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?
Stop charging $40 for your shitty porno and maybe people will care.
New Hollywood movies don't even cost that much on blu-ray.
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.
If you can't see the obvious difference between making an unauthorized copy of something and presenting someone else's work as your own then I can understand why copyright law is so screwed up.
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
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.
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.