Has Copyright owners actions affected your choice?

[one eyed jack]

By the way, you say its not about copyright infringement but thats exactly the raison d'etre of the whole premise.

If it wasnt about that then how is it made legal by the courts and O2??? Ive asked this question serveral times and maybe I dont understand the answer you gave but its the same groove I'm stuck on with understanding

[Hickster]

There were MANY innocent people involved, myself included who had NO recourse to the LAW as we did not have the ?500 to fight the claim.

Also remember you are in the Porn industry and see nothing wring with it.

There maybe two kinds of people in the World, those who agree with the Porn industry and those who don't, personally I would hate to think of my Mother or Sister or Daughter, or cousin taking part, maybe I am strange but that is just me, however and this is a BIG however, someone who is accused of sharing one of these often colorfully titled films may well be to embarrassed to actually fight the claim knowing that their peers would see that they were linked to that title. Especially when they do a search for their accuser and find.....

From Wikipedia: "Being paid ?100 a shoot, Honey started working for David Sullivan's Private Magazine[7] and European hardcore porn magazines such as Rodox/Color Climax, a Danish company that in addition to more "standard" hardcore material also produced bestiality and child pornography"

Now YOU may be ok with that, but to be honest I don't think I know a single person in my social circle who would be... Just a thought!

[one eyed jack]

Because if it was about copyright infringement you would get the offending material taken down (which is very easy to do)

Ive already answered this earlier on in this thread. Please take time to read what Ive posted already so we dont go around in circles please. It all comes back to the same answer

Not clawing back money, creating money out of something that simply no longer makes money perhaps?

I dont think this applies tio me but if it did, yeah...and? You answered your own question. Even if the answer doesnt apply to my motives. If it did i would happily state that like those who state their reasons for being in porn is to get their leg over, again, that doesnt apply to me but no doubt this is what you think and I have no control over how you think but Ill say this, you dont know me as a person but you';ll judge me by your standards anyway. That comment says more about you than it does about me.

If you are not doing this for them, why have you agreed for them to take 75% of any profits?

I answered that too. Please read my posts again for the answer. Gentlemen I think you've all shown your cards o this. I remain resolute in my opinions even more now.

[one eyed jack]

Hickster, if you were faced with the same situation again, given your experience then what would you do?

I dont believe with all the obstructions the law puts in everyones way that there is no legal recourse to this. The justice system is clogged up with legal recourses.

Its like if my neighbour parks in front of my house I can put a clamp on his car and charge him for me to unlock it. There is always a legal recourse but if people choose to pay it then they are allowing it to happen. You see how this works?

If I choose not to make a stand Im effectively saying its ok for people to share my stuff. That One Eyed Jack guy is suddenly cool he gives his stuff away for free!

If its the only option available to us right now then hopefully this will springboard a better and amenable option but if this is the only option available to us right now then of course its going to be exploited

Except its not called speculative invoicing no more because it isnt if the courts and o2 are involved.

I'll go one better...Why dont you provide a service that can deal with this.?You'll be effectively going after the bad guys and protecting the innocent and ministrating it above board. We dont want paying. You can earn money just reduce the file sharing of producers content and the gigs yours. You seem to know a lot about it. Maybe you can do a better job, I bet youd get a lot of sign ups based on performance if it worked out.

I seriously doubt any producer is doing this for a huge cash payout anyway. I dont think money is the motive alone for this. Its more about the chance to make a stand. You already know that producers stand to make 25% and if you check any VOD site over the years offering the same in return you will find a majority of producers have not found that worthwhile at all.

Speculative invoicing to my mind is sending out letters to just anybody with the aim of them paying up. To my knowledge thats not what is being done here.

[one eyed jack]

Seriously Hickster, can you state hand on heart and swear that a lot of those people caught will be innocent or are you so angered by what happened to you you cannot accept they may well be caught bang to rights?

People are downloading all the time. How can you honestly know they are innocent?


How do you determine that someone is innocent when they tell you that Ben Dovers movie ended up in their bittorrent tray but they had no idea how it got there?

I would say this was a serious case for ATVOD to get involved if children were downloading it wouldnt you agree? They wouldnt be exactly doing their job and complaints would be in order if they were not doing what is in their mission parameters to be protecting children, would it?

I understand this isnt your concern but for me as a producer, this is all part of the larger game at play here.

I'm all for protecting innocent people but I havent met one yet directly and by removing myself from the equation how will I ever know? This is as much a learning curve for me also

[Hickster]

Of course I cannot swear hand on heart, that all of the people will be innocent, some people have VERY bad taste and may well have downloaded some the material, HOWEVER we are talking of a VERY flawed system here.

I had NO recourse to law, when I was accused, I was told I would have to employ a Copyright Solicitor which would have cost me ?500, about the same cost as ACS:LAW was demanding from me, and I was told by the Solicitor I spoke to that I may not win the case as it was a Civil matter, and it was not done on Beyond doubt but that it was judged on balance of probability. If I lost, it could have cost me thousands. I was lost in the swamp of legality. And that is without the so called file being anywhere on my PC, I even offered for them to look but to no avail, (They said it would cost to much!)

I was angry, but no, I am not any more, I have channeled that anger into organising what I have done. With like minded people who have taken it further than I could have dreamt of, it has led to the Citizens Advice being fully briefed, and also the initial Consumer Focus intervention at the Court Case, and also now Open Rights, who will be in Court Tomorrow at the appeal hearing where Golden Eye will attempt to include yourself and the others to their "Copyright Farm"

One point I would like to address with you though, is you seem disgusted with ACS:LAW and yet ok with Golden Eye, I have to say, that at this point in the game, ACS:LAW had done nothing more than what Golden Eye have done, indeed ACS:LAW only demanded ?500 - ?600, whereas Golden Eye demanded ?700, until they were neutered at the initial Court Hearing.

We will see what happens. If they win tomorrow and get the names added then that will be another load of Producers who will come under scrutiny, if they lose they will have to give it all up, as I said, this is NOTHING to do with Copyright Infringement, the point that they refused a Test case on the ground that it was not financially viable tells you that.

With less than 1000 letters to send out, if they get 50% to pay up that will be ?350,000 no small beer, for what many regard as lame material. Of course , that is top end, Crossly stated that between 25% and 50 % were paying up, that was a lie, but even so, imagine if they had a 10% pay out, I think it will be much lower than that, (everyone knows what this scheme is, who has watched the One Show on BBC or seen the Channel 4 News about it, amongst various other print publications.) that would be ?49,000, you can see the figures are huge, even at a small percentage, don't forget GEIL factored this at being 25% of 10000 IPs, at ?700 a time, that is 2500 iPs that works out at ?1,750,000 of which GEIL take 75%, but of course it isn't about the money is it? Well it isn't now, thanks to previous victims of this plan.

BTW Even GEIL don't claim it is about downloading, strictly uploading as far as they are concerned, it is of course again disingenuous as most people who download (Legal files, yes they do exist) don't even realise they are uploading automatically!

[Hickster]

Here is the gamechanger, to bad the old Producers, want to cling to the old ways.. Bit like the Music Industry, they don't realise that people DON'T NEED the old system of Studios anymore, they are doing it for themselves.. Evolve or die.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/19916324

Reminds me actually of that idiot from the MPAA who likened the VCR to the Boston Strangler, no really see here... "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" Jack Valenti

Can you imagine saying that anyone who owns a VCR only bought one to infringe Copyright? Pfff

[one eyed jack]

I dont regard myself as an old producer, stuck in his ways. Ive embraced change for a long time and unlike a lot of producers who choose to remain silent burying their head in the sand.

It took me a lot of hard work to get where I am and I'm not interested in being popular with everyone because of my opinions subscribing to the notion I would rather be hated for who I am than loved for what I am not.

One of the biggest problems of this industry when under attack is how everyone scatters like mice rather than band together and stand for what they believe in.