Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Copyright Lawsuits Go After Porn On Bittorrent

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the enjoy-explaining-that-subpoena-to-your-parents dept.

Media 209

neoflexycurrent writes "Three adult media entertainment producers filed suit Thursday in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging copyright infringement against hundreds of anonymous defendants accused of trading videos using Bittorrent. This kind of action resembles the much-criticized mass litigation undertaken by the US Copyright Group against hordes of unknown accused Bittorrent users trading movies like The Hurt Locker. In this case, the subject matter promises to be more provocative."

cancel ×

209 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

porn sucks... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475340)

or maybe it blows?

Uh oh (3, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475342)

This is gonna be a double-whammy for /. users...

Re:Uh oh (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475934)

You got that right. I have always felt pretty safe downloading porn from torrents. Fortunately, I'm running peer guardian but that may not be enough. I guess I need to be more careful about that too.

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476472)

Peer Guardian is WAY out of date and doesn't get updates anymore. Install Peer Block.

Re:Uh oh (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476760)

I was just about to point this out. AFAIK, PeerGuardian doesn't actually update the IP block addresses any more.

My question now is...how do we get PeerBlock to find the studios in question and make sure they're added to our databases?

Re:Uh oh (1)

Cylix (55374) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476802)

Peer Guardian does not maintain a block list, but the application is still quite usable. There are utilities and services available to gain fresh and user updated lists from. After this it is a simple matter to generate a block list that is peer guardian compatible.

The problem with such an approach is that it is resource intensive. However, if you have time to pirate then you have some time to dedicate to utilizing certain basic protections.

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476548)

Forgive me for asking but...

WHY???

You've seen the countless number of free video streaming sites available. You're aware that there is, for most intents and purposes, an endless supply of porn that you can enjoy as you see fit. And there is no way that anyone would go after someone who's watched streaming video, because they can go after the provider much more easily. (I fucking hope I'm right about that last thing by the way. ;-) )

So way do you insist on downloading and putting porn on your computer? Are you guys porn connoisseurs who wants full-length movies with intros and credits intact?

If you just want to jerk off or to get some inspiration for your real sex life (hey, it can happen), then the 10-minute clips are a lot better at getting to the point.

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476878)

better video quality, the ability to rewind the boring scenes with the keys pressed with the other hand, no stuttering of the stream if something happens with the connection

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476110)

I would respond to this in depth, but I'm getting ready for my Japanese lesson.
For some reason, I torrent porn a lot less than I use to.

Have to go now - to see if the tutor is naked this time, or wearing a pikachu outfit.
Isn't the internet great!

Re:Uh oh (2, Informative)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476316)

yeah, my first thought was 'uh-oh'

Sounds like extortion (4, Insightful)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475346)

Hmm, people will definitely settle now, there won't be much sympathy as there was for Jaime Thomas. Nobody wants their name out there for having massive collection of porn, that's something you want to keep on the DL.

1. Accuse someone of having massive amounts of porn and offer to sell your silence

2. ???

3. Profit!!!

Oh, wait, step 2 IS step 1....

Re:Sounds like extortion (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475424)

Better yet, here are the titles from the first PDF:

Shemale Yum, Trannies From Hell, and Shemale Pornstar

Re:Sounds like extortion (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475462)

Trannies From Hell

Reminds me of my 94 Ford Mustang that would intermittently fall out of gear on the highway.

Re:Sounds like extortion (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475482)

Trannies From Hell

Reminds me of my 94 Ford Mustang that would intermittently fall out of gear on the highway.

Because she had a penis and you didn't mind?

Re:Sounds like extortion (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476434)

Better yet, here are the titles from the first PDF:

Shemale Yum, Trannies From Hell, and Shemale Pornstar

What's wrong with shemales? Living in Thailand I gotta tell you, they give you the absolutely best blowjobs and still have nice tits and look like girls!

Re:Sounds like extortion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476628)

Thank you Jesus! I'm off the hook :)

Re:Sounds like extortion (1)

polle404 (727386) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475540)

allow me to correct that...

1. Accuse someone of having massive amounts of porn and offer to sell your silence

2. Get countersued for slander and defamation (or whatever it's called)

3. Profit!!!

(after all, my little collection of shemale midgets on urinsleds is hardly massive...)

Re:Sounds like extortion (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475720)

If you're guilty I don't think it is slander and/or defamation. However, if you know you didn't download what they are accusing you of and you believe you can somehow prove it or convince a jury that there is no way they can prove you did. Then, yes, I believe you could have a case. Otherwise, what an awful political tool that could be. *Rewind* someone pays media company to sue Obama or those on his election team for illegally sharing "Muslims porking Teens" and whammo. True or not, enjoy Palin as VP as media outlets barf it into their cameras.

Re:Sounds like extortion (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476486)

If you're guilty I don't think it is slander and/or defamation. However, if you know you didn't download what they are accusing you of and you believe you can somehow prove it or convince a jury that there is no way they can prove you did. Then, yes, I believe you could have a case. Otherwise, what an awful political tool that could be. *Rewind* someone pays media company to sue Obama or those on his election team for illegally sharing "Muslims porking Teens" and whammo. True or not, enjoy Palin as VP as media outlets barf it into their cameras.

Which media you been watching?

Good lord, we know more specifics about pissant-Congressional-candidate-from-Kentucky Rand Paul's college days than we do about Obama's college history.

Remember the big stink about what W's college grades were? Well, what were Obama's grades?

Fact is, most media outlets seem like they ignore just about anything regarding Obama other than his halo. Go take a look at unemployment figures. Since the end of World War II, something like 80% of all the time the US has had an unemployment rate over 9% has happened while Obama's been President. Yeah, that's W's fault, right? Man up, you fucking pussy.

Re:Sounds like extortion (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476708)

Wow... I think I hit a nerve and I never intended to. Christ, I mention a potentially far fetched scenario where a sitting president could have lost the election due to slander/defamation and WHAMMO! Someone goes on the George W. Bush/Republican defensive. Take a chill pill man. Turn on some Fox News and relax with a nice cold beer.

Re:Sounds like extortion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476840)

for illegally sharing "Muslims porking Teens"

This sounds hot, which torrent tracker has this?!

Re:Sounds like extortion (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475582)

Nobody wants their name out there for having massive collection of porn,

Speak for yourself, I have 2 TB of porn and I'm PROUD of it!

Re:Sounds like extortion (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475644)

Why pay for porn and/or store it locally when the internet and its streaming-flash sites like Redtube, Pornotube, and even the vile borderline-legal Motherless are readily available*?

* unless you made it yourself, that is :)

Re:Sounds like extortion (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475802)

you forgot xhamster

Re:Sounds like extortion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475908)

Why pay for movies when there's youtube?

Re:Sounds like extortion (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476402)

you forgot spankwall.com

Re:Sounds like extortion (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476428)

Never heard of red tube. My big porn days were back in the 80's and I grew up with dirty books so the stories appealed to me more than the X-rated films. I think I saw one X rated film that was arousing-- and that was not during the sex scene but rather during the seduction scene that lead up to the sex scene. It was just a guy and a girl standing talking in front of a fireplace and it started with no interest at all between then and as they talked things got a little more racy and then hot and then at the end they actually did that bit where you know both of them are going to kiss but neither one is saying anything and you can tell both of them are wanting it but can't quite take the shot yet.

I have occasionally seen porn movie links on google searches but either WOT or my virus scanner says "danger danger danger". However, that didn't happen with red tube so I guess it's relatively safe/legit. These days I mostly just capture celebrity (intentional and slips) and pinup stuff. Not even sure why. I sometimes joke, "you see, men get higher into heaven, the more naked breasts they see" with friends. After 53,271 of them, they lack the same kick they had when I was 16 looking at my step dads magazines. Don't seem to be bored of real women yet tho. ;-)

Re:Sounds like extortion (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476608)

Now I know who's drive to raid since I've got a meager 400GB

Re:Sounds like extortion (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475786)

Hmm, wonder how this whole blind subpoena thingee works? If you are using a free wireless signal provided by the city, are they going to sue the city for downloading this stuff? How about if you live at an address, yet the cable bill is under an entirely fictitious name? Who gets sued then? Seems like they are fighting a losing battle. Send out lawsuits and sue folks that have no money, and do what? If they are poor, then bankruptcy, IIRC, wipes legal judgments clean, except for tax stuff I thought. And then there is the obscenity by community standards. What if I downloaded a torrent of some porn that violates the standards? Can the authorities go after both me and the producer? Just stupid shit by retarded money grubbing lawyers it sounds like to me. No different than an HVAC repair company going out and cutting folks linesets and offering to fix them for a reduced price.

The medium is the message? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476074)

Perhaps the ultimate goal of these lawsuits is not to actually recoup losses or find new modes of profit, but rather to kill any system in which commoners are not reliant on some corporation to provide service for them. You know, scare people away from P2P and toward service providers like Rapidshare, scare municipalities away from providing Internet access and toward favorable deals for broadband providers. In the end, everyone except for the People will win; the copyright holders can go back to arguing with other companies about licensing fees, rather than worrying that millions upon millions of people will stop relying on them, and they can open new deals with various service providers instead of having to try to work with municipal governments (i.e. which may actually care about the interests of their citizens).

Re:The medium is the message? (2, Interesting)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476122)

I always wondered why they didn't go after companies such as rapidshare. Surely it should be easier to take down a centralised system? It's almost as bad as the old FTP sites (in fact it's worse, FTP sites generally were not indexed by search engines). These companies should be easy pickings as far as lawsuits are concerned. What am I missing?

Re:The medium is the message? (2, Insightful)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476312)

DMCA safe haven, thats what. Its the same that keeps youtube "floating". If rapidshare is notified, they will remove a download. And as long as they do, they can't be closed down completely. But as the upload is more or less anonymous, the uploader can just upload the file again when he notices that it has been removed.

What could possibly go wrong? (3, Interesting)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476108)

A colleague of mine had a cable modem. For a number of reasons, he just happened to be aware of his IP address. It was DHCP assigned, but essentially a static assignment because it never changed. Then one day, there was a technical problem. Whatever the problem was, the cable company's solution consisted of changing his IP address. Great! New IP address! Problem solved.

A few months later, he gets a nastygram from the cable ISP. "Your IP address x.x.x.x was used for illegal file sharing activity on $DATE, and your contact information been supplied to the copyright holder pursuant to a subpeona..." One TINY little problem. The address in question was his NEW IP address and the date in question was BEFORE THE ADDRESS WAS ASSIGNED TO HIM! It seems the ISP looked up the IP address in question and identified the CURRENT user, with no consideration about who was using it at the time!

It gets better. The colleague in question has a lot of money, lawyers, and the willingness to use them. The cable clowns got spanked big-time. I have reason to believe they paid a substantial settlement to avoid a defamation suit. And of course, the process of identifying users by IP address has now been proven to be error-prone. Reasonable doubt for everyone!

In addition to incompetent ISP research, there are a number of ways for a user to hijack your IP address, which I won't go into here. But trust me, it's possible. More reasonable doubt.

It's one thing to accuse someone of sharing "The Sound of Music" and say "oops" when the user in question turns out to deaf and clueless about P2P. But when the movie is "Debbie Does Detroit", the reputation of the defendant is damaged. That's a BIG problem if the user identification process is flawed (as described above). Sooner or later, the plaintiffs are going to go to court armed with bad information and all hell will break loose.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476330)

Sounds like i better get a mega-sized serving of popcorn ready, as the fireworks from such an even should be spectacular.

Sounds fair (4, Funny)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475394)

When people download porn without paying for it it ultimately hurts the working stiffs...

Re:Sounds fair (4, Funny)

bytethese (1372715) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475428)

*rimjob*

er...

*rimshot*

Re:Sounds fair (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475442)

and the working wet and engorged, too /me quickly glances over article.....but at least the JAV companies aren't suing yet, *whew*

Re:Sounds fair (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475480)

Agreed - these hardened criminals need to be given stiff sentences

Re:Sounds fair (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475570)

they should be shot in the face with a magnum load

Re:Sounds fair (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475712)

They will when they drop the soap.

Re:Sounds fair (5, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475486)

"When people download porn without paying for it it ultimately hurts the working stiffs..."

I know you were going for a joke, but it is my understanding that the actors and actresses usually get paid a paltry sum up front rather than a decent share of the profits, so it doesn't hurt them*. It "hurts" the bottom line of a bunch of people who are already much richer than they deserve to be in my opinion, so I say screw 'em.

* I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but I imagine they are fairly rare

Re:Sounds fair (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475514)

Really? It doesn't hurt them when the people who would have been willing to pay that paltry sum don't make as many movies anymore because there isn't much return on investment? I would think it would hurt them a lot since they aren't paid as well as mainstream actors.

Re:Sounds fair (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475598)

The exploiters get the same return on investment they get now, which as I already stated is way more than they deserve in my opinion. In case you didn't notice there is no shortage of porn. Claiming that the porn industry will dry up if they don't sue simply ignores completely all evidence to the contrary (or maybe you didn't know this is not some kind of new phenomenon?)

Re:Sounds fair (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475554)

but those that ride to the top get paid well. And don't forget those further down the pipe always have various ways for back end money.

Re:Sounds fair (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475596)

It "hurts" the bottom line of a bunch of people who are already much richer than they deserve to be in my opinion, so I say screw 'em.

My head hurts from those mixed metaphors and double entendres, "It hurts the bottom", "I say screw 'em"

Re:Sounds fair (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475944)

So if I decide to take a higher paycheck over stock options, you think stealing from my company will only hurt the stock owners and not me? That there won't be pay cuts and layoffs if our revenue fails? Unless the porn actors were tricked into signing a contract that would give them much less than they thought through Hollywood accounting, that's a choice between them and their employer. Asking for an up front sum is pretty much as honest as it gets, they got paid what they asked for and if it was too little they should have asked for more. If you were trying to take the moral high ground on behalf of the actors, that the most ridiculous logic I've heard so far. You can only hurt their position next time they negotiate pay.

Re:Sounds fair (3, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476058)

Right. Your logic is impeccable. The guy that only makes $500,000 off a production will stop hiring actors and actresses at $1000.00 a pop because he didn't make a million. You evidently know so little about the porn industry that you think making a comparison to working at a typical company is somehow logical.

Re:Sounds fair (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476300)

so I say screw 'em.

Well, porn is all about screwing, so....

Re:Sounds fair (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476730)

(Score:-1, Whoosh)

Re:Sounds fair (1)

ferd_farkle (208662) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475776)

We need to take our country back!

Now the porn industry is going after young boys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475448)

New Copyright Lawsuits Go After Porn On Bittorrent

There is going to be a LOT of shocked and upset mothers resulting from this scandal. As always, it is going to be the children who are going to be the ones who suffer through this (copyright) war, especially young adolescent boys.

If I Had $1,000,000 (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475454)

So, they could spend $1,000,000 prosecuting a handful of anonymous users or they could make 200 more pornos. I think they've made the wrong choice. I guess their business model is starting to fail. Maybe they should move from "plotted" features with 40-year old fake women to 18-year-old gonzo.

Re:If I Had $1,000,000 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475572)

Cool, let's take every tired Slashdot argument about piracy and make it topical!

If they made better pornos with hotter girls (like they did when I was 13), people would pay for them, especially if they had a fair price, say $2 each.
Haven't they heard of "Try before you buy"? I download porn all the time and also own 2,000 porno DVDs. In fact I just purchased the collectors edition of Asian Cumholes 8.
Most porno is downloaded by "collectors" who would never buy the porn and don't even masturbate. They just want to fill up their harddrives and empty lives!
How many innocent victims are being accidentally prosecuted by the PornIAA? I meant to download a Linux distro ... really.

Re:If I Had $1,000,000 (4, Interesting)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475580)

Or they realized that if they hit 10,000 people with a $1,000 settlement, they could easily $10,000,000 without having to do a whole lot. Especially if it's a film with a very raunchy sounding title. Most people would gladly pay $1,000 to avoid having that information become public. They probably won't even have to go to court for most of the cases. Then they can use that $10,000,000 to make 2000 more pornos and sue another 10,000 people for copyright infringement.

Reminds me of a scene from Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels: (Quote taken from IMDB)

Tom: Listen to this one then; you open a company called the Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club. You take an advert in the back page of some gay mag, advertising the latest in arse-intruding dildos, sell it a bit with, er... I dunno, "does what no other dildo can do until now", latest and greatest in sexual technology. Guaranteed results or money back, all that bollocks. These dills cost twenty-five each; a snip for all the pleasure they are going to give the recipients. They send a cheque to the company name, nothing offensive, er, Bobbie's Bits or something, for twenty-five. You put these in the bank for two weeks and let them clear. Now this is the clever bit. Then you send back the cheques for twenty-five pounds from the real company name, Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club, saying sorry, we couldn't get the supply from America, they have sold out. Now you see how many of the people cash those cheques; not a single soul, because who wants his bank manager to know he tickles arses when he is not paying in cheques!

Re:If I Had $1,000,000 (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476366)

I think that quote actually have happened. Some online porn company had charged various people for services they had failed to deliver, got a court order to pay their customers back, but sent checks in the company name easily readable.

Re:If I Had $1,000,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476104)

Maybe they should move from "plotted" features with 40-year old fake women to 18-year-old gonzo.
Reply to This

if you were right, sites like exploitedcollegegirls(dot)com would dominate the business....

New Copyright Lawsuits Go After Porn On Bittorrent (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475460)

They're not the only ones going after porn on Bittorrent; it's very popular.

Phew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475470)

Although if Abby Winters do the same then I'm fucked.

Re:Phew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475534)

Although if Abby Winters do the same then I'm fucked.

You wish...

zing!

The circle is complete (5, Insightful)

Kazymyr (190114) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475488)

First they came for those who were sharing music, and I shrugged; I didn't care, because I wasn't sharing music.
Then they came for those who were sharing movies, and I shrugged; I didn't care, because I wasn't sharing movies.
Then they came for me, who was sharing porn. I didn't shrug, but there was nobody left to care for me.

Re:The circle is complete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476522)

So I take it you bent down and expected the worse?

Re:The circle is complete (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476724)

Then they came for me, who was sharing porn. I didn't shrug, because it kind of needs both hands to do it properly.

-- FTFY

Great opportunity (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475518)

Clearly, we need to relax copyright law in order to hurt the porn industry, for the sake of the children.

If you support strong copyright law now you hate children, right?

Debbie does litigation (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475524)

Sounds like an orgy of injustice to me. I can't wait to watch all those lawyers screwing everyone and everything. Wheee

Extortion (3, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475530)

Can someone explain to me how this isn't extortion?

Re:Extortion (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475566)

It's legal.

Re:Extortion (2, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475870)

It's legal EXTORTION. In the US, they terms are not mutually exclusive. I suspect the same to be true in most places. After all - the US didn't invent the professional lawyer, we just feed ours better than most places.

Re:Extortion (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476084)

It's legal EXTORTION. In the US, they terms are not mutually exclusive. I suspect the same to be true in most places. After all - the US didn't invent the professional lawyer, we just feed ours better than most places.

Some people feed pet sharks too. Doesn't mean you're supposed to let them into the swimming pool.

Is a plea bargain extortion? (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475634)

For better or for worse, our system lets defendants get out of cases if they submit to a lesser punishment. Unless you concede that plea bargains are equally extortionist, I can't see a good, logical basis to denounce this in principle other than the fact that they haven't **yet** identified the users beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re:Is a plea bargain extortion? (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475968)

Unless you concede that plea bargains are equally extortionist

Um, yep, absolutely. They pervert the entire system, seeing people who didn't do anything plead out to avoid risking big charges, and let people who do seriously bad stuff get away with a light sentence by only pleading to a relatively minor crime. All plea bargains do is get society the worst of both worlds.

Re:Extortion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475846)

People broke the law and now they're being told they have to pay for their crime?

Easy way to get them to dismiss... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475538)

Easy way to get them to dismiss their lawsuits.
Offer them leading roles in your new production.

A snuff film.

No reason to bother with internet anymore (2, Insightful)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475578)

One of the last good reasons to use the internet is going away too now apparently... Seriously, between no porn, no warez, no muzak, no vids, constant surveillance of users by big corporations and governments... why does any one still bother?

Re:No reason to bother with internet anymore (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475652)

You forgot the inevitable loss of anonymity that governments and corporations are pushing for. Within five years you will have to do everything online with your real name, no aliases, no anonymity, no privacy.

Yes, you're right; there's a lot less reason to bother about the internet (or computers) any more -it's time to find other hobbies.

Re:No reason to bother with internet anymore (3, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475788)

There are always ways to exchange data secretly.

The problem comes when you want to both exchange data secretly and do it with anyone that asks. Bittorrent was never good for this. Private trackers offer at least some sort of protection I suppose, but it's not an ideal solution by any means.

What we need is for home users to start having a decent upload speed, so that a multihop, friend-to-friend network can spring up, such that you only ever exchange data with people you know, and they do with people they know until the whole world is joined...

That needs a lot of bandwidth, a lot of otherwise unnecessary bandwidth, but is feasible. I know there are some projects (OneSwarm) and some mature networking tools (I2P) out there that can already help.

Or you could just stop ripping stuff off. Just sayin'

Re:No reason to bother with internet anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475864)

To run BGP servers and play with virtual Cisco routers of course. Join one of the private overlay networks today!

Millennium TGA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475770)

"In this case, the subject matter promises to be more provocative. Plaintiff Millennium TGA is known for producing content in the “transsexual adult entertainment niche.”"

Poor bastards. First they are born in the wrong body, now they're getting a whole new kind of shaft.

Too little, too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33475814)

There was a time when porn distribution involved a lot of P2P sharing. Now it hardly matters. Thanks to a plethora of Youtube-style porn sites, nobody needs to bother with torrents or local storage. Google <any porn term> followed by the words: video tube. In theory, these sites are only showing previews and you are supposed to click a link to pay for the full-length flick. But a surprising number of previews are actually the whole movie (or at least a complete scene). Even if the industry could stop the flow of fresh porn from being uploaded to the sites, there is a large amount of pre-existing content that will not go away easily.

Why would anyone... (2, Insightful)

reverendbeer (1496637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475888)

...bother downloading an entire porn movie? The innumerable porn versions of youtube that are out there provide plenty of free material for, er, whatever you need it for. Whether 5 minutes or an hour, it's out there and with all the variety you've come to expect. Er, so I hear.

Re:Why would anyone... (1)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476168)

If 5 minutes of porn is enough for you, I pity your partner, sir!

Re:Why would anyone... (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476816)

Two words:
Referer Spoofing.

One Firefox extension: refspoof
One windows prog: quickspoof

One webpage: WTF do I have to do everything for you? look for shit and brains...

Why not pay for porn? (3, Interesting)

the Gray Mouser (1013773) | more than 3 years ago | (#33475912)

First, I would think slashdotter's would be for this. Remember, the GPL and other "free" or "open" licenses all get their power of enforcement from copyright law. So if you want strong open source software licenses, you need strong copyright protection.

Second, Porn sites don't cost much. A lot of them will offer a discount if you click out of the signup page. Join for a few months, download all you want high quality and DRM free, then cancel. Beats searching around through random links where you never know what will pop up.

Third, porn may be one of the last pillars we have left in this economy. When all the other businesses are starving for customers, people still want their porn. And it's the adult entertainment industry that's been on the forefront of internet and network development for years. Stuff like live chat, streaming video, secure billing.

Without porn the internet would still be a dry and barren wasteland where only the most computer savvy could tread.

Re:Why not pay for porn? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476018)

  1. The GPL is merely one method of implementing libre software. RMS has noted that there are other methods, such as government run code escrows which automatically release code to the public after a certain amount of time (assuming the absence of a copyright system -- so anyone who releases software would be legally obligated to submit their code to the escrow or to make it available to the public with their own equipment).
  2. It is very difficult to trust porn sites -- pornography is one of the most common vectors for credit card fraud. Additionally, some people may not want pornography showing up on their credit card statement (i.e. because of other people who live in their house), and we have not yet implemented an anonymous digital cash system.
  3. Hm, maybe we should stop sending all of the manufacturing jobs overseas, and return to economic policies based on producing real goods. Just saying, if our economy is based on intangible "goods," we are in a pretty bad situation.

Re:Why not pay for porn? (1)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476156)

Didn't we have that bitcoin thing crop up as anonymous internet cash? I seem to remember an article about it, perhaps porn sites should start accepting bitcoins or something.....

Re:Why not pay for porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476252)

Without porn the internet would still be a dry and barren wasteland where only the most computer savvy could tread.

And that's a bad thing?

Re:Why not pay for porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476468)

want some good porn? go to http://www.hotsex.com

Re:Why not pay for porn? (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476610)

First, I would think slashdotter's would be for this. Remember, the GPL and other "free" or "open" licenses all get their power of enforcement from copyright law. So if you want strong open source software licenses, you need strong copyright protection.

This argument comes up a lot in discussions of copyright law, but it's just a specious "gotcha." The F/OSS movement exists as a response to the increasingly Draconian nature of copyright, and it's a clever hack, but hacking the system does not mean approval of the system. The ideal situation would simply be for open source licenses to be unnecessary. Instead, as the copyright lobby pushes for ever-increasing restrictions on the dissemination of information, F/OSS advocates have to work harder to keep the system from being quite as awful as it could be.

Re:Why not pay for porn? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476654)

Third, porn may be one of the last pillars we have left in this economy. When all the other businesses are starving for customers, people still want their porn.

This is completely wrong. The porno industry [wikipedia.org] is a $13billion industry. Although that number can be disputed, it is not even .1% of the US economy. As a comparison, agriculture in California alone makes $36 billion [ca.gov] , and even that only accounts for 2% or so of the state's production. Porn may be big business, but comparatively, it is not important.

Interesting Tension (5, Interesting)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476024)

The judges will HATE dealing with porno cases. They will want to make them go away. Judges can make things "go away" very easily. One erroneous fact finding can kill a case dead--permanently and totally dead. They can also cut all the legal breaks in favor of dismissing a lawsuit. We place a lot of trust in our judges and sometimes they betray us. A good example can be found in the judges in the South tasked with enforcing the "separate but equal" laws. They enforced the 'separate' part, but the 'equal' part got lost.

Even though the judges will want to make the porno cases go away, they won't be able to treat them too rudely (because the court rules and legal principles in effect are supposed to be "content neutral"). This tension might manifest itself in the porno cases in cool and interesting ways.

Porno is the big sleeping giant that the big media ignores. If they behave like pricks (or like the RIAA), the judges are going to go all hairy on their ass. When mainstream media comes around and tries to do the same bad things that the porno media wasn't allowed to do, the Courts will be hamstrung by their need to appear consistent. This presents some pretty cool ideas.

If you want to support internet freedom, support the Larry Flynts of the world in their efforts to protect their ultra-gross porno copyrights. You want them to be mean and brutal in the glorious tradition of the RIAA. Support them on appeal--all the way to the bitter end. This would be a legal version of a sapping attack. The judges will cut the filth-purveyors the absolute least slack possible. This will make for a better and more fair copyright law--and will have the humorous by product of watching the RIAA support the filthiest porn purveyors in the appellate courts.

It could get pretty absurd.

Re:Interesting Tension (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476088)

Your assumption is what's absurd. Porn is an industry with their own lobby and special interest groups. They're not going to go into the courtroom like something you'd expect out of some porno flick, they're going in as an industry in need of protection and they'll get it.

Re:Interesting Tension (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476322)

And if there's an industry that needs protection, it's the porn industry!

Not so fast, cowboy... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476394)

Yes, porn is an industry. Yes, they have a lobby. But the porn lobby is not as effective as other industries because politicians cannot be seen openly supporting the porn industry.

Some examples: The tobacco lobby buys politicians who represent tobacco growing states. Big pharma buys politicians from states that have big pharma R&D centers. The farm lobby buys politicians from big farming states. None of these politicians has any problem with policies that help their benefactors at the expense of the country in general.

Although porn is a big industry, you won't find many politicians lining up to vote for the "Porn Assistance and Encouragement Act". The closest you will get to a pure copyright politician is Fritz Hollings, formerly the senator from Disney. But these copyright politicians are a tricky bunch. Most are extremely anti-porn or at least they like to be seen that way. As a result, the porn industry lobby fights mostly defensive battles, trying to save itself from being censored or legislated out of existence.

Re:Interesting Tension (1)

genner (694963) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476544)

Your assumption is what's absurd. Porn is an industry with their own lobby and special interest groups. They're not going to go into the courtroom like something you'd expect out of some porno flick, they're going in as an industry in need of protection and they'll get it.

No they won't. Porn is like the tobacco industry. Every politician want's to make it look like their against them.

Re:Interesting Tension (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476096)

It could get pretty absurd.

Hard to imagine this getting any more absurd than the average RIAA suit, but anything is possible. Especially here in the "land of the free".

Re:Interesting Tension (1)

Blackhalo (572408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476872)

Great post! I wish I had mod points left. Even I have trouble reconciling Torrents of Porn. On one hand I recognize Flynt as a major force in free speech advocacy, on the other, I like free porn. Part of why the industry though, is going after this, is that AMATEUR porn being posted to the torrents, by Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, is starting to cut into the bottom line. I think the attack is not so much directed at the pr0noholics, so much as trying to chill the competing distribution methods.

Keep touching yourself porn producers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476040)

And I'm sure they will... ahem.

Anyway, porn is NOT art so it is not entitled to copyright protection.
Good luck trying to convince a jury, let alone a judge, that "Tranny Butt Spelunker 24" is art.
The big players like P***boy and P***house and so on usually try to work in a story in their porn to try and confuse anyone having to look in to determine the copyright status as to whether it is art or not.
It sometimes works. But for "oh here's the plumber, let's drop our pants 2 seconds in" scenarios I don't think so.

Re:Keep touching yourself porn producers (1)

the Gray Mouser (1013773) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476422)

You don't have to convince a jury. There's a ton of case law precedent in the U.S. that pornography is indeed "art" and fully entitled to copyright protection.

I'm not sure Larry Flint was the first case, but it was one of the first big milestones, and there have been others since.

Re:Keep touching yourself porn producers (2, Insightful)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476524)

Certain pornographers like Max Hardcore are in prison for distributing obscenity, so I hardly think the courts can collect money for him.

Oh to be... (3, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33476572)

...a juror on that trial...

I thank You for your time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33476818)

exemplified By [goat.cx]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>