|
|
This page is for posting personal ads looking to trade scenes. All transactions are the responsibility of the parties involved. Everyone dealing here should be aware that providing an adult tape to a minor is likely illegal, and could result in prosecution. Also, dealing copies of commercial tapes may be in violation of the copyright laws. The Moderator will make no attempt to police this board.
|
|
| Sunday July 23 13:45:40 2006 Re: 88 minutes (moved from The Discussion Page) |
| Van wrote:
> (unsigned poster) wrote: > > ------- > > It looks to me like the damsel *not* Alicia & *not* > dangling upside down has a gun. My bet is she (if she > *is* a she) is the perp/villian(ess). She looks > connected 'cause she's holding the rope suspending Ms. > Not-Alicia. Then again, the video quality is so poor > there could be dragons & hobbits hiding in the frame > & we wouldn't know it. > > First person to get me HDTV quality caps of Alicia gagged > & tied to the chair gets lifetime *FREE ACCESS* to > VAN's FiCTiON!! :-) http://www.restrainedtastes.com/van/ Uhh... just to clarify, this was bumped off the Discussion Forum 'cause I made my little joke about free membership (VAN's FiCTiON is, was, & always will be a free site), but whenever hi-res Alicia-closeup-gagged-in-88-Minutes caps do face, I *would* appreciate it if someone dropped me a line. :-) |
| Van |
| vvvan@earthlink.net |
| http://www.restrainedtastes.com/van/ |
| Sunday July 23 13:48:31 2006 HELP!!!!! |
|
This post was deleted. Poster: C. Reason: You've already asked. You are NOT allowed to pester people. |
| The Moderator |
| Sunday July 23 16:56:48 2006 Re: 88 minutes (moved from The Discussion Page) |
| Van wrote:
> > First person to get me HDTV quality caps of Alicia > Uhh... just to clarify, this was bumped off the > Discussion Forum 'cause I made my little joke about free > membership Well, no. It was because you requested caps. All requests need to be on Trade. |
| The Moderator |
| Sunday July 23 17:52:12 2006 Re: MJ/Youtube Discussion |
| Dannysuling wrote:
> 1. There are costs invovled (time, money, etc.) in > putting up high quality mainstream clips that the > webmaster him/herself has prepared from a broadcast or > DVD. While it would be naive for the site owner to > believe that nobody will download those clips (hah!), it > is a legitimate expectation that other site owners won't > poach--at least, not immediately. It's not a legal issue, > but one that points to whether or not there is a > community that supports and respects each other. My > feeling is that these aspirations toward a community are > important--but it would also be naive of us to expect > that everyone shares that ethos. So, we shouldn't make a > big deal of poaching when we encounter it. Goes with the > territory. And, as many have already noted, it's not as > if those mainstream clips belonged to anyone but the big > entertainment conglomerates that produced them in the > first place. I'm sort of conflicted on this. I don't mind my stuff going around, but when people grab my stuff (it's pretty obvious when it happens because only a few people (i.e. my trained minions) cap at the same quality as I do) and sell a DVD with 10 clips for $10, it bugs me. A lot. > 2. On the other hand, sites like MJ's do also have > proprietary clips and videos that the site owner actually > owns the rights to. And poaching these clips over to > another broadcasting site (like Youtube) is not only > unethical but illegal; it's copyright violation. Yup, and it is much, much, much more common in the porn world. Know a gal in the industry and she is constantly having to chase down russian assholes who grab a copy of her site and sell it as their own. Of course, there is money to be made there, in didcaps not so much - nobody expects to have to pay for this stuff (and very few people do anything like trade). I > 3. There is no "personal use" clause in U.S. > copyright law or in the Berne Convention on Copyright. > However, there are "fair use" clauses Which are so poorly defined that they are basically useless. Hell, we still don't know if ripping a cd to a aac or mp3 to put on your ipod is legal. All we have is "nobody has gotten sued for it yet"s > So all those guys on Youtube, as well as all the > well-known ones (you know who you are, and we love you) > ought not to be posting mainstream clips without at least > an awareness of the risks re intellectual property > issues. And 2257 BS, but that really doesn't apply if you dont live in the states. The main thing I am worried about is that on youtube, people can stumble onto our clips and then onto the rest of the community. I think that we could, quite frankly, do without any additional exposure. Some mormons got sued (successfully) about a week ago for buying dvds, taking out the naughty bits and selling the cleaned version to other mormons for an extra 5 bucks. Keep in mind that they bought a copy of the original movie each and every single time they made a cleaned copy. |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@gmail.com |
| http://www.slumberville.com/asbestosfilter |
|
|