Has Copyright owners actions affected your choice?

[muswell]

To answer the question which started this thread i.e. does/would the involvement of certain producers in a scheme to extract payments from alleged copyright infringers by threatening legal action affect the decision to purchase that persons product. Despite the fact that the basis on which these demands have been made is legally dubious as IP tracking does not reliably constitute proof and that the letters are designed to intimidate and coerce because there is no real possibility of a successful legal action. my answer would be no. Porn producers are responding to an offer from a third party to pursue revenue at no cost to themselves so why not take a punt in these straightened times. Only a fraction of the money demanded is destined for the producer. I think OEJ's point is essentially that it's the principle that producers have a right to profit from their work that is being pursued. The FBI copyright notices that appear at the front of american films are there because in the 1970's the Mitchell Brothers of San Fransisco who produced "Behind the green Door" a porn classic pursuing the same principle demanded that their rights be protected from the mafia.
The problem with copyright is that the law is immensely complex and there is no straightforward remedy for someone who thinks their rights have been breached. Music corporations each employ a large staff of Lawyers full time in their attempt to hold onto copyrights and they are not always successful. So I can understand OEJ's frustration at not being able to control or profit from "sharing".
However the music industry has been successful at adapting to new challenges. When it became obvious that they could not contain music sharing on the web they turned to iTunes and similar sites which charge for downloads and turned a potential threat into a revenue stream by understanding how their audience preferred to access music.
I think that most downloaders are more interested in finding what they want than avoiding payment. So perhaps the porn industry needs something similar. It seems that most people who download want porn in shortish clips rather than DVD's which may only contain a few minutes of the model or action that interests them and may not wish to subscribe to a website that has masses of content but again only a few minutes that are of particular interest. A problem for someone looking to follow a particular performer is that their work may be unavailable or hard to find so an iPorn site that contains material from many sources might be tempting to them.

[bpaw]

@muswell

Totally in agreement with you, and your thoughts on downloaders.

I believe that the music industry were more affected and had to act for three reasons:

Firstly, the material is very quickly downloaded and hard to monitor.
Secondly, anyone can rip their own version of a track list, so is very hard to monitor.
Thirdly, they actually realised you can make money by providing what consumers want.

It is welcoming muswell that you have given your opinion as regards my original question, as the question can get lost in the quagmire of a tit-for-tat exchange between the fence that divides this debate.

The main reason I asked the question in the first place is because I believe that what GEIL are doing will end up the same as what happened to ACS:Law / DL / TBI etc. These were all negative for all involved. No producers were named in these cases, but the GEIL case is different. This case has all producers named and are all public. THAT is the problem!

OEJ Said: "Really hard to see your points Hickster and bpaw, you can blind us with morals and science of right all day long. I know what side of the fence i m on with this issue"

OEJ, don't take my word or Hicksters word if you don't like it. Read your NPO judgement, and read the words from the Judge. YOU (Through GEIL) are targeting innocent people.

OEJ, you might as well go out your front door and point a finger to people in your street and accuse them of being infringers.

[bpaw]

BTW OEJ, I didn't click on the video in the link you provided. I spend a lot of my time in the work that I do to protect the Copyright of producers like you. Imagine how bad things would be without people like me stopping others from downloading copyright material!

I will still continue to do this because it is one of my responsibilities in the job that I do!

[one eyed jack]

bpaw, I have no idea who you are to be thankful or grateful to but fair enough. You are protecting producers like me as in pron producers or producers of multi media related articles?

Just to make a point, I'm not in the court room pointing fingers at anybody. I just have someone representing my interests.

If its so bad and innocent people are being targetted then Im sure the courts will be brought to task and I am sure the media wouldve had a field day with that one if it were true

What about the TV watchdogs...They wouldve featured this on TV if it was as bad as you claim

No doubt there will be dodgy pictures of me seething with rage and froth drooling from my mouth holding an axe, bug eyed like Winston Silcott to reinforce a scary image backed up by the words "Pornographer Seeks Compensation From Innocent People" in bold letters

[bpaw]

OEJ said: ?bpaw, I have no idea who you are to be thankful or grateful to but fair enough. You are protecting producers like me as in pron producers or producers of multi media related articles??

I'm actually not claiming special thanks. I'm one of many people who work for a company and use tools to stop people in the company from downloading copyright material. I have had F.A.S.T. come in and vet us for compliancy, and they said the work that we do is exemplary. I am one of many people who protect the company we work for from such claims of copyright infringement. The BSA hammers companies who infringe big style, and I completely recognise the right of copyright.

OEJ said: ?Just to make a point, I'm not in the court room pointing fingers at anybody. I just have someone representing my interests. ?

At the beginning, you may have been approached by GEIL as did others. As we have seen, some chose to sign up and others didn?t. The NPO Court case and the comments from the Judge gave the producers a choice of deciding what to do next. They either decided the ?Hear no evil, see no evil? approach, or decided that the Judge is wrong about innocent people or decided what the hell.

The only other choice is they were duped.

Either way OEJ, it isn?t good is it? All producers associated with GEIL are giving them the go ahead to do what they do.

OEJ Said: ?If its so bad and innocent people are being targetted then Im sure the courts will be brought to task and I am sure the media wouldve had a field day with that one if it were true

What about the TV watchdogs...They wouldve featured this on TV if it was as bad as you claim?

Sorry to say it again OEJ, but read the NPO Court judgement! How many times does it have to be said that the NPO Court case is not in any way a fact that ANYBODY has been found guilty of copyright infringement! WHY would any media be bothered with such un-important news?

The real news is the letters, just like as it has always been in the past. There has never been a Channel 4 news item about an NPO. Let the actual true and to be soon factual situation of completely innocent people receiving the letter of claim come forward. That is what makes me feel so comfortable with my argument.

OEJ Said: ?No doubt there will be dodgy pictures of me seething with rage and froth drooling from my mouth holding an axe, bug eyed like Winston Silcott to reinforce a scary image backed up by the words "Pornographer Seeks Compensation From Innocent People" in bold letters?

I don?t know where you are going there OEJ. I would say that that anybody who puts themselves forward in the public eye is always vulnerable to ridicule.

An innocent person who has been accused and faced with a lot of legal jargon they don?t understand would be pacified by images of ridicule of their oppressors.

That is the whole point isn?t it? The letters are accusing the subscriber of downloading porn. These people need to see that the Judge in the Court that granted the NPO knows that innocents will be targeted. In no way does the letter say ?OK we think you may have downloaded copyright material, but you might be innocent?.

What else can we do to get the message across to the unfortunate people who receive the letters?

[one eyed jack]

BPAW: WHY would any media be bothered with such un-important news?

I wouldve thought Hicksters and others allegation it was a scam would be an important enough point

BPAW: I would say that that anybody who puts themselves forward in the public eye is always vulnerable to ridicule.

One should accept this as par for the course given that porn is at the centre of most peoples moral compass. Ridicule comes with the territory. ive learned to deflect it over the years. From all fronts.

The point of that comment was mainly levelled at Hicksters choice of pictures as the media would have portrayed a mass murderer. They wouldnt choose a nice picture of the killer smiling pensively cuddling a teddy bear and looking dreamily into the camera would they? !laugh!...Unless of course it was the only picture in existence.

BPAW: What else can we do to get the message across to the unfortunate people who receive the letters?

There we go again, "the unfortunate people that receive these letters". Are we to assume automatically that everyone is innocent. Basically you are implying that if GEIL get 3000 names out the hat from O2 that letters would be sent out directly to all 3000 of them regardless of infringing copyright or not. I dont think that would put O2 in a good light would it?

To refer to post that started this thread, I wouldve thought O2 customers reading that wouldve left them in droves by now if that was the case

You may well know more about this than i do given your line of work you might be an authority but I am still not convinced.

The way i see it, I've been given a legitimate stand to comment on this than a person on the side lines having just a mere opinion.

[one eyed jack]

What is F.A.S.T stand for?

I am aware of FACT (The Federation Against Copyright Theft)

[bpaw]

FAST stands for Federation Against Software Theft, and is an organisation that is funded by major software businesses. The kind of organisation that businesses have to deal with regards copyright issues.

BPAW: What else can we do to get the message across to the unfortunate people who receive the letters?

OEJ Said: There we go again, "the unfortunate people that receive these letters". Are we to assume automatically that everyone is innocent. Basically you are implying that if GEIL get 3000 names out the hat from O2 that letters would be sent out directly to all 3000 of them regardless of infringing copyright or not. I dont think that would put O2 in a good light would it?

As for O2 subscribers, they are already dwindling from an unhealthy position:

http://recombu.com/digital/news/uk-broa ... 11053.html

With below 580,000 subscribers, it won't be long before they fall below the 400,000 subscribers necessary to be eligible for monitoring!

OK, too much a generalisation in my comment about unfortunate people receiving the letters. I only speak of the innocent people only, which has been my tone in all my posts.

On BeingThreateded here:

http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/

"You are guilty if you committed the alleged infringement yourself or authorised someone else to commit it using your connection. Sorry, the advice and information on this site is only for the innocent. If you are guilty, we can only advise you to get a solicitor."

That is absolutely true from my perspective.

I guess OEJ that I'm able to say I have seen the results of the monitoring from Alireza Torabi for ACS:Law. You or anyone else here has provided any evidence that the monitoring is not flawed.

Until someone does provide evidence that the monitoring software is not flawed, then it would be right to say innocent people will be targeted. That opinion is backed up by the Judge.

[one eyed jack]

I accept your comment about it being flawed but what isnt these days?

Remember the Challenger? Came back and broke up into bits before landing. it had the worlds best minds working on it and thats what happened. Nothing is perfect and I never once laid claim to this being perfect. please always quote me as fighting back with that little stick ive been given on dealing with this topic.

I personally dont deal with piracy. Im a film maker who invests money in products I create in the hope of making money to make a living and continue employing people in this capacity.

Filesharers are infringing me and preventing me from continuing that way.

In the early days when i first heard about my stuff being found on the internet i shrugged it off. its like a few people sneaking in the fire exit of a cinema

The problem comes when youve only sold a few tickets but yet the house is full. I might turn a blind eye if they spent some money in the kiosk though but when they dont even have the decency to do that you feel you want to take a rocket launcher to the cheeky fuckers

[one eyed jack]

bpaw, ill credit someone I dont know for knowing about the flaws of this monitoring machine. Its not my area of expertise but if someone comes up to me and says, i can help you with your problem but if i do I want 75% im gonna say....Well step to it man. Prove yourself and its yours. I'm waiting to see how this pans out

Sure, i'll be criticised by people but those people didnt buy into the site anyway. If you are implying members to the site will download the same stuff they can already get as members? Then thats a ridiculous notion when they can get it all for part of their membership anyway

If it was all about being good then by rights I shouldnt be a pornogrpaher making money out of this and thats the real problem for me because its saying by virtue of what I do I should shut up and take it lying down with the insult that my stuff is old and shit.

Backed in a corner i know most people will come out fighting any which way they can.

You probably still dont see my point because its all about the "innocent people" being exploited by the nasty evil pornographers. Pornographer I is but nasty and evil?

Far from it