station

using the tube sites to make commentaries.

the adaption is how to change your content so that when people do that stuff you still make money.

think of tit this way, if you refused to put your shit on the tape cassette, you ONLY lost money from the VCR.
You can call it what you want, it's taking someone else's work and taking it upon yourself to determine how they chose to have it distributed....which is for free.

Radio stations pays for the rights to broadcast the music, so it isn't really "free" it's subsidized by advertisers.

If someone refused to put their shit on tape and they CHOOSE to lose money from the VCR, it's their right to do so...it's not your right to do it for them.

If an artist wants to give their music away for free or allow their movies to be watched for free, it's their call, not yours.

How do you get this notion that you can decide how someone monetizes or chooses not to monetize from new technologies? What gives YOU the right to determine that for someone else's work, regardless of how many other avenues of income they have?

Dirty Dane 09-15-2010 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506694)
have you read any of the different countries piracy tax laws. Change a couple of things in how you produce your porn and you could get money from that funds in 21 countries.

there and hundreds of things you could do.

hell look at robbie product placement will not work in this industry bullshit statement

go back and look at the arguements made about product placement not working in music videos



and then look at the way companies successfully changed the game and you can quickly realize how to do the "impossible" task of getting product placement in porn.
"You can get funds"... You do not know much about this industry do you? No government or tax funds is going to compensate you, if you show them screenshots of illegal downloads of Midgets Fucked In Anal Vol.3.

Product placement... are you going to ask Petter Hegre to put Coca-Cola or tampoo advertising into his artistic photos?

gideongallery 09-15-2010 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 17506679)
The paper says the artists made the increase on live performance and less on digital/physical sales. In adult industry that would correspond to making more money on live sexshows or dating, which is also happening (by various sponsors paying and profit indirectly such thievery). But that doesn't mean the ones not perfoming live make more money and it's not an excuse for stealing others artistic work to promote another service. So the argument using file-sharing as "promotion" for an "overall" industry is basically flawed.

The paper is also limited to an isolated economy. They didn't include trade export or import. In adult industry that would correspond to excluding worldwide internet trade.

You can't compare two complete different products, complete different market situations (including laws), one industry that is subsidiziated with one industry that is not and never will be, and then conclude and talk about adaption.

There are many great photographers especially within the art niche and they can't (or will) adapt to live performance. Asking them to do so is like asking a painter to paint live. It's stupid and without any respect for his artistic talent. When some assholes reduce the value of his work by promoting something else or distribute it for free, the result will be less quality or in worst case he move to another niche. No matter how much Torrentfreak troll with their propaganda, Manwin troll with "what our laywers say", it destroys the economy for these artists and, it destroys cultural freedom which is the most shame about it all.
every single piracy technology that was bitched about by the clueless masses made those arguements

every single one of those technologies improve the bottom line, and expanded freedom regarding expression.

your arguement about painters and photographers is total bullshit by the way

one word

TEACH

Dirty Dane 09-15-2010 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506747)
every single piracy technology that was bitched about by the clueless masses made those arguements

every single one of those technologies improve the bottom line, and expanded freedom regarding expression.
I'm not bitching about technology. I'm bitching about those using it for illegal purposes and think illusionally it's about freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506747)
your arguement about painters and photographers is total bullshit by the way
Why? Quality painting and photographing takes lots of preparation and work. Look at the photographers for Met-Art.com which also have metcams, but how could they do their photos and editing of their recorded movies live in same quality?

gideongallery 09-15-2010 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 17506734)
"You can get funds"... You do not know much about this industry do you? No government or tax funds is going to compensate you, if you show them screenshots of illegal downloads of Midgets Fucked In Anal Vol.3.
i know the laws your just talking out of your ass.


Quote:
Product placement... are you going to ask Petter Hegre to put Coca-Cola or tampoo advertising into his artistic photos?
like i said

Quote:
go back and look at the arguements made about product placement not working in music videos
your making the same exact arguements made for music videos. "company a would not want to be associated with content b"

the only thing that has changed is the reasons why.

the solution has already been found.

gideongallery 09-15-2010 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SykkBoy (Post 17506729)

If someone refused to put their shit on tape and they CHOOSE to lose money from the VCR, it's their right to do so...it's not your right to do it for them.

If an artist wants to give their music away for free or allow their movies to be watched for free, it's their call, not yours.

How do you get this notion that you can decide how someone monetizes or chooses not to monetize from new technologies? What gives YOU the right to determine that for someone else's work, regardless of how many other avenues of income they have?
your rights end the second mine begin and vice versa

copyright law only gives you the right to control the monitization of your content, not to censor other people.

if you choose to give up the monetization, then you lose nothing from it being given away for free, since you would make nothing by refusing to exploit the technology.

PornMD 09-15-2010 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506666)
show me one single example of me ever saying everything should be free.

i defend fair use and the use of technology to provide superior service in a way consistent with the rights already established

using the torrents like a vcr
using torrents like a radio station

using the tube sites to make commentaries.
Yea, torrents and tubes are popular for vcr/radio/commentary like Viagra is popular to increase bloodflow throughout the body. Nope, sorry...people use torrents and tubes to get shit for free that they would otherwise have to pay for, and people use Viagra to make their penis hard. You can try to pretend otherwise to make your point but it doesn't change the truth.

I have a question though - you say not everything should be free. What is your opinion of places like Rapidshare charging money for premium access/faster download of copyrighted material? How is that any different than someone recording a VHS of copyrighted material and reselling it, which is against the law?

gideongallery 09-15-2010 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 17506782)
Yea, torrents and tubes are popular for vcr/radio/commentary like Viagra is popular to increase bloodflow throughout the body. Nope, sorry...people use torrents and tubes to get shit for free that they would otherwise have to pay for, and people use Viagra to make their penis hard. You can try to pretend otherwise to make your point but it doesn't change the truth.
bullshit more than 50% of all torrent is tv shows
add in movies that have aired on tv and that jumps even higher.

many countries like canada has a piracy tax for music so that paid for too

and commentary

"Check out my favorite quest crew dance routine" is a commentary that makes no sense whatsoever without showing you the clip of the content



Quote:
I have a question though - you say not everything should be free. What is your opinion of places like Rapidshare charging money for premium access/faster download of copyrighted material? How is that any different than someone recording a VHS of copyrighted material and reselling it, which is against the law?
rapidshare doesn't charge for faster download of copyrighted material, they charge for faster access for downloading material weather it copyrighted, public domain, or authorized to be distributed. They offer a service which is not directly profiting from the infringment but can be used for infringing purposes.

your misrepresenting the vcr as an infringer.

btw the point is the same, as a user i could use a vcr for legitimate actions (timeshifting) and i could use rapidshare for legitimate purposes (commentary, parody, etc)

just because it could be use for illegal purpose doesn't give you a right to take way the technology completely.

Dirty Dane 09-15-2010 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506777)
i know the laws your just talking out of your ass.
Yeah? Which country compensate for PORN piracy through tax funds?
Please don't say Norway, their laws and regulations barely allow porn.




Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506777)
your making the same exact arguements made for music videos. "company a would not want to be associated with content b"

the only thing that has changed is the reasons why.

the solution has already been found.
Lets put that "solution" on a test. What kind of product placement will you put in these photos (before you uploaded it for free to others) without destroying the artistic value:

http://camelfart.com/sinfulempire.jpg
http://camelfart.com/09.jpg

gideongallery 09-15-2010 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 17506833)
Yeah? Which country compensate for PORN piracy through tax funds?
Please don't say Norway, their laws and regulations barely allow porn.






Lets put that "solution" on a test. What kind of product placement will you put in these photos (before you uploaded it for free to others) without destroying the artistic value:

http://camelfart.com/sinfulempire.jpg
http://camelfart.com/09.jpg
if i tell you do you agree to put every single piece of content you ever produce/have produced into the public domain.

you want me to give you the solution for free, do all the work for you and not get paid a cent.

gideongallery 09-15-2010 04:46 PM
oh and btw you can't add product placement after the content is you have to do it before the content is shot that the point. The product is intergrated into the content so it can't be skipped.

Dirty Dane 09-15-2010 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506872)
if i tell you do you agree to put every single piece of content you ever produce/have produced into the public domain.

you want me to give you the solution for free, do all the work for you and not get paid a cent.
No, keep your secrets to yourself. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I knew you couldn't answer :thumbsup

TeenSluts 09-15-2010 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506900)
oh and btw you can't add product placement after the content is you have to do it before the content is shot that the point. The product is intergrated into the content so it can't be skipped.
love this kind of artistic expression

Dirty Dane 09-15-2010 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506900)
oh and btw you can't add product placement after the content is you have to do it before the content is shot that the point. The product is intergrated into the content so it can't be skipped.
Again, you compare completely different things. Trust me, placing advertisings into one MP3, between lines and chapters in a book, into a highly artistic photo, whatever... is not going to raise the artistic value. It will destroy the product and any potential revenue from other products is still NOT an excuse for distributing it without authorization.
An artist, a writer or a photographer should be able to do whatever HE/SHE wants with his work and no one or nothing else should force him to do otherwise. THAT is freedom and if you do not understand that, then go back to school.

kane 09-15-2010 05:39 PM
So Gideon,

Did you ever find that email you had supposedly sent The Doc when he made the business offer to you a while back?

You had told him you sent an email and were staring to build sites to get the ball rolling on the project. The email never arrived and when you were asked for proof that you sent it, you seemed to disappear.

Did it ever turn up?

I'm guessing no which means you are back on the scene spouting your bullshit theories again with no credibility.

Robbie 09-15-2010 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 17507052)
So Gideon,

Did you ever find that email you had supposedly sent The Doc when he made the business offer to you a while back?

You had told him you sent an email and were staring to build sites to get the ball rolling on the project. The email never arrived and when you were asked for proof that you sent it, you seemed to disappear.

Did it ever turn up?

I'm guessing no which means you are back on the scene spouting your bullshit theories again with no credibility.
BINGO! gideongallery exposed himself for what he is...worthless.

He did NOTHING. And still has done NOTHING. He is a disgrace as a human being and just can't help himself but to come over to GFY and spout the propaganda he reads and then re-reads all night on bit torrent forums. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's classic! And now he is thedoc's BITCH.

kane 09-15-2010 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 17506966)
Again, you compare completely different things. Trust me, placing advertisings into one MP3, between lines and chapters in a book, into a highly artistic photo, whatever... is not going to raise the artistic value. It will destroy the product and any potential revenue from other products is still NOT an excuse for distributing it without authorization.
An artist, a writer or a photographer should be able to do whatever HE/SHE wants with his work and no one or nothing else should force him to do otherwise. THAT is freedom and if you do not understand that, then go back to school.
I have argued this point with gideon ad nauseum and he won't listen. He believes that so long as he isn't hurting you from selling it, he can take it for free. Never mind that by taking it now he might be diluting a future market or maybe that you may only want a select number of copies out there, he feels that it you won't sell it to him he has the right to take it.

He feels a movie should be released in all mediums on the same day it is available in theaters. So he feels that when a movie opens in theaters on a Friday that it should also be available on DVD, pay per view, premium cable, basic cable and free TV on that day. If needed the movie appearing on basic cable and free TV can be edited. This way all customers could have the movie available to them in their desired format at the time of its release. If you then chose to release in theaters, DVD and pay per view, but not the others, the free TV and cable customers should then be allowed to download it since you didn't offer it in their desired format and if you chose to leave that money on the table then their taking it doesn't hurt the movie financially. Again, never mind that they might want to see how well the movie does at the box office before settling on a broadcast fee, give it to him now in the format he wants it he should be allowed to take it.

TheDoc 09-15-2010 05:55 PM
Oh man... Fast Times at GFY High! (1982)
Directing and Starring TheDoc, Robbie, and kane. Fast Times at GFY High -- Follows around a group of high school gfy students growing up in America, based on the real-life lies of Gideongallery. Gideongallery and Robbie are looking for a love interest, as usual. The center of the film is held by Gideongallery, a perpetually brain dead dude who faces off with those who plan on taking away his free porn, music and movie access! The twists never stop, before the end a seeded cloud takes over, after this .... shit jus th falz ap r t .

Dirty Dane 09-15-2010 06:36 PM
Gideon, I really want to know this:
Which country/countries compensate for PORN piracy through tax funds?

The only country I know of using tax funds for porn is my own, Denmark. Some national made movies are placed in public libraries for "cultural and historical" reasons. Believe it or not, it's required by law to offer free porn to the public in libraries, the content is excempt from other laws and anyone have access to it. But these are limited to national only and it's far from piracy.

I'm so excited, please tell me where and how we can get that money from piracy. That's not another secret you won't share, or?

Robbie 09-15-2010 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17507089)
Oh man... Fast Times at GFY High! (1982)
Directing and Starring TheDoc, Robbie, and kane. Fast Times at GFY High -- Follows around a group of high school gfy students growing up in America, based on the real-life lies of Gideongallery. Gideongallery and Robbie are looking for a love interest, as usual. The center of the film is held by Gideongallery, a perpetually brain dead dude who faces off with those who plan on taking away his free porn, music and movie access! The twists never stop, before the end a seeded cloud takes over, after this .... shit jus th falz ap r t .
Hey gideongallery is your boy. You OWN him now. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

gideongallery 09-15-2010 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 17507075)
I have argued this point with gideon ad nauseum and he won't listen. He believes that so long as he isn't hurting you from selling it, he can take it for free. Never mind that by taking it now he might be diluting a future market or maybe that you may only want a select number of copies out there, he feels that it you won't sell it to him he has the right to take it.

He feels a movie should be released in all mediums on the same day it is available in theaters. So he feels that when a movie opens in theaters on a Friday that it should also be available on DVD, pay per view, premium cable, basic cable and free TV on that day. If needed the movie appearing on basic cable and free TV can be edited. This way all customers could have the movie available to them in their desired format at the time of its release. If you then chose to release in theaters, DVD and pay per view, but not the others, the free TV and cable customers should then be allowed to download it since you didn't offer it in their desired format and if you chose to leave that money on the table then their taking it doesn't hurt the movie financially. Again, never mind that they might want to see how well the movie does at the box office before settling on a broadcast fee, give it to him now in the format he wants it he should be allowed to take it.
god you love completely misquoting me i never siad it doesn't hurt the movie financially, i said that extra profit comes from abusing the monopoly power granted and your not entitled to it.

just like universal was not entitled to all the extra money they would have gotten if they could have forced people to only timeshift using re-runs.

universal made way more money if people could have been forced to watch the re-runs when they were told to, with all the commercials included, the vcr paid them nothing for the timeshifted playing, no advertiser paid for that viewing so of course they lost that money.

gideongallery 09-15-2010 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 17507196)
Gideon, I really want to know this:
Which country/countries compensate for PORN piracy through tax funds?

The only country I know of using tax funds for porn is my own, Denmark. Some national made movies are placed in public libraries for "cultural and historical" reasons. Believe it or not, it's required by law to offer free porn to the public in libraries, the content is excempt from other laws and anyone have access to it. But these are limited to national only and it's far from piracy.

I'm so excited, please tell me where and how we can get that money from piracy. That's not another secret you won't share, or?
sure same deal i offered to doc
i will teach you everything you need to do
you setup and do all the grunt work
we can split the money 50%

Robbie 09-15-2010 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17507276)
sure same deal i offered to doc
i will teach you everything you need to do
you setup and do all the grunt work
we can split the money 50%
I can't believe you just wrote that!

OMG! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

You are such an idiot! thedoc already PROVED you to be a fake and a liar! And now you bring that up like it's a good thing!
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA HA!!!

kane 09-15-2010 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17507270)
god you love completely misquoting me i never siad it doesn't hurt the movie financially, i said that extra profit comes from abusing the monopoly power granted and your not entitled to it.

just like universal was not entitled to all the extra money they would have gotten if they could have forced people to only timeshift using re-runs.

universal made way more money if people could have been forced to watch the re-runs when they were told to, with all the commercials included, the vcr paid them nothing for the timeshifted playing, no advertiser paid for that viewing so of course they lost that money.
You have argued that it a movie isn't released in a certain area on DVD that a person should be allowed to download it because it isn't harming them economically.

Also, case it point. We once argued about the show Heroes. I stated that there are places in the world where Heroes doesn't air and is not available on DVD yet. You had no problem with those people downloading it because the owners of the show are not trying to sell it in that area. Never mind that they might be waiting for 100 episodes so they can sell it in syndication to that area or they might be packaging it in a different format later in that area. The downloads then could hurt them because people will have already gotten it for free and won't be paying. You didn't seem to care and thought that since it wasn't for sale now the download was okay.

bronco67 09-15-2010 07:32 PM
People that never actually create are the only ones advocating giving everything away for free.

gideongallery 09-15-2010 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 17507052)
So Gideon,

Did you ever find that email you had supposedly sent The Doc when he made the business offer to you a while back?

You had told him you sent an email and were staring to build sites to get the ball rolling on the project. The email never arrived and when you were asked for proof that you sent it, you seemed to disappear.

Did it ever turn up?

I'm guessing no which means you are back on the scene spouting your bullshit theories again with no credibility.

doc said

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
This doesn't look like proof of any emails sent to me, or that you do any business at all.. are you trying to twist the post, again?

No reason for us to discuss the details of the deal (lets put it on hold) until you can prove you have an ounce of honestly in your bones.

i responded by saying

Quote:
so just to be clear, if i do this the deal happens exactly like i said it should, if you back out all your content goes into the public domain.

doc disappeared from the thread and never agreed to those terms.

now if i missed him agreeing to that term please post it and i will post the screenshot immediately

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...=977299&page=5

gideongallery 09-15-2010 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 17507304)
You have argued that it a movie isn't released in a certain area on DVD that a person should be allowed to download it because it isn't harming them economically.

Also, case it point. We once argued about the show Heroes. I stated that there are places in the world where Heroes doesn't air and is not available on DVD yet. You had no problem with those people downloading it because the owners of the show are not trying to sell it in that area. Never mind that they might be waiting for 100 episodes so they can sell it in syndication to that area or they might be packaging it in a different format later in that area. The downloads then could hurt them because people will have already gotten it for free and won't be paying. You didn't seem to care and thought that since it wasn't for sale now the download was okay.
want to produce the quote where i said that exactly.

never happened.

just look at your case in point and re-read my above post. the 100 espisode syndication revenue is just like the re-runs and advertising revenue gained from blocking vcrs.

universal didn't have a "right" to that revenue.

That the point , the re-runs had to compete against the vcr for timeshifting because timeshifting is a fair use.

Access shifting just simply creates the same situation for geographic(you can't watch it because your in england) vs medium extension (you can't watch it on tape cassette)

gideongallery 09-15-2010 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 17507312)
People that never actually create are the only ones advocating giving everything away for free.
you do realize in this thread the only people advocating that get something for free (instrucitons on how to do product placement in porn, get piracy tax credits etc) is you guys.

Dirty Dane 09-15-2010 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17507276)
sure same deal i offered to doc
i will teach you everything you need to do
you setup and do all the grunt work
we can split the money 50%
You do not have to teach me anything.

If it's that difficult to prove your claim, then give just 1 example. 1 country which compensated for porn piracy through tax funds. 1 case.

gideongallery 09-15-2010 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 17507304)
You have argued that it a movie isn't released in a certain area on DVD that a person should be allowed to download it because it isn't harming them economically.

Also, case it point. We once argued about the show Heroes. I stated that there are places in the world where Heroes doesn't air and is not available on DVD yet. You had no problem with those people downloading it because the owners of the show are not trying to sell it in that area. Never mind that they might be waiting for 100 episodes so they can sell it in syndication to that area or they might be packaging it in a different format later in that area. The downloads then could hurt them because people will have already gotten it for free and won't be paying. You didn't seem to care and thought that since it wasn't for sale now the download was okay.
oh and btw in the case of heroes we were talking about the establish ruling of law, not my opinion

the case law in that country was 1 download != 1 lost sale and therefore 1 download != 1 infringement.

kane 09-15-2010 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17507322)
want to produce the quote where i said that exactly.

never happened.

just look at your case in point and re-read my above post. the 100 espisode syndication revenue is just like the re-runs and advertising revenue gained from blocking vcrs.

universal didn't have a "right" to that revenue.

That the point , the re-runs had to compete against the vcr for timeshifting because timeshifting is a fair use.

Access shifting just simply creates the same situation for geographic(you can't watch it because your in england) vs medium extension (you can't watch it on tape cassette)
Okay, I will write it a little more clearly. I'm not going to waste time going back and finding quotes.

If Heroes never airs in a country, those people do not have the right to download it. It isn't like if they live where it airs and they are using the torrent as a form of a VCR or DVR. They are taking something they never had access to in the first place.

Let me simply ask this question: If the above scenario is true and people from Country A have never had the show Heroes air in their country and the show is not available to them to buy on DVD do you feel they should be allowed to download it for free?

kane 09-15-2010 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17507313)
doc said




i responded by saying




doc disappeared from the thread and never agreed to those terms.

now if i missed him agreeing to that term please post it and i will post the screenshot immediately

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...=977299&page=5

Just for shits and grins

http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=214

this post is where the original offer is made. Nowhere do you say anything about only teaching him. You say you want to reserve the right to sell the technique to other people, but not that you would just teach him.

Also you do mention that he would be responsible for the day to day operations, but no mention of grunt work.

http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=215
His response where he says YOU would have to produce at least 100 sales per day for this to be a viable thing for him to do.

It goes on from there. You never mention that you will just be teaching him this and having him do it, you imply that you will generate the sales and then as per usual you start rambling about incoherent shit.

here is a breakdown of the posts
In order of the deal going down:
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=214
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=215
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=217
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=218
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=219
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=220
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=221

And of course he didn't agree to your terms that his content would end up in the public domain. Why would he. You just tossed that in at the end when you were exposed as a liar.

gideongallery 09-15-2010 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 17507334)
Okay, I will write it a little more clearly. I'm not going to waste time going back and finding quotes.

If Heroes never airs in a country, those people do not have the right to download it. It isn't like if they live where it airs and they are using the torrent as a form of a VCR or DVR. They are taking something they never had access to in the first place.
first the highlighted portion is your opinion, and so far no matter how many times i have asked you to produce a single case to back it up you have never done so.

second using torrents as a vcr is timeshifting not access shifting and time shifting is the fair use for when it airs in your country

third the fair use of access shifting has not been established yet, however case law like the 1 download != 1 lost last therefore no automatically counting each download as an infringement ruling in EU is the basic foundation for this new fair use.


Quote:
Let me simply ask this question: If the above scenario is true and people from Country A have never had the show Heroes air in their country and the show is not available to them to buy on DVD do you feel they should be allowed to download it for free?
wrong question

do i believe the copyright holder should have a right to stop them from downloading it for free

no.

that how fair use works, the exclusive rights don't exist for the scope of fair use. it effectively public domain content for that scope.

Dirty Dane 09-15-2010 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506694)
have you read any of the different countries piracy tax laws. Change a couple of things in how you produce your porn and you could get money from that funds in 21 countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17506777)
i know the laws your just talking out of your ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17507276)
sure same deal i offered to doc
i will teach you everything you need to do
you setup and do all the grunt work
we can split the money 50%
It's amazing you know something about laws that no one else know about. Not even the laywers. Maybe Steve Lightspeed, Robbie and co should get better laywers, because laywers are supposed to know the laws, right?
If they can get compensation from governments who gladly pay for pirated porn, funded by taxes, the laywers should advise them to start uploading themselves instead of hunting the infringers, don't you think?

gideongallery 09-15-2010 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 17507338)
Just for shits and grins

http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=214

this post is where the original offer is made. Nowhere do you say anything about only teaching him. You say you want to reserve the right to sell the technique to other people, but not that you would just teach him.

Also you do mention that he would be responsible for the day to day operations, but no mention of grunt work.
day to day operations is grunt work in this context

if i show him how to setup a private tracker properly all the "day to day operations" of that private tracker would be grunt work.

submitting all the torrent
dealing with the torrent sites all of that is day to day operation




Quote:
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=215
His response where he says YOU would have to produce at least 100 sales per day for this to be a viable thing for him to do.

It goes on from there. You never mention that you will just be teaching him this and having him do it, you imply that you will generate the sales and then as per usual you start rambling about incoherent shit.

here is a breakdown of the posts
In order of the deal going down:
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=214
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=215
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=217
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=218
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=219
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=220
http://www.gfy.com/showpost.php?p=17...&postcount=221
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
i prefer percentage of revenue profits can be manipulated
even if it only something smaller like 15%

no affiliates would screw up the primary benefit of "live interaction correctly" part of the 5 steps

and i want to keep the sole right to sell the techniques to other sites.

i even have a domain that would be perfect for such a site

you would have to handle all the normal opperations etc


but if those issues are addressed

i can show you the changes necessary and then walk away from it.
which clearly proves i expect to show him a bunch of changes that was necessary and then just walk away (what i said the deal was)

he did respond back with something like

hold on a second i expect you to do all the work , like he claimed in the second thread

he said

Quote:
You would need to produce 100ish sales a day, if you feel you can change a few things and walk away, then sweet...

Let's do it, I have the content. I have people waiting this minute to start building. My email is webmaster.skills at gmail dot com and my icq is below.
for doc to claim that he ment for me to do all the work he specified i would have to do in this thread

he would have to explain exactly how i could "change a few things and walk away" and still be doing all the stuff he listed he wanted me to do

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...=977299&page=4

the best statement he could make given the conflict between his original "sweet" statement and his you must do all the stuff statement is he is a lying scum back mislead me into believing i could "show (him) the changes necessary and then walk away from it"



Quote:
And of course he didn't agree to your terms that his content would end up in the public domain. Why would he. You just tossed that in at the end when you were exposed as a liar.
but that the point doc is lying about not recieving the letter (just like he lied about doing product placement before, and he lied about agreeing to me just showing the changes and then walking away .


if i truely didn't send the letter he would have no problem agreeing to this, because it would be impossible for me to post the screenshot.

hell he could still get out of putting his content in the public domain, by just simply doing the deal as he lead me to believe it was going to happen (with his sweet)

gideongallery 09-15-2010 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane (Post 17507371)
It's amazing you know something about laws that no one else know about. Not even the laywers. Maybe Steve Lightspeed, Robbie and co should get better laywers, because laywers are supposed to know the laws, right?
If they can get compensation from governments who gladly pay for pirated porn, funded by taxes, the laywers should advise them to start uploading themselves instead of hunting the infringers, don't you think?
maybe you should get better lawyers

like i said so far i have never been wrong about any of my predictions

robbie, steve and etc have always argued against me on those case, so they have always been wrong.

i got my legal advice from my good lawyers

i assume robbie got their wrong advice from their lawyers.

TheDoc 09-15-2010 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17507380)
day to day operations is grunt work in this context
...
he did respond back with something like

hold on a second i expect you to do all the work , like he claimed in the second thread

he said
Here is what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery;
but if those issues are addressed

i can show you the changes necessary and then walk away from it.
The issues were - to be able to produce the 100ish sales a day, you could walk away 'then' and not just show me, teach me, or whatever b.s. you said above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17120836)
You would need to produce 100ish sales a day, if you feel you can change a few things and walk away, then sweet...
And that is my reply to you saying you could walk away. It was also made clear I didn't need to know or care to know anything... I just want the 100 sales a day.





Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17507380)
for doc to claim that he ment for me to do all the work he specified i would have to do in this thread

he would have to explain exactly how i could "change a few things and walk away" and still be doing all the stuff he listed he wanted me to do

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...=977299&page=4

the best statement he could make given the conflict between his original "sweet" statement and his you must do all the stuff statement is he is a lying scum back mislead me into believing i could "show (him) the changes necessary and then walk away from it"
As you can see above, if you're able to produce the 100 sales a day... you can walk away. I never once said in that thread you would do all the work.

As well, if you notice that thread is 2 months later than the ones Kane posted - not the same thread, not the same month. That is the thread though that you started twisting everything stupid and you got called on it just like you are in this thread.



Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17507380)
but that the point doc is lying about not recieving the letter (just like he lied about doing product placement before, and he lied about agreeing to me just showing the changes and then walking away .


if i truely didn't send the letter he would have no problem agreeing to this, because it would be impossible for me to post the screenshot.

hell he could still get out of putting his content in the public domain, by just simply doing the deal as he lead me to believe it was going to happen (with his sweet)
You never sent a letter and you never sent an email. We never agreed for you to show me the changes and walk away, we agreed that you could produce a 100 sales a day...then I didn't give a shit what you did.

If you didn't send the letter I wouldn't have a problem agreeing... to what? You couldn't just post a screenshot of your out box with the email sent to me?

Get out of what? We never did anything... I have nothing to get out of.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 AM.
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123