Slashdot Mirror
Porn Maker Sues 7,000+ For Copyright Infringement
This summer, we discussed news that the producers of The Hurt Locker had sued 5,000 people for sharing the movie over BitTorrent. Reader suraj.sun writes with word that a porn company is now following suit, filing a complaint targeting 7,098 people for illegally sharing one of their films. Quoting:
"Axel Braun Productions filed the complaint Friday in US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, alleging that the defendants illegally shared the adult film Batman XXX: A Porn Parody. The film was written and directed by Axel Braun and distributed by Vivid Entertainment, one of the country's best known porn studios. ... '**** 'em all,' Braun told Xbiz. 'People don't realize that when you pirate a movie it hurts all of the people who work very hard to get it produced — from the cast to the production assistants to the makeup artists. So we are going after every one of them who pirates our content.'"
You know what? Good for the porn company.
It's messed up that the EFF thinks that it's not okay to sue thousands of people at once. In my eyes, it seems like that's the best way to deal with it.
I mean, piracy is messed up. I pirate things, but I know that pirating things doesn't help the people that create it. Music, movies, books, porn, no matter what you are pirating it. The only way to sensibly deal with this in court is to deal with everyone who's committing the "crime" (I say crime in quotations because I'm not going to say if piracy is really a crime).
So I say good job porn makers. You guys are getting shafted, and it is messed up.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
"'People don't realize that when you pirate a movie it hurts all of the people who work very hard to get it produced — from the cast to the production assistants to the makeup artists. So we are going after every one of them who pirates our content."
No, it doesn't hurt you. Either I "preview" said film via torrent, maybe, or I don't see it at all. Now, please tell me where is the loss of sale? Oh, hurts.. well maybe that.
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
Fellow pirates,
I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am overjoyed.
Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take. I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.
I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work. I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software. When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work. I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted. If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one, amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.
According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours." Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do. John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming. It's genius. The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate. We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work. Excellent job.
I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are. Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda. I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me. It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something. Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is. That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.
EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good. Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code." I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me. I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL. I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences. I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.
Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching. Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt. Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations. Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.
Yours truly,
A fellow Slashbot
You think you are funny don't you?
This is serious . Those poor fluffers working on the set did not get paid because of these acts of pornographic piracy.....
What makes it interesting is that it will all be from a definitively conservative basis, it would be interesting to watch Republicans publicly attempt to defend copyright protections for pornography.
Ha! You think conservatives actually care about following what's in the Constitution, instead of merely invoking its name to support whatever they've dreamed up. Sucker!
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
This whole suit smells like a viral marketing stunt to me.
Stop charging $40 for your shitty porno and maybe people will care.
New Hollywood movies don't even cost that much on blu-ray.
Only now in the last 5-10 years have producers realized that the market wants none of this. Guys (as consumers) want a new girl each in each scene and subsequent film. Porn Stars are now only tolerated because they have some special trick.
I don't know about that, I'm a fairly avid consumer of porn and I like my favorites. What I don't like is a bunch of obviously fake sex, which is why I like the amateur stuff. If you catch them before they are jaded you can see some really nice fucking. After they've been in the business for a few years they may still look good on the outside, but... you know the rest
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How many times does it have to be pointed out: Slashdot is not a single person.
But feel free to karma whore by blatantly ignoring this point which has been raised many times before in response to posts like yours. It seems that attacking the mythical "Slashdot group think" is an easy way to get a +5 Insightful on almost any story these days.
Now technically as the movie can not demonstrate the ability to "promote the useful arts and sciences" under law it is not entitled to copyright protection.
Non sequitur. You are talking about the motivation for copyright law. A work can be protected by copyright law without promoting the goals of copyright law.
Yeah, the true amateur is where it's at. Sure, the lighting is usually crap, there's often annoying music in the background, or the TV (seriously, who does that? Who fucks with the tv going. Muic I can understand, but trying to get it on with Saturday Night Liv in the background would distract the shit outa me!), and the "models" might not be 100% toned.
But it's genuine. There's no crew standing around, it's not just zombie-like fucking, it's real sex, with people who often actually give a fuck about each other. 1555 times more arousing than a glorified prostitute with fake titties giving head to a ridiculously-large-penised guy with an IQ smaller than his wang-length
/ Anonymous for reasons of shame.
You're both right. Republicans, Democrats... they fight each other viciously on many issues, but this isn't one of them. When it comes to copyright, their policies are essentially identical: Do what the lobbyists ask.
If confronted with the issue of porn copyrights, politicians of either side would just clam up and change the subject. They don't want to offend the social conservatives by appearing to support porn (Espicially the republicans, who are very dependant on that group), but they also don't want to raise the profile of copyright as an issue or risk upsetting the campaign contributors. So they'll just dodge the issue.
This same argument has been used for newspapers, tv, radio, opera, iPod, mafia, whatever and guess what they are all still here.
And as for dogging being the latest craze. Sorry, but are you TOTALLY incapable of seeing the irony in your own post? You are comparing Vivid to some guy selling DVD's in Ohio (and if he is selling them, then it ain't amateur anymore)? And the move to "amateur" is hardly new either. Gonzo mean anything to you?
What has happened over the decades is that porn, has become more mainstream. As nudity becomes acceptable in this regular movie theather, porn has had to go further to still be able to sell. And tech has allowed it, ever closer close-ups, less need for the camera to dictate the action.
And yet at the same time, the call for retro-porn, from a time when you could NOT see a girls cervix, is greater then ever. For every Dogging fan there is a guy browsing OLD magazines.
The internet has shown us just how great the diversity in the taste of porn is, but that doesn't stop some kid coming along claiming that the DVD's from some guy in Ohio are where it is at.
But don't worry. The newspapers, radio, tv, theathers, the iPod, and the mafia are SURE to take your hint and finally die off. Because YOU determined what EVERYONE else wants.
Grow up.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The thing is that Slashdot does not have a single "group think" position on any particular topic. On the issue of copyright I have noticed three distinct groups: those that think illegally copying electronic data (e-books, movies, music) is a right which should not be infringed (slightly overstated, but elements of the group go that far), those that think that many times those that produce creative works (books, movies, music) benefit from illegally copying of their work far more than they suffer (although anyone doing so for profit should be punished to the fullest extent of the law), and those who believe that anyone who copies creative works illegally deserves whatever punishment comes their way to the fullest extent of the law (and sometimes beyond). Which group controls the mods on a particular discussion depends on who has mod points at any particular time when such a subject comes up.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Now technically as the movie can not demonstrate the ability to "promote the useful arts and sciences" under law it is not entitled to copyright protection.
You have misread the clause in the Constitution. Said authorization regarding promotion of sciences and the useful arts is applied to Congress, the actual laws of the Copyright Act make no such distinction of merit.
So for those who can stand the embarrassment of public admitting sharing that film, there is always a US constitutional challenge, bonus if you win you will strip the movie of it's copyright protection and challenge the whole MPA*/RIA* industry. What makes it interesting is that it will all be from a definitively conservative basis, it would be interesting to watch Republicans publicly attempt to defend copyright protections for pornography.
They won't have to bother, you won't even get a lawyer to present the argument, and if you present it pro se, the lawyers you face will just show that the relevant laws and prior cases contain no mention of this phantom argument you're making for copyrights.
Patents are another story, but you really ought to read the law again.
Try it here: www.copyright.gov/title17/
No, it isn't. The establishment clause is one way. The government must stay out of church, that doesn't mean that church must stay out of government.
Historically, that's not true. Whenever religion is allowed to interfere in government operations, you usually end up one becoming dominant, i.e. a State Church. And that's what the Framers were trying to avoid. Best to just keep them at arm's length.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It has been my observation over the years that in politics, when someone accusing what they see as an opposing side of something, their side is just as guilty, if not more so, of the same charge.
Mistake #1: Picking a side.
Some of us have wisely decided to mock all sides from on high.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Of course the phrase "Wall of Separation of Church and State" (note my attempts at 18th-cent. capitalization) doesn't appear in the constitution. You left out the "wall" part, but that's important because it's the reason the phrase doesn't appear. It's a metaphor, and has no place in a legal document such as a constitution. Thomas Jefferson used it later to explain his understanding of the 1st Amendment. Since he wrote the thing in the first place, he gets a pass here.
Fellow pirates,
I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty.
Hi there AC and Successful Troll, how's it going? This is a hell of a thread you've got here. Congraturation!
Your (yes I know it's plagiarized) post here reminds me a lot of Jonathon Swift's Modest Proposal. Just a nit pick, it is just a touch whinier and less smooth and deadly, but you know if the original you've carped needs some spackle us Pirates won't despise you for adding a little bit of effort to make it a mashup, especially if it's more effective. Nonetheless this was plenty effective, people falling over themselves talking about karma whoring and all manner of silliness. God damn. :D
In any event, I agree about (checks figures) 80% with your strawman here. I pirate. I don't give a damn who's going out of business because of that. It is, in fact, easier for me. If it weren't I might not. I guess I don't have your strawman's dissonance about that. I don't feel guilty and don't look to /. for other voices to ease my guilt. I am confident that my position is right, and enjoy describing how, if for no other reason than it's fairly counter-intuitive and I'm proud of it. And I like pontificating. :D
So if you're strawman (or, borrowed strawman) would like it's guilt eased, I'll be happy to post here about how what it's doing is perfectly moral, because if I read your post correctly what it is allegedly doing is perfectly moral and it should continue to allegedly do that. It's like I've just read Karl Marx make up a "Mr Capitalist" strawman who feels guilty about being selfish or about putting inefficient competitors out of business. It just sounds so awesome that I want to root for the puppet no matter how much the puppeteer might dislike him. :3
For the other 20%, it's mostly mild misunderstandings. The GPL, for example, I am simply against. I want to see it fail along with all other copyright instruments. I publish all of my work as CC0 as it is the closest effective approximation to ridding my work of all copyright entirely. If people wish to hide their ideas in closed source then I won't stop them. If other people wish to reverse engineer those ideas, then I won't stop them either. If I write open source code and someone wants to "steal" it away into their closed source bundle, then I encourage them to do so. Freedom, flexibility, and good publicity will always triumph over paranoia and restrictions and I'm overjoyed at every opportunity to demonstrate that in practice.
Otherwise your puppet laments over misguided concerns of the puppeteer, saying "even though none of my rights are violated" and "even though this spells doom for my favorite ad-run site" and confusing the people who manage slashdot with it's commenters. I am a commenter, and my views probably don't reflect the views of the site owners. Slashdot might sue people for stealing their content, but I would not in their stead. I do believe that preventing me from obtaining or retransmitting publicly available information is harming my rights. I do believe that retransmitting data authored by someone else does not actually harm their rights. Your puppet may or may not agree with me, but it sounds like it would at least sleep easier if it choose to agree with me. Believing in True Things tends to make sleep easier, and I recommend that to anyone.
So by all means bring your puppet back to ask any other questions it's feeling guilt about and I'll be here all week, eh? Fictional and needlessly angstful as it may be, the world would be better off if more people behaved precisely that way.
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.