SexEducation.com & "Fair Use"
 

Dad's Homework ...
I have long believed - as so many have eloquently put it - that I was right - and that the SexEducation.com global magazine of sexual intercourse had a right to discuss and quote - content published on the internet.

Fair Use ...

That when considering copyright - one must remember the law's constitional purpose which is to promote science and the useful arts.


SexEducation.com is a global magazine of sexual intercourse.
The discussion of sex, indeed the discussion of certain sexual pervisions is absolutely necessary for their termination - which is most useful to the world.

SexEducation.com purports - that "pure vaginal orgasm" is a lie - which is most useful and beneficial to the sexual self-esteem of many-many women.

SexEducation.com research has created a gender neutral manner in which to explain "how to have sex".

The discussions that take place on SexEducation.com are a form of scientific research.


Fair Use allows the courts to avoid strict compliance of copyright and his highly specific on a per case bases.

A) - A quotation of content as a review or critique for the purpose of illustration or comment.
Graphics previously used by SexEducation.com were for the purpose of illustration and for comment.

B) Quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations.
Graphics used by SexEducation were for illustration and clarification of sexual practices.
SexEducation.com purports that the average of internet pornography is also a lie and that currently - what is being viewed by both minors and adults in the "public" areas on the internet - is misleading - and indirectly teaching falsehoods with regards to sex.
SexEducation.com compares this "new availability" of sexual images to the historical situations of the introducation of television to "emerging nations". "What they see is what they want." Adult Websites have increasingly become more extreme over the years - and my experience is that anal sex and ingestion of bodily fluids is on the increase. Both practices being assistive in the spread of all kinds of disease. It is necessary to discuss these issue as they have global implications.

C) - Quotations may be used in parody of some of the content of the work parodied.
The exploration of sexual hypocrisy is often best shown through parody.

D) Summary of an address or article with brief quotations, in a news report.
The manipulation of the chronological events of a video and/or editing of a video is a graphical "article" or "address" of a sexual event and therefore - can be quoted for the purpose of review with pro and/or con opinions of that "article".

E) - Incidental and fortuitous reproduction in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being
reported.
Many of the graphics - are incidental to the articles of SexEducation.com. The graphics could be any graphic to illustrate the same sexual practice or event. Often - the specific graphic used by SexEducation.com are irrelevant to the discussion - and the particular graphic used is quite random/incidental.
eg: All the graphics of AdultSexTechniques.com were swapped out with a complete set of Swoit.com graphics - yet the text barely changed.

You're comments are appreciated.
Please obey the GFY board rules and stay focossed on the topic.
If you wish to trash me - go do so in another thread.

I wish to get a handle on this "fair use" stuff ...
This is my live research of it as it pertains to the previous SexEducation.com website.

John E. Beacock
[email protected]
1-403-619-2739

Oh dear - the rather disturbed and possibly dangerous nutter is back.

I dare say others will pick the rest to pieces but with just a glance at it the above stands out. NOTHING you have done would be regarded by any SANE person as 'scholarly or technical'.

Whether you agree or not with my "observations" is irrelevant to my right to discuss those observations within the SexEducation.com magazine.

Again - another person speaking in absolutes - "NOTHING".
I am not pretending to be perfect, nor does my website - the discussions on SexEducation.com whether right or wrong is irrelevant. The quality of my website is also irrelevant to whether on a whole - I a global magazine of sexual intercourse has a right to "quote" graphics used throughout the internet - as evidence of pornography's affect on society.

Basic Rules of GFY

1. No spamming other boards! We don't spam other boards about GFY. We need the same courtesy!

2. Signature rules. Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of default size and color. New as of 1/1/2003: if your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 468x60 instead of a 120x60.

3. Anything goes, except do not post people's personal information, or attack people personally, stick to the issues. Also don't post links to illegal sites.

Will GFY enforce their own rules?

Ok. So what rule did he break? He didn't even link to your site.
<img src=http://www.jesterdesigns.com/GFYshit/hello.jpg>
I have downloaded and uploaded the above picture for educational purposes only.

Is this the quality of this board?
Will GFY enforce it's rules?"

"...stick to the issues ..."

Come on ... at least for one thread.

Is the adult industry so afraid of this "hamburger flipping" Father that - I get banned from board after board after board.

Will GFY allow an actual discussion thread of "Fair Use" to take place?

Or will GFY allow this thread to also contain complete lies like "convicted child molestor" ?

Come on down to the Internext show and a bunch of us will give you a private seminar about fair use.

:1orglaugh

:thumbsup

What fucking fair use?
License the pictures or don't use them. It's simple ain't it?

I can not afford to - otherwise I would.
I am not against the adult industry.
I do believe some changes need to be made though.

Adults have a right to reasonable access to adult content.
Children have a right to reasonable access to the information age.

Somewhere - in between these two rights - is the new evolving adult industry.

Why are you even bothering to ask? You've had how many threads with how many people telling you how many hundreds of times you're stealing pics?

If someone answers you, all you're going to do is start whining about "fluff and fodder" and try to make clever sounding statements consisting of random words in a sentence structure.

You're not understanding. This means illustrating or commenting on the source of the content. I can show a clip from The Hulk in a review of that movie, for instance. I can't use it uncredited and unreferenced as a image on my site.

NO - I do not believe it is that simple.
Freedom of speech never is.

Intend to present - my research live here for discussion.

I do not want to be "blinded" by curses and swearing ... like I admit I was in other threads.

LadyMischief presented some valuable links - that I missed because of my "emotions". I would prefer this does not ocurr in this thread.

It is that simple. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with copyright.

You sexeducation are a DUMB ASS!




:321GFY

who is this dork? I must have missed his first few appearances.

"Fluff & fodder" was used when the post mainly cursed or had personal attacks.

I am presenting my current research from the
Standford University Article ...
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/articles/

He's some nutjob who thinks he's above the law because he 'publishes' an online magazine. Or something.

him and his research makes me wanna scratch my nuts.

The trend I am noticing is that, before he showed up here, he had a position. He felt he was within the law. Now, it is impossible to show him otherwise. Any information you show him, he interprets as showing he is right.

This is a very dangerous attitude. Better to err on the side of caution, than to play armchair lawyer and interpret every law in your own favor. That just won't end well.

I agree I made some of those mistakes on the PREVIOUS SexEducation.com website.

I will endeavor not to do that again.

That does not mean that the bulk of my website was in violation.

However, I am questioning my previous use of "background images" as being - a copyright violation as they had no comment about the article.

From my interpretation - I can continue to use background images as a "style" for my website IF those images are 2257 compliant and licensed?

Is this correct?

"Weapons of mass destruction were found far previously to the liberation of Iraq and far previous to World Trade Tower destruction - propaganda."

I'm a late comer to GFY and too lazy to read the 750 post thread, so I have no idea what this guy is talking about.

At first glance he seems quite a few fries indeed short of a happy meal, though.

Have you licensed, or taken them?
If the answer to that is 'yes' then you can.

And then on top of those "licensed" background images (which some were not previously - but will be from now on) - I can quote text, graphics and video under the issues presented in my first post?

Some responses to your bizarre interpretations.

I have already covered this one.

This means that you can quote a passage of something, if it helps to explain what that person was saying. I do this in Philosophy... You read a long, complicated article. To explain the article in a simpler, shorter summary, it sometimes helps to quote important pieces of the passage. Since you never refer to the original work, this does not apply to your practices.

While parody is a great form of commentary, you sticking other peoples' images on your page, without comment, to illustrate points unrelated to the original work, without a slightest irony, is not parody.

This refers to summarizing a speech or document, again. It also says "in a news report". This seems well removed from the practice of stealing video and editing it for length.

You've missed the point on this one. This covers cases like the following... A bank is being robbed. You are reporting on the robbery, and next to the bank is a TV store. If what is on the TV screens in the window is copyrighted, this section explains that it is still legal for you to show the video.

My point here has been to reply separately to each of your bizarre interpretations. More generally, I want you to understand what is wrong with what you are doing. Your interpretations are giant leaps, from a simple definition to something unrelated that would cover your butt. This is not how the law works.

So your contention is that stealing others' graphics, artwork and pictures for your fun and profit is equivalent to a "quotation" or an "Incidental and fortuitous reproduction in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported"?

You need a lawyer you fucking idiot. That isn't "research" you did, it's grasping at straws. Do some more "research" and you will find that your defense is the exact same defense put forward by every content thief in almost every lost case. Content thieves always feel that what they do is fair use. It's the one factor they always have in common.

It's like you are taking Copyright Law 101 and now you want to debate 50 phds on the subject.

NO ... my current thinking ... hence this discussion is ...
I will not use any graphics from usenet ... or those ... "bank robbery sources" ... but rather quote - give credit for - and provide the URL to - the "free tour" areas of websites only?

This would be giving credit to those graphics "owners" if I am understanding things correctly ...

NOTE: I have no idea how you're doing this multiple quoting ... please do not consider it "bumping" if I go back to your post to discuss each point individually.

Please obey the GFY board rules and stay focossed (sic)on the topic.

3. Anything goes, except do not post people's personal information, or attack people personally, stick to the issues. Also don't post links to illegal sites.

The issue in question IS being addressed in most posts, it's you don't have a CLUE to what YOU have decided is right or wrong. Get an Attorney nitwit and learn from someone that KNOWS and is UNbiased by delusions of things he perceives as truths from God only knows where.


I wish to get a handle on this "fair use" stuff ...

It's called, pay an attorney? YOU aren't educated in the legal area to make decisions
as to what is or isn't "fair use"

Will GFY allow an actual discussion thread of "Fair Use" to take place?

You expect GFY members to quote you chapter and verse pertaining to LEGAL advice? I'm trained in Architecture, I'm a certified machinist AND a welder, not the law. Not many here are lawyers and the lawyers won't deal with you for free. If you think otherwise, you are making yourself out to be more of a fool than I thought to begin with.

Nothing against a Paysite owner, but they aren't someone to get legal advice from. They could give you ideas, but in your particular case and site, do theyhave ANY experience in that area? Doubtful. AND you are dealing with mostly Americans, so what would they know of Canadian laws? That would like asking a TGP owner how a newsgroup is affected by laws.

The above areas were used for examples, not saying IF one of the above does or doesn't know about the things mentioned. Point being, you want to ask the carpenters how to BUILD the house and they build it from a plan from a TRAINED professional. Does that make ANY sense at all to you?

Also, on the "magazine" angle, I believe there are LAWS concerning HOW you can be a legal magazine, whether its online or hardcopy. But there it is again, an attorney would have to answer that. I *do* know that 'fair use' only pertains to RECOGNIZED publications. No doubt, being at least an incorporation and who knows what else. I can tell you how much weight will sit on a certain sized joist, but not the legal answers to what is a recognized rag.

On the photo use?? Ummm sponsors grant you license to use the content to SELL, **NOT** to teach with. Oops, yet another technicality that you break. No where have I seen in a sponsors TOS that they grant you free use of content however you want. So the 2257 is a DEAD issue. I seriously doubt you could even buy content now, any content seller would be foolish indeed to open themselves up to a site such as yours. Most agreements DO however reserve the right to rescind the license to ANYone for misuse, and Oops, YOU don't dictate what the acceptable uses are.

I fed some sexeducation's rants into the garbage generator. Enjoy!


<font face="Courier">
When a lie. You will talk about the clitoris-glans from website-to-website. I have sex from Orgasm - does anyway. The earth was the non-physical part biological changes begin. In laymans terms - those stuck. For hundreds of a global myth. I have an inch penis. But Peaking - all men Internet pornography is no such thing. Oh yes - he can. A global myth. Internet pornography is Variation - does not give a males glans penis insertion because no-one does. And I have an inch penis. But there is most likely knowledge - begins when you peaking - or female, they are expecting sex no need for words will not believe these lies. A males glans penis insertion sex, regardless of Anticipation

If the guy with an orgasm from the average pornographic website. In laymans terms, he can not stimulate the exceptions - does not work. Peaking, is most likely knowledge, not stimulated. For hundreds of penis tip develops from the micro- expressions. You will find that a lie.</font>

:Graucho

Hey Gothweb you are beating a dead horse!
Just ask LM. WE have to just ignore this guy when he post!



:winkwink:

This is as discussion board - this is a discussion.

My primary suppliers are US based.

I intend to link each graphic on SexEducation.com to my affiliate program which sells their content.

Money is the issue - look at the traffic these threads cause.
Money - dictates - who will be a supplier - not your opinion.
I have never had a charge back - EVER and have extremely high conversion ratios.

Money talks - bs walks.
The business that SexEducation.com provides is solid unlike many "fly by nighters" in the industry.

I just have to solve some of the mistakes I was making previously.

If only he wasn't such an easy target. :)

Amazingly the child porn subject hasn't popped up in this thread. To those new to this guy please remember he also thinks publishing pictures of naked children next to those of hardcore pronography with little or no justification for either is perfectly acceptable. It's also acceptable to this guy to encourage minors to view hardcore pornography for 'education' purposes. Combine that with Dad and you start to get the picture...

BTW - none of the above are conjecture. The pictures were very much present on his 'site'. Others are also stating he is 'known' to the police for child sex issues and abuse. Obviously that one is hard to prove but given everything else...

Dude, you're one dumb motherfucker.

Fluff & fodder ...
Go to the thread titled "SexEducation.com" to make this type of post or discuss the topic thread.

1 yr old domain name, so YOU are the more important aff eh? lol? Also I am not a 19 yr old, nor even in my 30's. Bump that number. I've worked in adult longer than you were in school.

Point being is, you must obey Canadian AND American laws and you won't even listen to common sense. You just fluffed and foddered my points. As to content - sponsors, wonder how many sponsors you will have now? You've shown utter stupidity throughout this whole ordeal.

And you recklessly endanger the adult business without a qualm, just a paltry excuse trying to cover up the fact that you can't even pay to consult an attorney. If you made as much as you just tried to let on then you'd not think twice about laying out the cash to get solid advice.

Someone here will agree with you I'm sure... hope the judge accepts them as a legal expert when they haul you into court. Its YOUR rearend riding on it, not any of ours.

BTW, you are dead wrong on the v*ginal orgasm. :Graucho

Fluff & Fodder ...
Go to the topic thread titled "SexEducation.com" if you wish to make this type of post or stick with the topic.

The only fly-by-nighter I see here is mister Sexeducation himself. He already said he can't hire a lawyer, and something tells me even if he could, he wouldn't.. He's far too comfortable living in his delusionary dreamworld. I'm not posting in this thread again, I did want to state that. He'll figure it all out when he's behind bars.. I can see it now, his lawyer walking away shaking his head, and Mister Sexxeducation muttering Fluff and fodder and screaming NO AROUSED GENITALS OR BODILY FLUIDS ON ANY DIRECTLY ACCESSED DOMAIN... Sad little man.

why should I follow your rules, you're not following any.

You go girl!


:winkwink:

"aff" ???

I intend to obey Canadian, US and UK laws simultaneously.
This is a discussion of those laws.

" ... And you recklessly endanger the adult business without a qualm..." Aaah so that's it ... but how is the "hamburger flipping" Father endangering the adult business?

How?

Ok, I lied.. Let me explain this to you in the most simple of terms. When you participate knowingly or unknowingly in illegal activitity and you are in ANY way associated with the adult industry, which you're attemping to do, it NEGATIVELY REFLECTS on those of us who do this for a living. YOU THREATEN OUR LIVLIHOOD BY YOUR VERY EXISTANCE, you fool. You wonder why people are angry? The bs you are pulling makes it harder for those of us who DO follow the law to gain the legitimacy we require to conduct business. There's ENOUGH prejudice against the adult industry without you reinforcing it by engaging in illegal activities.

No, it's not a discussion.

It's you doing the same thing you always do. You whining over and over hoping someone will tell you it's okay to steal pics and use them on your site.

You must be starved for attention because even a fucken retard by now would have figured out what people were telling him.

Yes ...
That is it - but off topic.
No aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids on any directly accessed domain name.

You feel this is a threat to your pocket book?
And you may be temporarily right.

But IMO - this will come true.

The average adult content consumer is more then prepared to click on a 18+ button now. This is a good move for the adult industry to regain the respect of the consumer which has been lost. I don't feel this is a bad thing.

You are a complete moron if you think you will affect my pocketbook in ANY way directly... You mean less than a WORM in my world.. and a worm is useful, at least. You are so full of it you can't get over repeating your little mantras long enough to realize that you ARE WRONG. And you COMPLETELY missed my point, too. I almost feel sorry for the way you continually make a fool of yourself, and I feel you deserve everything you get if you keep subjecting yourself to it by continuing to open your woefully uninformed mouth.

You LOVE talking about stuff you have no idea of, don't you?

Jeez, you still here?

Sex Education and the Adult Business are not the same thing, and should not mix...especially when minors may be involved. They don't have to be. You should be able to present your "education" with out presenting porn at the same time.

I took classes in Junior High, High School and College that were "sex ed" classes. Not once did a teacher need to use pornography to illustrate a point.

And you just came to the root of the entire thing in one post ;) Btw, hit me up sweets!

I have to go "flip burgers" (work)... roflmao
but will be back again later/tomorrow.

Have a good day everyone.

John E. Beacock
[email protected]
1-403-619-2739