Tubes?! Major Law Proposed Today By Senators Today. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Tickler · 11-16-2010, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

It will be interesting to see how it effects sites like Youtube.

Quote:

Originally Posted by naughty1

So I guess if thislaw passes we could SAY BYE BYE TO youtube right ? how many infringing videos are on there ??????

The discovery process proved that the YouTube owners were in fact uploading pirated content to YouTube.

Since the lawsuit was not targeted at that angle it was dismissed. Expect another suit to be filed targeting the owners directly for copyright infringement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

This will never be applied to adult tube sites. Somewhere there are politicians, DOJ attorneys and FBI agents all huddled together singing Kumbaya thanking God that piracy did what they couldnt do - effectively - kill the industry.

As I said earlier, discrimination in the application of the "law" is probably going to cause some major problems.

topnotch, standup guy · 11-16-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odin

Just like you adapted to the age of the tubes? So you are suggesting tube owners should come here and whine like bitches?

I don't know about the other guy, but I'd prefer that tube owners just go straight to hell.
.

topnotch, standup guy · 11-16-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

i think it is imperative that we take away rights, freedoms, due process and privacy to bring back the ratios of 1999.

Sounds like a fair trade to me

.

davecummings · 11-16-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

I guess the response I'd make here is... it has always been my policy to judge people and organizations based on their actions, and not their words. It's one matter to say that you are for or against something, but what are you DOING in support of your stated position?

At the time of that post, ICM Registry was looking for an industry organization to show support for .XXX... I would assume this was because they wanted to show ICANN that the industry actually wanted to have this new TLD. They tried to get the support of the FSC, but after a very public and contentious debate, the FSC declined to support .XXX for what I think are all the right reasons. So, at the time there was another organization that was trying to form, and I was a part of it. Our organization was asked if WE wanted to support .XXX, but we also declined... again, I think for all the right reasons.

Sometime after we declined, ASACP wrote a letter to ICANN where they said they "applaud" ICM and its efforts. I'm guessing they were approached for .XXX support like the other organizations were, but that's a guess -- even if a very plausible guess. Keep in mind, this was sent at a time when ICANN was trying to decide if it should allow .XXX, and no doubt was trying to gauge if there was industry support. So if you're ICANN, and you get a letter from an industry owned organization saying how they applaud the group trying to create a .XXX domain name, etc., wouldn't you assume that's a letter of support? I sure would. So I wasn't happy to see ASACP's letter, and you saw my response to Joan.

Joan has said that ASACP was "neutral" and that it didn't intend the letter to be one of support. Let's just say I'm skeptical of the intent. Again, it goes back to, IMHO, whether you look at actions or words.

As for Alec, I asked him about .XXX around and about the time of that post... in Phoenix. He pointed out to me that he had not publicly said he supported or opposed .XXX at that time. I felt that was like a politician ducking the question, and I didn't understand why there wasn't simple direct opposition or support. Some of you may feel differently.

Now, years have passed since then. So the question is... has anything changed?

If there has been any strong opposition of .XXX coming from the Xbiz and/or ASACP camps, I haven't seen it. Maybe it happened and I missed it... I admit, I've been pretty busy with business operations over the past few years and could very well have missed some statements or actions, but I haven't seen it.

Personally, I think it would be absurd to support .XXX, but we're all entitled to our opinions. I felt strongly enough about this issue that I worked with the FSC back when .XXX was originally defeated to make that happen. I worked with their attorneys, I debated Lawley at Internext, and I wrote a number of editorials calling for opposition.

Because I felt (and still feel) that .XXX is a threat to the industry in a number of ways, and provides no significant benefits to counterbalance the threats and problems it creates, I would have LIKED to see strong, definite opposition of .XXX from all the industry leaders. When you have a possible threat to the industry, I don't think it's the role of an industry leader to be "neutral" or "on the fence" ... but to be an advocate for the industry against outside forces seeking to harm it. So naturally, I would have liked to see a strong and vocal opposition of .XXX from certain parties, but to date I haven't seen that.

We all have to make up our own minds... look at the actions of companies and individuals and decide these things for ourselves, I think.

Thanks for your thoughts, Connor!

NetHorse · 11-16-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I am simply saying that if the domain taken "in rem" is with a US registrar ? that domain's lease (commonly called ownership) will be revoked by court order. Any server of that domain on US territory would be shut down also.

That would be far too much work. This new piece of legislation is scary because it won't take a court order for them to take action. This is about internet censorship, by way of limiting access.

If new legislation was passed, a government "panel" that determines what type of sites are committing "unlawful activity" would be enacted. Part of the legislation would demand that all U.S. based ISPs block access to any site they deem unlawful.

Tubes will get hit, filesharing sites like rapidshare, torrent indexing sites like piratebay, etc ,etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

This will never be applied to adult tube sites. Somewhere there are politicians, DOJ attorneys and FBI agents all huddled together singing Kumbaya thanking God that piracy did what they couldnt do - effectively - kill the industry.

ha ha! While I agree some politicians want to kill our industry, the majority of them are just greedy. The adult industry is HUGE, and politicians will never turn down substantial payouts to "review a site's unlawful activity", just like they won't turn one down from the movie or music industry.

It will be the beginning of a new internet, that's for sure.

mynameisjim · 11-16-2010, 06:23 PM

For better or worse, the internet will be policed by something similar to the FCC one day.

Soon, everything will pass through the internet, do you really think that governments will just keep their hands off of that? lol.

It naive daydreaming to think the internet is somehow immune to governments desire to control the flow information.

2MuchMark · 11-16-2010, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerK

Please explain Dave why you support Xbiz & ASACP, but don't support .XXX

They both stand to make a shit-ton of cash when it finally passes.

There is a big difference between the 3 agencies.. You can be against .xxx but still support asacp.

minicivan · 11-16-2010, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tickler

The discovery process proved that the YouTube owners were in fact uploading pirated content to YouTube.

Since the lawsuit was not targeted at that angle it was dismissed. Expect another suit to be filed targeting the owners directly for copyright infringement.

As I said earlier, discrimination in the application of the "law" is probably going to cause some major problems.

The discovery process also revealed that Viacom had an army of people with multiple youtube accounts each uploading Viacoms own content in full length clips during that time as well, with the belief that they were benefiting from spreading it around for free.

Paul Markham · 11-17-2010, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Which country owns the internet?

If a country bans access to a site that breaks it's laws it's not about who owns the Internet. It's about who polices a country and the citizens of that country. In the case of a server being in a country then it's up to that country to see that material on that server doesn't break laws. Who owns domains registry? Well it seems the US does.

Will another country stand up and have domain registration apart from the US so pirates can continue to operate? Good luck with that one.

Quote:

Why, as a pornographer, do you think censorship is A Good Idea?

As a pornographer yourself do you think sites like scat, bestiality and excessive violence should be legal if it does not involve itself in the shooting of the content? Which is the illegal act. So if the answer is no you also support censorship. Add to that any other content you can think of.

As a pornographer who worked in the UK and areas that are censored I don't fear it. Men will jerk off to censored porn just as much as they will to uncensored porn. And buy it as well.

Paul Markham · 11-17-2010, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

For better or worse, the internet will be policed by something similar to the FCC one day.

Soon, everything will pass through the internet, do you really think that governments will just keep their hands off of that? lol.

It naive daydreaming to think the internet is somehow immune to governments desire to control the flow information.

Yes I agree. But there are a lot of very naive daydreamers on GFY.

The Internet will be policed and controlled in some way. The notion that it will never be belongs in dreams.

But there are a lot of people here who I'm sure download a lot of pirated material so it makes them biased.

Paul Markham · 11-17-2010, 05:59 AM

Most here supports policing, regulations and censorship on the Internet.

If you don't you think Pornhub should be allowed to load up an entire site, because the owner of that site loaded up one video clip. Or didn't load up anything. You support Pornhub doing as they please because you don't want any policing, regulations and censorship on the Internet.

Should a terrorist organisation be aloud uncontrolled access to the Internet so it can radicalize more people to be terrorist and send them money?

Should someone be allowed to someone be allowed to libel and defame someone on the Internet with impunity?

If you support an Internet that's not policed, regulated and censored that's what you want.

Or do you only want the laws to apply to others and not to all?

On another point. Anyone who thinks the banning of piracy will bring floods of customers back and turn the clock back to 2000. Is a naive dreamer.

Manwin and others will not just roll over and let all their traffic disappear. They will buy the license of content and go 100% legal. They will need a few more servers, but the traffic they will get will support the cost. And then there are the legal Tubes with 6 minute clips to content with.

It will take far more stringent laws to achieve the demise of Tubes and the loss of customers.

Or a complete rethink of what and how we sell on the Adult Internet. And I don't see that happening.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-17-2010, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetHorse

That would be far too much work. This new piece of legislation is scary because it won't take a court order for them to take action. This is about internet censorship, by way of limiting access.

If new legislation was passed, a government "panel" that determines what type of sites are committing "unlawful activity" would be enacted. Part of the legislation would demand that all U.S. based ISPs block access to any site they deem unlawful. ...

In what paragraph (clause) does the proposed law create a " government "panel" that determines..."? I only see that the AG could;

Quote:

Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities
`(g) Enforcement of Orders- In order to compel compliance with this section, the Attorney
General may bring an action against any party receiving a court order issued pursuant to this
section that willfully or persistently fails to comply with such order. A showing by the
defending party in such action that it does not have the technical means to comply with this
section shall serve as a complete defense to such action.

The bill's sponsor is Sen. Patrick Leahy D (VT), Senator Leahy was a former District Attorney ? there appears to be due process in this ? I don't see where the AG is given extra-judiciary powers, other than this proposed law allowing the AG to "take action" e.g., a court action in rem in a federal judiciary district.

The codifying of the in rem status allowed in any action is what I see as troubling.

In the contracts of TLD operators with their registrars, as to the continued lease of a name to a party involved in infringing activities ? what the provisions are exactly (if any) I have no knowledge of.

However, almost all countries are signatories to the The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. It is not being enforced. It should be noted that under US law, U.S.C. 17, certain copyright infringement for commercial purposes is a 5 year federal felony. Again, rarely enforced.

davecummings · 11-17-2010, 11:05 AM

Paul, if downloaders see tubes starting to be shut down, might they not become worried that their supply is about to be be cut-off and they'll hustle out and download as much as they can before they lose that source of "free" porn. I worry that they might "store up" and not need to belong to pay sites or patronize VOD sites for many years afterwards, thus keeping sites from quickly recovering and getting revenues like the old days. What do you and others think?

directfiesta · 11-17-2010, 11:12 AM

Quote:

The bill would allow the Justice Department to take action whether the business is based in the United States or not.

That is going to be fun ...

Dcat · 11-17-2010, 11:13 AM

It always sounds like such a good thing at first proposal.

Giving the government the right to censor anything on the Internet is D.A.N.G.E.R.O.U.S.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-17-2010, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Quote:
The bill would allow the Justice Department to take action whether the business is based in the United States or not.
That is going to be fun ...

But only if the the domain has some presence on US territory; e.g., a US based registrar or a US based server.

Redrob · 11-17-2010, 12:36 PM

In my mind, shutting down thieving piracy sites is not the same thing as censorship as they had no right to the content in the first place. Therefore, the piracy site's rights are not being violated.

Tickler · 11-17-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minicivan

The discovery process also revealed that Viacom had an army of people with multiple youtube accounts each uploading Viacoms own content in full length clips during that time as well, with the belief that they were benefiting from spreading it around for free.

And your point is?

- What Viacom was doing was legal
- What YouTube was doing was illegal

Attempting to deflect with "...well the other guy was doing...." don't work in courts, although politicians seem to do it a whole bunch.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-17-2010, 02:50 PM

YouTube (under it's current ownership of Google, Inc) is not engaged in piracy for commercial purposes. There is a small percentage of user uploaded content that is infringing and YouTube removes that material upon notice by the copyright holder. YouTube licenses and pays royalties on much commercial content also.

The YouTube argument of the Viacom v. Google case is not only irrelevant to this instant matter (of the proposed legislation) but also in effect a "red herring" argument ...

KillerK · 11-17-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

Thanks for your thoughts, Connor!

He left out the part, where ASACP was to be paid money per registration.

Maybe he doesn't want to ruffle feathers or maybe he doesn't want to be sued. But nothing I said was wrong or inaccurate.

dmhubby · 11-17-2010, 04:54 PM

All,

Here is a good write up from CNET that explains things much better.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20020408-38.html

A big government grab on power is the wrong way to go. These politicians are supporting this strongly now because the RIAA & MPAA is after them and lines their pockets.

The true solution to digital piracy needs to come from technology and new models of operations.

I agree stealing digital content is no different from stealing physical content. In my humble opinion the more the Government gets involved in the Internet the more the it will get screwed up.

Connor · 11-18-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerK

He left out the part, where ASACP was to be paid money per registration.

Maybe he doesn't want to ruffle feathers or maybe he doesn't want to be sued. But nothing I said was wrong or inaccurate.

Well, there are things that I know for a fact, and things that I fully believe to be true, but don't have the smoking gun proof in hand. But I think based on what I did say, anyone bothering to read it will have a pretty good idea what was going on. I'm just not sure enough people care anymore.

One thing that I have found ... discouraging ... over the years is that even when the industry finds out Company X was involved in either unethical or possibly illegal things, even if it's against our own industry, most people will still do business with Company X if that company has money or at least SEEMS to have money. Facts just don't seem to sway behavior.

And ... it has a snowball effect. If you want to take a stand against a tube site, for example, but everyone else continues to do business with said tube site, you start to wonder if you're only hurting yourself by standing in principle. So you cave, and the next guys says ... hell, if he's doing business with them, why shouldn't I? Etc. Personally I think that reality sucks, but it is what it is.

The only thing that makes people move in this industry is when their own pocketbooks are actually hit. 2257 was a direct threat to pocketbooks, so people reacted. Originally, .XXX was a financial threat to a lucrative business -- so people reacted. In both cases though they had a clear opponent -- the government, and ICM, respectively. But when the opponent is slippery, behind the scenes, or when challenging the opponent might not be good for the pocketbook, resistance melts away and people become compliant.

Quentin · 11-18-2010, 01:10 PM

More thoughts on COICA, these coming from Temple University law professor David Post.

I believe these are pre-markup comments, so I suppose it's possible Mr. Post has a different opinion of the version that was voted on by the Senate committee today... but I doubt it.

DamianJ · 11-18-2010, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

If a country bans access to a site that breaks it's laws it's not about who owns the Internet. It's about who polices a country and the citizens of that country.

Ah right, so you want governments to censor internet sites. Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

As a pornographer yourself do you think sites like scat, bestiality and excessive violence should be legal if it does not involve itself in the shooting of the content? Which is the illegal act. So if the answer is no you also support censorship. Add to that any other content you can think of.

I believe in freedom of speech. So I think anyone can do anything that isn't illegal. Shitting isn't illegal. Having sex with 15 year old girls is illegal. Fucking horses is illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

As a pornographer who worked in the UK and areas that are censored I don't fear it. Men will jerk off to censored porn just as much as they will to uncensored porn. And buy it as well.

Ask people in Thailand and China and Australia how they feel about it.

DamianJ · 11-18-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Most here support censorship on the Internet.

That really isn't true, love. You are the only pornographer I've met who thinks censorship is a good idea.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-19-2010, 08:39 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON ? A U.S. Senate panel passed an anti-piracy bill today that gives government agencies new powers to go after foreign websites that sell counterfeit goods and pirated content.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, approved by a 19-0 vote ...

Reported Out Of Committee 19-0

Looks like this will actually fly. Its actual affect on copyright theft in the adult industry might be highly questionable.

Is there a registrar and server farm in Somalia?

botfurom · 11-19-2010, 08:59 PM

Tubes should be gone.

Nathan · 11-19-2010, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tickler

And your point is?

- What Viacom was doing was legal
- What YouTube was doing was illegal

Attempting to deflect with "...well the other guy was doing...." don't work in courts, although politicians seem to do it a whole bunch.

What viacom employees did is what makes dmca necessary. It also destroyed their case. Also, as farasi know the discovery showed evidence of employees or founders, on their own merit, uploading content. Not YouTube telling them to do so. So YouTube did nothing illegal at all.

Nathan · 11-19-2010, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

In my mind, shutting down thieving piracy sites is not the same thing as censorship as they had no right to the content in the first place. Therefore, the piracy site's rights are not being violated.

You are completely missing the problem of the proposed legislation.

Nobody is saying that shutting down illegal piracy sites is a problem. I would love to see sites like pornbb, hotfile, fileserve, filesonic, and so on disappear.

The problem is that the proposed law removes most burden of proof from the government. It let's the doj shutdown sites without any lawsuit or hearing.

So in theory, if the gov thought your site is not a nice site, they could take it down claiming it's piracy and you then have to fight to get it back up, instead of letting you fight before they take it down.

That is the problem here!

If the law is used as it should be, we would all be happy, but without checks and balances people will just use it to censor the Internet.

If the law is used as it should, you would never see legal tube sites like ours targeted though either... So if you think this law helps somehow against the big tubes, you are horribly wrong.

Dirty Dane · 11-20-2010, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

I wonder if all or some of this same group of senators (or other federal legislators) might later also propose a law to corral/ghetto-ize ALL adult sites into .xxx (if it gets approved), and subsequently propose/author a law to require that all American ISPs disconnect all .xxx from the Internet? Scary, huh?!

They have to ban pornography to do that and .xxx would be irrelevant.

Slutboat · 11-20-2010, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

You are completely missing the problem of the proposed legislation.

Nobody is saying that shutting down illegal piracy sites is a problem. I would love to see sites like pornbb, hotfile, fileserve, filesonic, and so on disappear.

The problem is that the proposed law removes most burden of proof from the government. It let's the doj shutdown sites without any lawsuit or hearing.

So in theory, if the gov thought your site is not a nice site, they could take it down claiming it's piracy and you then have to fight to get it back up, instead of letting you fight before they take it down.

That is the problem here!

If the law is used as it should be, we would all be happy, but without checks and balances people will just use it to censor the Internet.

If the law is used as it should, you would never see legal tube sites like ours targeted though either... So if you think this law helps somehow against the big tubes, you are horribly wrong.

Well he says his tubes sites are legal so it must be true...

I'm going to go out to the garage and call my truck a ferrari... see if it makes the change.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-20-2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

In Rem

Unlike in personam (which is against a person and its property) in rem is a technical term meaning " against a thing or property". Any lawsuit or judgement made against the property or thing is an action "in rem". In this case, the location of the property is important as the court can hold the trial only in the jurisdiction under which the land falls. Unlike in personam, the judgement can be against the land and not its owner.

http://www.legal-explanations.com/de...ons/in-rem.htm

Understanding this change, legislating by statute (a new law), in rem actions is the real kicker being overlooked here ...

As far as having ISPs delete the DNS entries — it is not hard to reconfigure your DNS server settings. I imagine if this law passes there will be prolific expansion in low cost DNS servers that are outside of the jurisdiction of this law. A new cottage industry? Offshore DNS servers. Also, if you know the IP of your favorite pirate server — it could be located that way.

Quote:

S.3804 -- Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

(B) REQUIRED ACTIONS- Upon receipt of a court order issued pursuant to
this section--
`(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title
17, United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server
shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from
resolving to that domain name's Internet protocol address;
`(ii) a financial transaction provider, as that term is defined in section
5362(4) of title 31, United States Code, shall take reasonable measures, as
expeditiously as practical, to prevent--
`(I) its service from processing transactions for customers located
within the United States based on purchases associated with the
domain name; and
`(II) its trademarks from being authorized for use on Internet sites
associated with such domain name; and
`(iii) a service that serves contextual or display advertisements to Internet
sites shall take reasonable measures, as expeditiously as practical, to
prevent its network from serving advertisements to an Internet site
accessed through such domain name.

Franky, I think you are splitting hairs on copyright infringement and "Internet piracy" read the title of the proposed bill;

SEC. 2. INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITIES.
Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities

It says "INFRINGING ACTIVITIES" ... trying to spin this to something else is of little use ...

Now the impetus of this proposed statue may be to control the infringement of music and movies — IMHO, this is really a rather futile effort anyway — we shall see the real outcome of this if enacted. (Placating lobbyists ...)

But the rampant free distribution of full length porn videos, with an infringing aspect, as certain "illegal tubes" are doing is an attractive political target. This law makes good excuse to act citing "infringement" rather than some other censorship or obsenity reasoning.

kazbalah · 11-20-2010, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

i think it is imperative that we take away rights, freedoms, due process and privacy to bring back the ratios of 1999.

LOL love it.

Maybe this is just another way for the US to keep its position as the richest country in the world.

Control over the internet. Control over ALL the domain names in the world. Sounds like a good plan if i was running it all.

VGeorgie · 11-20-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

The problem is that the proposed law removes most burden of proof from the government. It let's the doj shutdown sites without any lawsuit or hearing.

It's already been pointed out the government can take no action without a court order. This is no different than existing due process in the US (and most any other country), where the government can obtain a court order for seizure, and then defendants are provided the opportunity to sue for remedy.

The arguments regarding censorship are equally baseless in that it assumes the speech is protected. Stolen speech is not protected speech. It never has been, and hopefully never will.

I'm sure there will be instances of overreach by the government, but no laws are perfect. The current state of affairs is billions lost yearly by content providers and product innovators, going instead to leachers and scamsters. I am now convinced the net effect of the law will be to provide more content and better products at lower prices. I'm hopeful the government won't overextend itself, but if it does, these things always tend to self-correct because of the appeals process in this country. There ARE checks and balances.

11-16-2010, 06:23 PM	#56
mynameisjim Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,985	For better or worse, the internet will be policed by something similar to the FCC one day. Soon, everything will pass through the internet, do you really think that governments will just keep their hands off of that? lol. It naive daydreaming to think the internet is somehow immune to governments desire to control the flow information. __________________ jim (at) amateursconvert . com Amateurs Convert

11-17-2010, 05:59 AM	#61
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Most here supports policing, regulations and censorship on the Internet. If you don't you think Pornhub should be allowed to load up an entire site, because the owner of that site loaded up one video clip. Or didn't load up anything. You support Pornhub doing as they please because you don't want any policing, regulations and censorship on the Internet. Should a terrorist organisation be aloud uncontrolled access to the Internet so it can radicalize more people to be terrorist and send them money? Should someone be allowed to someone be allowed to libel and defame someone on the Internet with impunity? If you support an Internet that's not policed, regulated and censored that's what you want. Or do you only want the laws to apply to others and not to all? On another point. Anyone who thinks the banning of piracy will bring floods of customers back and turn the clock back to 2000. Is a naive dreamer. Manwin and others will not just roll over and let all their traffic disappear. They will buy the license of content and go 100% legal. They will need a few more servers, but the traffic they will get will support the cost. And then there are the legal Tubes with 6 minute clips to content with. It will take far more stringent laws to achieve the demise of Tubes and the loss of customers. Or a complete rethink of what and how we sell on the Adult Internet. And I don't see that happening. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

11-17-2010, 11:05 AM	#63
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Paul, if downloaders see tubes starting to be shut down, might they not become worried that their supply is about to be be cut-off and they'll hustle out and download as much as they can before they lose that source of "free" porn. I worry that they might "store up" and not need to belong to pay sites or patronize VOD sites for many years afterwards, thus keeping sites from quickly recovering and getting revenues like the old days. What do you and others think? __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

11-17-2010, 02:50 PM	#69
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	YouTube (under it's current ownership of Google, Inc) is not engaged in piracy for commercial purposes. There is a small percentage of user uploaded content that is infringing and YouTube removes that material upon notice by the copyright holder. YouTube licenses and pays royalties on much commercial content also. The YouTube argument of the Viacom v. Google case is not only irrelevant to this instant matter (of the proposed legislation) but also in effect a "red herring" argument ...

11-17-2010, 04:54 PM	#71
dmhubby Owner BlowBangGirls.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Arizona Posts: 185	All, Here is a good write up from CNET that explains things much better. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20020408-38.html A big government grab on power is the wrong way to go. These politicians are supporting this strongly now because the RIAA & MPAA is after them and lines their pockets. The true solution to digital piracy needs to come from technology and new models of operations. I agree stealing digital content is no different from stealing physical content. In my humble opinion the more the Government gets involved in the Internet the more the it will get screwed up. __________________ Rob Add Me On Twitter! BlowBang Girls Bathroom Creepers Our Network Our Cash Program

11-17-2010, 11:13 AM	#65
Dcat Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mexico Posts: 1,607	It always sounds like such a good thing at first proposal. Giving the government the right to censor anything on the Internet is D.A.N.G.E.R.O.U.S.

11-17-2010, 12:36 PM	#67
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,791	In my mind, shutting down thieving piracy sites is not the same thing as censorship as they had no right to the content in the first place. Therefore, the piracy site's rights are not being violated.

11-18-2010, 01:10 PM	#73
Quentin Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,280	More thoughts on COICA, these coming from Temple University law professor David Post. I believe these are pre-markup comments, so I suppose it's possible Mr. Post has a different opinion of the version that was voted on by the Senate committee today... but I doubt it. __________________ Q. Boyer

11-19-2010, 08:59 PM	#77
botfurom Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Wherever Posts: 482	Tubes should be gone. __________________ Hate chat traffic? Referred to us and earned $3.7 every sale!!! You have craiglist traffic? Give us a shot we pay $40 PPS. ICQ: 629933616 Yahoo: danicacmp Email: [email protected]