|
|
Welcome to the Discussion page. This forum is for discussing scenes from mainstream sources, primarily TV shows and movies, but we venture off into newspaper and magazine articles, stage plays, and other areas. Please do not post regarding commercial videos.
|
|
| Sunday January 25 01:01:30 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > You're being a bit self-contradictory here. First you say > Raffish shouldn't charge for memberships to see his > clips, but should ask for donations. Then you say you > stopped posting clips because of a lack of gratitude. I don't believe I am being contradictory at all. If Raffish didn't have a members section and simply asked for donations to cover the bandwidth costs, then the clips would be available to everyone, no member section needed. Get my point? ;-) As for lack of gratitude, once again, I think you misunderstand me. The gratitude I was speaking of was that of verbal, not monetary. So again, I don't see how I am being hypocritical at all. By the way, I didn't mean to single out Raffish here either. There are others who are doing this and in fact, profiting from it. I only used him as one example, I believe because the original poster of the thread or somebody had brought him up prior. I hold no grudges against him personally. He's a generous guy and has always contributed freely here. It's simply the members only pay section that I was using as the example. |
| AnoitherDidRingOldTimer |
| Sunday January 25 03:39:34 2009 Taken |
| New film comes out this Friday called Taken. It's about this guy's daughter that gets kidnapped and he has to fight to get her back. Sorry to not give much info as I'm very tired at the moment but if anyone wants to look into this, just wanted to them a heads up. |
| Mushroom |
| Sunday January 25 09:09:00 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| AnoitherDidRingOldTimer wrote: > I don't believe I am being contradictory at all. If > Raffish didn't have a members section and simply asked > for donations to cover the bandwidth costs, then the > clips would be available to everyone, no member section > needed. Get my point? ;-) > As for lack of gratitude, once again, I think you > misunderstand me. The gratitude I was speaking of was > that of verbal, not monetary. So again, I don't see how I > am being hypocritical at all. > By the way, I didn't mean to single out Raffish here > either. There are others who are doing this and in fact, > profiting from it. I only used him as one example, I > believe because the original poster of the thread or > somebody had brought him up prior. I hold no grudges > against him personally. He's a generous guy and has > always contributed freely here. It's simply the members > only pay section that I was using as the example. And I think you missed my points. My point about membership vs. donations wasn't about making the clips available for all for free, but about covering the bandwidth costs for the site. With Rich's comments adding good back-up, I was saying that donations don't bring in the cash the site owner is looking for to pay for the costs. If trying the donation route doesn't work, the owner is left with 3 choices: 1. Continue the site for free only requesting donations. Everybody gets to see the clips, but the site owner is likely bearing the brunt of the cost, something that may not be financially feasible for him (andeventually leadto #2 or 3 anyway). 2. Go to charging a small membership fee that covers the costs (and maybe a small amount of compensation for his time). We're back to only some get to see the clips and the rest back to screaming about their entitlement to get everything for free (but then we get into the whole argument about are they really entitled, which is a wholeother debate) 3. Close the site because he can't afford to keep carrying the cost. Nobody gets to see anything then. I did get your point about gratitude. I think you're missing that verbal and monetary gratitude go hand in hand. If you can't get people to give even some simple verbal appreciation, then how do you get a sufficient donor base to defray bandwidth costs? These are the same people. I know you weren't singling out Raffish (and we all appreciate his effort, and yours, whoever you may be), but still you used him as an example and were criticizing him for taking a different path than you did. His dilemna (and that of other similar site owners) is really the same as yours (lack of gratitude for effort); I'm not sure if you're seeing that. They just choose a different path than you did. They want to keep the clips up, and feel it necessary to take the path of charging enough to defray costs to do so. I don't think any of them are raking in any real profit. You chose the path of shutting down your operation. You did so because you don't believe in charging. That's fine, and I (and others) respect you for your belief and choice. Of course, there will be others who will criticize you for not sharing, but that's back to the entitlement issue I don't want to get heavily into at the moment even though in a way it is at the crux of this discussion. |
| Sunday January 25 09:12:20 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Bandwidth cost is not the only thing you can justify a small membership charge for. Sure, a lot of clips are "cut & paste 40 seconds from this larger file" but many require a bit of editing if your goal is to preserve the content "of interest." So you have to consider that the person's time is worth something, both the editing time and whatever time is put into maintaining the site. If a nominal membership fee covers bandwidth and gives the contributor some pittance for time invested, what's the issue with that? I do agree that when the clip provider seems to take the view that they are producing the material and that everyone should have to pay them for the privilege of seeing it, that's a problem. Take Raffish. His fee is small, the amount of material he provides is insanely huge, and he dispenses free clips every week (which are the same as the members' clips). Often if demand is there, he will take a clip that hasn't made it to the free clip selection (or even one that was there just recently) and make it available. "Free" and "member" is purely a distinction of having all the clips available to you at all times, or waiting and taking them as they come. I won't provide a negative example, as I have no interest in starting fights or getting threads closed :) but I think it's hard to argue that the way Raffish does it is anything but a positive example of making major contributions to the community. |
| Rob |
| Sunday January 25 11:17:44 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
MAN, did I ever open a big fat can of worms in here, huh??? |
| MagickRat |
| magickrat@live.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/didclips/ |
| Sunday January 25 12:09:46 2009 Re: Taken |
| Mushroom wrote: > New film comes out this Friday called Taken. It's about > this guy's daughter that gets kidnapped and he has to > fight to get her back. > Sorry to not give much info as I'm very tired at the > moment but if anyone wants to look into this, just wanted > to them a heads up. I read the synopsis on IMDB for the movie. They are "taken" for sale into a slavery ring. The daughter's friend (Katie Cassidy) gets handcuffed to a bed. No other mentions of bondage. |
| MT |
| Sunday January 25 12:11:17 2009 Last Templar |
| 2-hour movie on NBC tonight at 9 p.m. with Mira Sorvino. Typical treasure hunt nonsense, but might be worth a look. |
| Sunday January 25 13:13:23 2009 Re: Last Templar |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > 2-hour movie on NBC tonight at 9 p.m. with Mira Sorvino. > Typical treasure hunt nonsense, but might be worth a look. She was on Regis and Kelly last week. She is arrested and has her hands cuffed in front. |
| civil |
| Sunday January 25 14:15:40 2009 House's 13 in a scene... |
| Olivia Wilde that is. Here in Bobby Z. A little bit of a waste. She's beautiful, but no gag and no shot of her breasts which are exposed. Too short http://celebvids.blog.hu/tags/olivia_wilde (this website has a LOT of nudity scenes, a few of which are of interest to us, but it takes a long time to go through them all. Most of those are clipped by others such as Raffish, but this site has very nice quality clips) |
| WMD |
| Sunday January 25 15:25:42 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| The Greyman wrote: >" Throwing in my own two cents, I don't see Raf, or the > gals over at Major John's, or anyone else getting rich > off of what they charge for clips." That doesn't make sense. You don't get to steal someone's copyright and justify it by saying "I don't get rich". There is no "lousy businessperson" exception to copyright law. If someone steals my car, but can't fence it for a very good price (likely!), that doesn't mean the theft was okay. " And to be honest, even > if they charged exorbitant fees, I believe in the free > market so more power to them if they could get people to > pay those rates. No one would be forcing anyone to buy > anything." The free market only works fairly if laws are obeyed. You should not take someone else's property and sell it. The free market works as it should if it's YOUR property you're selling. |
| Map |
| Sunday January 25 15:32:38 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Rob wrote: > "Bandwidth cost is not the only thing you can justify a > small membership charge for. Sure, a lot of clips are > "cut & paste 40 seconds from this larger > file" but many require a bit of editing if your goal > is to preserve the content "of interest." So > you have to consider that the person's time is worth > something, both the editing time and whatever time is put > into maintaining the site." The problem is that you want to consider YOUR time and money, but not the time and money of the people that actually produced the clip. But not only is it their time and money which actually matters, but it's THEIR property in the first place, not yours. >" I do agree that when the clip provider seems to take the > view that they are producing the material and that > everyone should have to pay them for the privilege of > seeing it, that's a problem." They always take that view. They just don't bother to enforce it. But right is right no matter what they choose to do. You don't give up property rights in your stuff because you aren't constantly in court. > "Take Raffish. His fee is small, the amount of material he > provides is insanely huge, and he dispenses free clips > every week (which are the same as the members' clips). " But they are not his. It's hard to get away from the fact that he is selling something that's not his. Until you somehow get around that fact, what he is doing is really not acceptable, in my opinion. Other people might disagree, which is fine, but I would ask them this-- if YOU wrote a book or a play or produced a video, and that product had commercial potential...would you want someone just taking it and selling it? I doubt it. |
| Map |
| Sunday January 25 15:48:44 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Map wrote: I think it is easy to tell whether the sites themselves know that what they are doing is wrong. Just do a whois and see if they are willing to identify themselves. If not then you know that they believe that they have something to hide |
| Sunday January 25 15:55:54 2009 Distributing DiD clips capped by others |
| Just thought I'd pipe in as well with a thought: What's to stop people from dropping Raffish's, MajorJohn's and other sites' MAINSTREAM clips onto RapidShare or MegaUpload? Is it the principle? A morality issue? Honestly, if I had a faster connection I'd go about make huge RARs of all the mainstream clips I have and upload them, instead of putting them on YouTube where they get compressed to holy hell and later taken down. They're mainstream clips owned by no-one in particular (barring the copyright authors), albeit capped by someone but who cares, so why hasn't anyone else thought of doing that? |
| Sam |
| Sunday January 25 16:19:34 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Map wrote: > You don't give up property rights in > your stuff because you aren't constantly in court. Actually, you can lose property rights, particularly intellectual property rights, if you don't aggressively defend them. For example trademarks can pass into the public domain if infringement is allowed to occur for many years. |
| Uh Clem |
| Sunday January 25 16:20:44 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Map wrote: > But they are not his. It's hard to get away from the > fact that he is selling something that's not his. > Until you somehow get around that fact, what he is doing > is really not acceptable, in my opinion. Why don't we let Raffish worry about the legal ramifications? In the meantime let's enjoy the service he provides.. Why go on and on about this? |
| Mark O |
| Sunday January 25 16:49:22 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Uh Clem wrote: > Actually, you can lose property rights, particularly > intellectual property rights, if you don't aggressively > defend them. For example trademarks can pass into the > public domain if infringement is allowed to occur for many years. Trademarks are not copyrights...there is a different rationale behind that. I am speaking in general, of course. There are unusual situations where doing nothing to vindicate property rights helps you to lose them, but they are not relevant for this discussion. |
| Map |
| Sunday January 25 16:49:55 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Mark O wrote: > Why go on and on about this? Because some of us find it interesting. |
| Sunday January 25 17:17:22 2009 Re: Taken/ Underworld Rise of the Lycans |
| MT wrote: > Mushroom wrote: > > New film comes out this Friday called Taken. It's > about > > this guy's daughter that gets kidnapped and he has > to > > fight to get her back. > > Sorry to not give much info as I'm very tired at the > > > moment but if anyone wants to look into this, just > wanted > > to them a heads up. > I read the synopsis on IMDB for the movie. > They are "taken" for sale into a slavery ring. > The daughter's friend (Katie Cassidy) gets handcuffed to > a bed. No other mentions of bondage. Film was released in the UK last year, sure i ran through the details again, No explicit bondage, the kidnap scene may feature a handgag(s) but the way it's cut together it's very hard to say for certain without the benifit of freeze frame. Cassidy (and others) are cuffed by one wrist only not sure that qualifies under DB rules In other news Underworld Rise of the Lycans features a minor scene for Rhona Mitre, but it doesn't end well for her. Will be adding it to the DB now. |
| moxx of balhoom |
| Sunday January 25 17:44:05 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > Map wrote: > > Just do a whois > and see if they are willing to identify themselves. If > not then you know that they believe that they have > something to hide Maybe you are right, they choose anonymity because they are knowkingly breaking the law. But maybe they just want to avoid the onslaught of junkmail that comes with making your domain ownership public..... or want to avoid people knowing they are have a hidden fetish..... To all these people who are angry and saying that Raffish and Major John and others are violating copyright laws: Does this mean you want them to shut their site down? Have you not downloaded any video for free, or watched any on YouTube? Used Rapidshare or Limewire to transfer videos? Or even still images, which are also covered under copyright laws? Have you gotten any copies from another person without paying the owner of the copyright? The law cares not if you have a monetary gain from copying copyrighted material. It is illegal, compensation or not. |
| Suckah MC |
| Sunday January 25 17:46:59 2009 Re: Taken/ Underworld Rise of the Lycans |
| moxx of balhoom wrote: > In other news Underworld Rise of the Lycans features a > minor scene for Rhona Mitre, but it doesn't end well for > her. Will be adding it to the DB now. From trailers I have seen of this movie it is a "prequel" explaining the origin of werewolves and their war with the vampires, And I don't understand the rationale for that at all, because there was a quick flashback and some exposition in the first movie that explained all of that very well. Why not make a "new" movie? I guess because it would take some creativity. I certainly won't be going to see this one unless I read some very positive reviews. |
| Sunday January 25 19:41:42 2009 Re: Taken |
| MT wrote: > > to them a heads up. > I read the synopsis on IMDB for the movie. > They are "taken" for sale into a slavery ring. > The daughter's friend (Katie Cassidy) gets handcuffed to > a bed. No other mentions of bondage. I have already seen the movie. The above-mentioned scene is the only one of any interest with regard to the focus of this board. I could say more, but I don't want to spoil any plot points for those who plan to see the movie. I will simply say that I was fairly unimpressed with this movie in pretty much every way. It's like Man On Fire, but not nearly as good. |
| Rex Reed |
| Sunday January 25 19:59:23 2009 Re: Last Templar |
| civil wrote: > She was on Regis and Kelly last week. She is arrested and > has her hands cuffed in front. Arrested & cuffed on Regis & Kelly? Or in the movie tonite? |
| Sunday January 25 20:02:28 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Suckah MC wrote: > The law cares not if you have a monetary gain from > copying copyrighted material. It is illegal, compensation or not.<< Completely false. Copyright law is all about the monetary gain....that's the rationale of why it's probably okay for you to clip a scene, but not to sell it. It's okay for you to record a movie on your DVR and keep it, but not to sell those copies. The wrong is not possessing it or looking at it, it's selling it. And besides, copyright law is not criminal in nature, it's civil, which means the penalty for breaking it is not jail time in any case. |
| Map |
| Sunday January 25 20:31:04 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Map wrote: > Completely false. Copyright law is all about the > monetary gain....that's the rationale of why it's > probably okay for you to clip a scene, but not to sell > it. It's okay for you to record a movie on your DVR and > keep it, but not to sell those copies. The wrong is > not possessing it or looking at it, it's selling it. > And besides, copyright law is not criminal in nature, > it's civil, which means the penalty for breaking it is not jail time in any case. You're generally correct, but a few things should be mentioned: the wrong often IS simple possession... consider a case where I download an MP3 illegally. Though I have no intention to burn it to CD and sell it down the street, the RIAA and friends will still be more than happy to sue me for merely possessing it. Also, while copyright infringement is usually a civil matter, there are certain instances where it runs afoul of certain federal laws in the U.S. and becomes a criminal offence. That's why you often see those "FBI warnings" threatning hefty fines and/or jail time at the beginning of every DVD. |
| Not a Guest |
| Sunday January 25 20:47:59 2009 Re: Last Templar |
| (unsigned poster) wrote: > Arrested & cuffed on Regis & Kelly? Or in the > movie tonite? They played a clip of her getting arrested in the MOVIE. |
| civil |
| Sunday January 25 21:06:18 2009 Re: Last Templar |
| civil wrote: > (unsigned poster) wrote: > > Arrested & cuffed on Regis & Kelly? Or in > the > > movie tonite? > They played a clip of her getting arrested in the MOVIE. She mentioned something about jousting and a dress and the clip was shown of her being led by two officers and asks Scott Foley that they clash with the dress. Based on the movie started with her wearing the same dress, I would say it will happen In the first 20 minutes |
| civil |
| Sunday January 25 21:43:31 2009 Re: Distributing DiD clips capped by others |
| Sam wrote: > Just thought I'd pipe in as well with a thought: > What's to stop people from dropping Raffish's, > MajorJohn's and other sites' MAINSTREAM clips onto > RapidShare or MegaUpload? Is it the principle? A morality > issue? While there's no legal problem here, I do see a moral issue: you would be doing Raffish/MajorJohn harm by doing so, and probably all those who like to view DiD clips. They have gone to the trouble to make and collect the clips, by distributing them for free you would remove incentive for them to continue doing so, since they would receive neither money nor props from their peers for their work, which would likely result in a greatly decreased number of available clips. > Honestly, if I had a faster connection I'd go about make > huge RARs of all the mainstream clips I have and upload > them, instead of putting them on YouTube where they get > compressed to holy hell and later taken down. > They're mainstream clips owned by no-one in particular > (barring the copyright authors), albeit capped by someone > but who cares, so why hasn't anyone else thought of doing that? Possibly because in doing so you place yourself at the same potential legal liability as the site owners, with no likely reward to you personally. Very much a losing proposition. |
| Pat Powers |
| Sunday January 25 21:45:21 2009 Re: Last Templar |
| civil wrote: > Based on the movie started with her wearing the same > dress, I would say it will happen In the first 20 minutes There was a second, much briefer cuff scene at the 40 minute mark (she gets arrested again). Not nearly as extensive as the first cuff scene and not nearly as good. |
| Pat Powers |
| Sunday January 25 21:59:50 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Map wrote: > That doesn't make sense. You don't get to steal > someone's copyright and justify it by saying "I > don't get rich". There is no "lousy > businessperson" exception to copyright law. I don't think Greyman was arguing the legality of making vidclips and charging for them, but the ethics of doing so. The law is pretty clear on this, and squarely on the side of the copyright holder. But as Samuel Johnson said, "The law is an ass." It is not at all good at dealing with grey areas in ethics (pun intended) which is where I think this argument is. When Time Warner makes a collection of vidclips entitled "Bondage Babes of Time Warner Films" they'll be harmed by vidclippers and the ethics would be in line with the law, but I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future, do you? NOTE: I am not arguing what the copyright law is, I am arguing the ethics of vidclipping, and possibly what copyright law SHOULD BE. (I'd love to see a "use it or lose it" proviso of copyright law and a wider interpretation of "fair use.") > The free market only works fairly if laws are obeyed. > You should not take someone else's property and sell it. > The free market works as it should if it's YOUR property you're selling. You're right there: property laws are the underpinning of the free market, as there would be no incentive to create products if anyone could steal them and sell/trade them for themselves. Free markets need to be tightly regulated by government to work well, as our recent financial debacle demonstrates. I believe however, that if corporations really thought that clip sites caused them economic harm rather than benefit, they'd go after nudie vidclip sites like Mr. Skin immediately (we're small change compared to the nudie sites). They don't. I am sure that it's because they've calculated that the sites offer them a net benefit, rather than harm. |
| Pat Powers |
| Sunday January 25 22:25:52 2009 Ok |
| On E!'s Girls Next Door, one of the girls (Bridgit) is chained down on a table and gagged for a horror movie she was producing. |
| Girls Next Door |
| Sunday January 25 22:51:28 2009 Re: Ok |
| Girls Next Door wrote: > On E!'s Girls Next Door, one of the girls (Bridgit) is > chained down on a table and gagged for a horror movie she > was producing. Looks like the ep will be rebroadcast at midnight EST. Also, while watching "Knights Templar" I've seen a lot of promos for the Feb. 2 ep of "Heroes" which looks like it will be a bondage-fest. No gags in the promos that I could see, but there is a capture sequence shown involving a blond female hero. Unfortunately, also shows male heroes in captivity. But might be worth checking out for potential extreme bondage to prevent the use of metahuman powers. |
| Pat Powers |
| Sunday January 25 22:59:55 2009 Re: Last Templar |
| Pat Powers wrote: > There was a second, much briefer cuff scene at the 40 > minute mark (she gets arrested again). Not nearly as > extensive as the first cuff scene and not nearly as good. A THIRD handcuff scene for Sorvino at the 1 hour 55 minute mark. Better than the second, but not as good as the first. Some talk as well: "I also make it a policy not to talk to people who handcuff me more than once." (The same cop cuffs her in all three instances. It's like he enjoys doing it.) |
| Sunday January 25 23:00:51 2009 Girls Next Door |
| By the way the title was suppose to be Girls Next Door and the poster name was OK. Wonder if the movie they were filming will be released on DVD. |
| OK |
| Sunday January 25 23:02:48 2009 Re: Distributing DiD clips capped by others |
| Sam wrote: > They're mainstream clips owned by no-one in particular > (barring the copyright authors), albeit capped by someone > but who cares, so why hasn't anyone else thought of doing that? Yep - so true - owned by no-one except the owners. LOL TY - you made my day! BTW, let's look at Brian's pages. He charges advertisers. I realize that he does not charge for access to the pirated information but realistically would there be as many visitors and therefore the demand for advertising if this site did not have links to all the pirated information? |
| Sunday January 25 23:04:53 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Map wrote: > Uh Clem wrote: > > Actually, you can lose property rights, particularly > > > intellectual property rights, if you don't > aggressively > > defend them. For example trademarks can pass into > the > > public domain if infringement is allowed to occur > for many years. > Trademarks are not copyrights...there is a different > rationale behind that. I am speaking in general, of > course. There are unusual situations where doing > nothing to vindicate property rights helps you to lose > them, but they are not relevant for this discussion. The owner also has no obligations if he is unaware of the infringement. This is why Uh Clem's old site made such a point about NOT giving attribution. He did not want to risk being caught. And I am told this is what eventually allowed that woman to take him down |
| Sunday January 25 23:15:46 2009 Re: Authoring Clips |
| Map wrote: > Suckah MC wrote: > > > The law cares not if you have a monetary gain from > > copying copyrighted material. It is illegal, > compensation or not.<< > Completely false. Copyright law is all about the > monetary gain....that's the rationale of why it's > probably okay for you to clip a scene, but not to sell > it. It's okay for you to record a movie on your DVR and > keep it, but not to sell those copies. The wrong is > not possessing it or looking at it, it's selling it. > And besides, copyright law is not criminal in nature, > it's civil, which means the penalty for breaking it is not jail time in any case. Map, you are completely wrong. It is true that an unregistered copyright has only the chance of pursuing actual damages. But an owner of registered material is allowed to receive significant damages even if there is no financial gain. It is true that it is likely civil, but there are criminal sanctions too since the DMCA. Feel free to call my law office and make an appointment if you have any questions on this. Davis Law Group |
| law@DavisLawGroupPC.com |
|
|