Has Copyright owners actions affected your choice?

[Bob Singleton]

bpaw wrote:


> Although I can?t see the logic in saying downloading is
> stealing. Stealing is depriving someone of a physical
> possession. I do understand it is depriving income from
> producers if someone makes the choice of downloading rather
> than buying.

That's the problem in a nutshell... people thinking that downloading something for free isn't stealing. Let me tell you, it fucking well IS stealing! Depriving someone of their income is just as much "theft" as depriving them of their car or mobile phone. The problem comes from people thinking that physical property counts for more than intellectual property. Let me tell you, when I see my photos being used by people who have no right using them (and worse, edit out my logo/copyright info and try and pass it off as their own work) I consider that the same as them breaking into my house and stealing my camera. Until morons like you can get that concept into their empty heads the problem will continue.

[muswell]

Something that occurs to me is that many old time producers are complaining that tube sites downloading etc are stifling their profits. But its only relatively recently that certificated and therefore "legal" porn has been available. Previously most porn sold in Soho at least was in fact bootlegged and little of the revenue made its way to the producer/distributors but they seemed to prosper then.

[one eyed jack]

So that justifies downloading it for free then Muswell?

Is it simply just an excuse to justify not paying for what has cost someone else who has invested in it?

How would you feel if you was in that position where you spent 5 to 10k and knew that complete strangers wanted to watch it for free? Would you be ok just because you knew they watched it for free knowing that you could never recoup your investment to make another movie?

Or would you play the worlds smallest violin to that producers sob story? It seems to me that its acceptable to use the excuse that the material is old or its made its money or whatever to justify the same thing

A burglar could justify breaking int your house by saying they had to earn a living. You had what they aint got and just took it because, well the insurance would pay for it and if you aint got one, then more fool you.

All I hear are excuses to justify the action. No one will admit they are wrong on this so it seems the adult induistry wont admit it is wrong persuing it with the same bloody mindedness that is afforded them.

See how this works?

[bpaw]

@bob singleton

I am simply describing the way the law is. Stealing is a criminal offence, whilst copyright infringement is a civil matter. I suppose me being a moron should know better. I am simply concerned about innocent people being caught in the crossfire of what GEIL are doing. Hell, even the Police let people off who are innocent.

Firstly, you quoted my words, but left out the part where I said ?In some ways, it is worse than stealing because peoples jobs and livelihoods could be at risk?. Never mind, I am sure you got your point across.

Secondly, I have every sympathy with the copyright holders situation regarding copyright infringement. I will still continue this opinion despite people like you.

Thirdly, in my job I am one of those unsung heroes who actively ensures the company and the people within it do not infringe copyright, and help protect people like you (Hell, I won?t even let anyone choose their own wallpaper on their desktop!). Never mind, I will still continue to do this despite people like you.

[Hickster]

Whilst I can understand your anger, there is no point bringing that to the forum like that, noone else has expressed the anger you do, I was accused of Copyright Infringement with NO WAY of proving I didn't do it. I could not provide my PC for forensic testing, neither would they engage in any other proper evidence gathering they merely relied on the "It is your IP so you are guilty"

We know that ACS:LAW and Davenport Lyons acted in an illegal way, even their regulatory body decided that. Golden Eye International are doing the same with the SAME people involved.

I not Mr Singleton that on your website, you state; " No material from this web site nor any website or social network page owned, operated, licensed or controlled by Bob Singleton/Rock Gig Photos may be saved, copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, downloaded, transmitted, exhibited, stored, manipulated, projected, edited, posted, distributed, used or altered in any way without the express written permission of Bob Singleton."

May I state that that is a crock, for the following reasons.

You say I cannot "save a copy", well show me the law that says I can't do that? Ctrl-S very simple, do you really want to get so legalistic that you drive people away from your site?

Also merely by visiting your website 99.9% of peoples browsers will "save" ALL the images that are viewed on your site, it is called a CACHE. Now , are you suggesting they are all breaking the law? or do you want them ALL to turn off their CACHE and HISTORY? TBH your website is not worth the bother, I would go to Google Images and see what is there IF I wanted a photo of a band, I am sure you are not the exclusive photographer for all the bands in the world.

But please understand the thought of someone DELETING a copyright notice off of a piece of work I had done would infuriate me no end.

My Blog has taken hundreds of hours of which I have not taken a single penny, I have have been in contact with over a hundred people in relation to these claims, and the blog has had over 100,000 hits, I have used the "Copyleft" principle, ANYONE can take my stuff WITHOUT permission! But I understand, that does not work for everyone, and neither should it.

I would be interested in your views however on the following. Also from your website.

In the first instance any breach of copyright will be invoiced at ?250.00 per stolen image or part thereof. Failure to pay will result in legal action.

Where do you get this ?250, figure from ? How many people have you persued, I ask this because many producers have already told me that when they contact a site and tell them they own the copyright the site usually removes it.

With the Golden Eye action, they are NOT pursuing the removal of torrents or even streaming forms of their material, strange, that is because this is NOT anything to do with Anti-Piracy, but everything to do with creating an "Alternative revenue stream" for a failing business!

[one eyed jack]

I dont see the problem. They have the right to appeal

Even murderers get to appeal on their sentence when they are actually guilty of murder

[Hickster]

Who has the right of appeal? The people who are accused who claim they are innocent? Or Golden Eye International, so they can add more "Copyright Trolls" to their list?

GEIL ARE appealing, (well not in that sense you understand, and how ridiculous to call yourself "international")

[one eyed jack]

Im referring to those accused whether innocent or not, all have a right to appeal against claims

[Hickster]

@OEJ

That is the problem though, they DO NOT have the right of appeal. Only if it goes to Court will they get that right, however in the mean time they will have to explain to their families why they are being targeted by Porn people.

This load on the family is unacceptable, Golden Eye have already indicated that they would NOT be happy going to Court so they will engage in a series of "Letter ping pongs" no doubt with increasing series of pressure being applied.

We will see, but all I can see is the Public launching a massive backlash against your industry for attempting to exploit and extract money from people and at Christmas I ask you, as if they didnt have enough to worry about already. This will be see for what it is, a cynical attempt by a self professed multi millionaire to screw people for money.

Take a look at this quote from Ben Dover, and just think, this is the same guy running this tawdry affair:

??My critics do affect me badly. Sometimes so badly that I have to leave my 6 bedroom mansion in a gated executive park in Surrey, get in my Ferrari and drive to the airport to fly out to my luxury villa in Spain and take a long leisurely swim in my beautiful blue sparkling pool overlooking the Jalon valley!??

Makes you wonder... right?

[bpaw]

ZDNet article:

http://www.zdnet.com/uk/o2-hands-over-c ... 000008270/

"a spokesman for O2 told ZDNet on Tuesday that the final tally was "just under 1,000".

Just under 1,000. WTF. A third. Why is that?

May I ask OEJ what you would have thought of Julian Becker if he said a year ago that they have say 2,000 IP addresses found downloading your films, and a year later they have 600 names?

Obviously take in to account duplicate names to different IPs, what about the rest?

I'll tell you. Unknowns! IP addresses logged by Alireza Torabi and can't be linked to an actual subscriber. That is what you call evidence of faulty monitoring. I call in to question the actual near 1,000 as being faulty, and innocent people will be targeted.

What price justice?