*

MasterBlaster

  • Moderator
  • 442
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #30 on: September 08, 2005, 05:28:06 PM »
You know something Peschi -

You are right - I will say up front that I never looked at that thread. Will do so now.

MB
MasterBlaster

*

ilovelinsey

  • E Cup
  • 644
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #31 on: September 08, 2005, 06:25:08 PM »
Quote:

  Links deleted. Surprised at you Maximus - you've been around long enough to know better.

Master Blaster
Moderator  




Master Blaster, it would be helpful to all if you would cite the rule, when one runs afoul of it.

Thanks
"As long as I have a face she has a place to sit"

*

peschi

  • D Cup
  • 141
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2005, 10:00:21 AM »
can you please cite the rule where it states that it is forbidden to link to filesharing sites? Can't seem to find it in the New User message. Or is it something you just made up?

*

MasterBlaster

  • Moderator
  • 442
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2005, 03:41:59 PM »
Why do you want to place a link to a specific file (read Video) at a filesharing service?

Or..

Why do you want to get a link to specific file at a file sharing service...

might your answer be that you or others could get a video offered for sale without paying for it...?

Just want you to tell all of us why you need to have this HERE...

MB
MasterBlaster

*

peschi

  • D Cup
  • 141
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2005, 06:28:36 PM »
 a file sharing service is just that, it shares files for a large group of people, it says nothing about the actual content. Let's take the sabrina thread where rapidshare is used to distribute TV broadcasted material, short clips of TV shows which aren't released on VHS/DVD.

With that just one line from a mod "linking to filesharing services are forbidden" you shut off a way of sharing material to fans who are no way hurting any sales of material and have no legal risk for the site itself. It's just mod paranoia.

*

ilovelinsey

  • E Cup
  • 644
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #35 on: September 09, 2005, 06:35:38 PM »
Quote:

  Why do you want to place a link to a specific file (read Video) at a filesharing service?

Or..

Why do you want to get a link to specific file at a file sharing service...

might your answer be that you or others could get a video offered for sale without paying for it...?

Just want you to tell all of us why you need to have this HERE...

MB




I suppose this reply will get me placed on double secret probation or banned for life, but MasterB*a*ter, did you check that link?  It was not to a video "offered for sale without paying for it."  It was a link to two 30 second clips of Niki performing on stage.  

If you are basing your decision on the Rules, I can find no rule close to sanctioning your action.  According to Rule "4. Users may NOT post links or other instructions that provide access to any of the above kinds of images. An image may have had its logo or copyright notice removed or obscured..."

But, on the two clips the logo was clearly in place: "SpiegelTV."  I don't know what SpiegelTV is, but it sounds like a subsidiary of Der Spiegel, and I seriously doubt if DerSpiegel/SpiegelTV would object to this being posted.  IMHO they would probably consider this as fair use.
"As long as I have a face she has a place to sit"

*

Struik

  • E Cup
  • 374
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #36 on: September 09, 2005, 07:22:53 PM »
Same as with the links in the Sabrina Sabrok thread. Mostly just TV captures and not repeat not content stolen from a site. What you gonna do, ban gabbybag now?

Seriously, I understand that any copyright violation on this site can and will not be tolerated in protection of the site and/or it's owner(s). But it seems to me that 1 picture out of the members section of non-restricted models site (i.e. not Score, Photoclubs etc) is more serious than simply some captures from a publicly aired TV show. However, pictures from a model's members section are allowed nonetheless (when abiding to the 1-1-1-1- rule). Please reconsider your position here. It simply doesn't make sense, since vidcaps are content which is available to the general public with or without rapidshare (et all) anyway.
<a href="http://refer.ccbill.com/cgi-bin/clicks.cgi?CA=927215-0000&PA=798221&HTML=http://www.vanessamontagne.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.vm6.com/links/candle46860.jpg"></a>

<b>Vanessa Montagne, the busty blonde of your dreams.
<a href="http://www.vanessamontagne.com/forums" target="_blank">Visit Vanessa's forum!</a>

*

MasterBlaster

  • Moderator
  • 442
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #37 on: September 09, 2005, 07:59:41 PM »
Sorry guys -

I asked this question - why do want to have links to file sharing websites HERE -

I did not ask for a definition of file sharing. I know what it is. As do you.

I did not ask for a detailed explanation of what was in the sabrina thread. If it was links to TV fine...

For those who ignored the question and offered alternative responses - I asked the question and I know the answer.
Whether the rules clearly spell it out or you are being told  is neither here nor there.

When content from JS's Farangdingdong is posted on a web file sharing service, and hundreds download without having to join his website, that is simply not right.

When literally hundreds of pictures from a specific models websites are posted here and we get threatening letters...we get the message.

When will you get the message?

You call it Moderator Paranoia - I call it theft of Intellectual Property.

You want to go to such sites? Go right ahead. Anyone can find all the big tit movie clips they want. Just type that into Google. There's no mystery at all.

Simple truth is you can go on your own. You can browse all you want in any torrent website.

Maybe if you created something like music, like a movie, like a book, or a piece of art you would feel differently.  
Maybe if someone took something you owned and began to give your property away you'd feel differently.

You want to download copyright material and not pay for it - then it is your business. We can't tell you what to do in your home. But if you bring those links here we will delete them.

The BEA doesnt want to be known as a clearing house for hijacked copyrighted material. We will not permit our forums to be used for that purpose.

You can choose to disagree and pretend that all of this is acceptable. But it isnt. Here is Rule # 2 for these forums:
------------------------------------------------------------
2. The following images are prohibited in the Forums (and in the Galleries):

A. All unmorphed images of any model that are the copyrighted property of SCORE or any/all of its subsidiaries (including, but not limited to, Score/Scoreland/The Score Group, Voluptuous/XL Girls, 18eighteen, Leg Sex, Naughty Neighbors, Linsey's World, Chloe's World, Sarenna's World, TiffanyTowers.com, Autumn-Jade.com, DesireasWorld.com, InesCudna.com, BustyKerryMarie.com among others);
B. All unmorphed pictures of Nadine Jansen or of any other models (e.g. Milena Velba) from Nadine's site (www.nadine-j.de), Bettie's original site (www.bettie-b.de) or from associated sites;
C. All unmorphed pictures that are copyrighted by Photoclubs;
D. All pics, MORPHED OR UNMORPHED, of Barbie Griffin aka Michelle McCurry aka Sandy Reed aka Veronika Black.
E. Images of/copyrighted by Abbie Montrose can only be posted if you obtain prior permission from her. Info here.
F. Images copyrighted by JuggMaster.com can only be posted if you obtain prior permission from them. Info by email: [email protected]
G. Unmorphed images of Maria Swan, aka Jana, aka Princessa, that are copyright by mc-nudes.com: morphs are permitted provided that they do not show full-frontal nudity.
H. Users may not post, offer or solicit excessive quantities of copyrighted content.
-----------------------------------------------------------
   
Rule 2.H. says it all.
Posting a link that allows hundreds of people to obtain a Complete DVD without paying a red-cent for it...is plain and simply wrong. Notice how many people or producers of copyright content have sent letters to us threatening legal action. They do not want their material hijacked and freely distributed here.

Do you want complete strangers to come to your homes and help themselves to your property?  Well that is what file sharing is being used for these days. Not in absolutely everycase but certainly in many if not most or all.

You didnt answer my questions because there's no escaping the  thought that there is nothing noble about file sharing. Its just another way to steal something.  

MB
MasterBlaster

*

Nakhakren

  • E Cup
  • 809
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #38 on: September 09, 2005, 09:51:55 PM »
I hope this doesn't get me banned, but I think this needs to be said.

Your logic, in this regard, seems a bit flawed MasterBlaster.  

You aren't even bothering to check and see if the material that is being shared is copyrighted/licensed material.  You are blindly assuming that the only reason a person would want to use a filesharing site is to pirate copyrighted material.  This is not so.

Let's say that I created a video, and wanted to share it with the BEA community, but did not have webspace of my own on which to host it.  I would upload it to a filesharing site such as the one Maximus used, then post a link to it.  Have I then broken the rules by doing this?  The video that I have created is not copyrighted, it is my own creation, which I choose to share for free.  Yet by your reasoning, my decision to share this free material with the BEA as I did would be a violation of the forum rules.  

I fully understand your desire to keep the BEA from becoming a clearinghouse for pirated copyrighted material, and I respect that.  However, you don't have to ban all forms of sharing data files in order to do this.  Just visit the link and see what is being shared.  If it is copyrighted, delete the linnk, if not, leave it be.  All it takes is a little extra effort and discretion.

I am not a theif, nor are most of the other people here at the BEA, and I don't really appreciate the insinuation.  I would never consider stealing anything from anyone, and it bothers me when people try just as much as it bothers you.  I wouldn't have downloaded those clips if I had had reason to believe they were pirated copyrighted material.

I apologize if I have overstepped my bounds with this critique.  It's late, I'm tired, and I've had a drink or two.  It just really bothers me when people put blinkers on like this.

-Nakhakren
"God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
- Freeman Dyson

*

capnjack

  • A Cup
  • *
  • 14
    • members.bearchive.com/~capnjack/
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #39 on: September 09, 2005, 10:44:30 PM »
Folks, it's real simple.  The moderators have to err on the side of caution because of CCBill; it's that simple.  
http://businesscenter.ccbill.com/html_forms/aupt.html
See (I) "Any attempt to display...infringe any copyright..."

As I said in another message on here, without a signed and notarized release form from the model, as far as CCBill's concerned, you're "infringing".

The BEA is a _pay_ site, regardless of the "free" content; if CCBill gets pissed and pulls CCard processing, the "free" stuff goes too.

If things keep getting worse, the MODs may forced to pre-moderate _ALL_ posts before they're allowed to go live on the board.

*

MasterBlaster

  • Moderator
  • 442
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2005, 08:10:48 AM »
For your one example there are thousands and thousands that are on the other side of the coin.

Go ask Daktari Lorenz, the producer of the Bette Balhaus, Nadine Jensen, and Milena Velba videos what has happened to his business due to file sharing -

Go ask JS of Farangdingdong what he thinks of file sharing -

If you make a video and want to share it, that's your business...but the bulk of the videos sent to file sharing are not uploaded by the producers - they put clips from their videos on their own websites, not on a file sharing service . No, the bulk are just hijacked.

Models like Keisha Evans or Chelsea Charms are in business. They may display a small sample video clip or two on their own sites, to attract people to buy a video, or become members...but they do not want me, or you to download everything on their sites, and upload it to Rapidshare.

By the same token, when you produce your video of your wife or girl friend sunbathing topless, I am sure many people would love to see it, and would be pleased if you wanted to give it away. But if that video was made for the purpose of selling it, then you would not be a happy camper if I bought it from you and then uploaded it to Rapidshare so that thousand would not have to buy it in order to see it.

This is the intent of copyright. The owner of the copyright can sell his product, or give it away. You and I, who do not  own the copyright, may not do so especially when the original producer is trying to sell this video.

Just a reminder - a different 'what if'.

The BEA likes to have people buy memberships as well. The BEA offers lots of free content as well as member only content. When the member only content is high-jacked and displayed on a file sharing service, eventually and ultimately the BEA would begin to lose revenue, and if the worst case scenario came to pass, The BEA would EVENTUALLY close.

THIS WHAT THE PRODUCER OF EVERY COMMERCIAL VIDEO OR DVDS WANTS - HE WANTS PEOPLE TO BUY HIS PRODUCTS. HE DOES NOT WANT SOMEBODY ELSE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DVD FOR FREE.

If MGM or Time Warner or producers like Clint Eastwood, and Mel Gibson want to drive trucks around and give away their DVDs, surely I will be happy to get one from them. But I don't see that happening. So if you upload Million Dollar Baby to rapidshare, and in effect, are giving it away, how is that defensible?

It's that simple.

MB
MasterBlaster

*

peschi

  • D Cup
  • 141
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2005, 08:51:35 AM »
tjeez, talking about loosing perspective. Get your facts straight, first of all, the clips which were offered where not from a video/dvd, so there was no breach of copyrights. I even think that if there this were from a source it's from an out of print tape. And even then you have the right to take samples (ie these clips) from the whole tape. so your decision to remove the links is a bit dubious to say the least.

Second of all to compare the placing of these links to the piracy of sites like Daktari/JS/FRDD is really cheap, there are much more easier ways to to put pirated material on the net. rapidshare will block the file once it receives just one complaint (I even think it's automated). And don't get me wrong, I have for about $100 on monhtly subscriptions to big bust sites and am an advocate of the saying "if you like the boobies you'll have to pay for them". But to block and punish one guy for posting a link is really bordering on paranoia.

*

JustMeMike

  • F Cup
  • 616
    • The Arts
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2005, 09:10:57 AM »
Yes this is ridiculous - who was punished?

*

DoubleXL

  • B Cup
  • *
  • 34
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #43 on: September 10, 2005, 09:19:25 AM »
Quote:

Quote:


 Links deleted. Surprised at you Maximus - you've been around long enough to know better.

Master Blaster
Moderator  
 




funny thing, so any linking to filesharing sites is forbidden. So what about the massive linking to rapidshare in the sabrina thread?


well thanks alot pointing that out

*

Nakhakren

  • E Cup
  • 809
Re: Nikki Knockers MERGED
« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2005, 10:11:48 AM »
captainjack - Thanks a lot for the clairification.  I'm starting understand where the problem lies in this argument.

MasterBlaster - I think I finally see why people are having such a difficult time seeing your side of the argument.  The problem is that, whenever someone asks why the clips were deleted, you keep coming back with the same stock answer of:

"Filesharing is morally wrong.  When you pirate material stolen from a paysite, DVD or VHS, you are destroying someone's livelihood.  You should be ashamed of yourselves."

This is something that we all understand and respect (at least I would hope that we do).  The point of confusion lay in the fact that we didn't think it applied in this situation.  You kept implying that by downloading these clips, we were somehow interfering with Niki Knockers' ability to make a living.  This made no sense to us because, as far as we were aware, these clips had not been stolen.  

It was not until captainjack clairified things by explaining that, in essence, the mods have to tread VERY carefully when it comes to filesharing because of how insanely nitpicky and restrictive CCBill is, that the apparent source of Maximus' error became clear.  It wasn't that his actions were illegal, or even morally wrong, it was that he had done something that had the potential, however unbelievably slim, to come back and bite the BEA in the proverbial ass.

If you'd just said at the beginning that the mods need to be incredibly anal about filesharing in order to prevent lawyers from leaping on the BEA like a pack of wild dogs on a three-legged cat, I think you could have avoided a lot of confusion and irritation.  Instead, you tried to make a legal issue into a moral one by attempting to guilt-trip people into not questioning your decision when, in fact, it would have been easier and more efficient to just explain the reasons behind your decision.
"God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension."
- Freeman Dyson