Posting Of Pay Site Images - All Read.

[citoyen]

ask: in the news-groups are galleries with more than 15. how it behaves there
with Seanchai's postulates, because there you no restrictions.
who offers a fair, you need not fear for his client. friendly greetings

[GroobyKrissy]

Originally Posted by citoyen

ask: in the news-groups are galleries with more than 15. how it behaves there
with Seanchai's postulates, because there you no restrictions.
who offers a fair, you need not fear for his client. friendly greetings

Not quite sure what you're asking here... but, if my assumptions are correct, it seems you are asking what about newsgroups?

Newsgroups are a whole other ballgame and cannot be compared to Forums with moderation. Obviously, they are pretty difficult to police and hey, if you want to download stuff from there with the risk of trojans and viruses... more power to you.

[citoyen]

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

Not quite sure what you're asking here... but, if my assumptions are correct, it seems you are asking what about newsgroups?

Newsgroups are a whole other ballgame and cannot be compared to Forums with moderation. Obviously, they are pretty difficult to police and hey, if you want to download stuff from there with the risk of trojans and viruses... more power to you.

I want to put it more clearly:
The news-group server thwarting the requirement of the industry to limitation. copyright as defined in the internet unclear.
Seanchai says what is clear. who wants to keep customers, it must treat them fairly. Otherwise they are looking for other opportunities. friendly greetings

[GroobyKrissy]

Originally Posted by citoyen

I want to put it more clearly:
The news-group server thwarting the requirement of the industry to limitation. copyright as defined in the internet unclear.
Seanchai says what is clear. who wants to keep customers, it must treat them fairly. Otherwise they are looking for other opportunities. friendly greetings

Again, I think things are being lost in translation. But, I think you're now saying that customers will go elsewhere if not treated fairly? I don't think anyone is stating differently.

Hey, I'm all for competition between businesses. I don't think you're quite being clear as to what you're saying 'treat them fairly' is all about. If you're stating that a particular company does not treat their members fairly, you should be able to back that statement up with facts though. If anyone is being treated unfairly, it is the sites who deliver the content to paying members and then have to deal with dishonest members who redistribute content illegally.

Copyright as defined in the Internet is NOT unclear. I don't know where this whole feeling comes from. Let's be clear... the Internet is just a big, fat, bloated library. Libraries are full of intellectual property that is (at least when I was a kid, it was... I haven't actually been to a physical library in some time) FREE. That doesn't mean that all the property contained in it is magically public domain. Just because something is ACCESSIBLE doesn't mean it's not owned by somebody. That's why most companies trademark their images...

Anyway... again... completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[citoyen]

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

Again, I think things are being lost in translation. But, I think you're now saying that customers will go elsewhere if not treated fairly? I don't think anyone is stating differently.

Hey, I'm all for competition between businesses. I don't think you're quite being clear as to what you're saying 'treat them fairly' is all about. If you're stating that a particular company does not treat their members fairly, you should be able to back that statement up with facts though. If anyone is being treated unfairly, it is the sites who deliver the content to paying members and then have to deal with dishonest members who redistribute content illegally.

Copyright as defined in the Internet is NOT unclear. I don't know where this whole feeling comes from. Let's be clear... the Internet is just a big, fat, bloated library. Libraries are full of intellectual property that is (at least when I was a kid, it was... I haven't actually been to a physical library in some time) FREE. That doesn't mean that all the property contained in it is magically public domain. Just because something is ACCESSIBLE doesn't mean it's not owned by somebody. That's why most companies trademark their images...

Anyway... again... completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I boldly assert that the problems that are discussed in this topic are partly attributable to participate in the previously written.
Another aspect is the defined rules of a group, if
I want to move here, I must act according to them. ! IF I must draw the consequences and go other routes. 3, 15 or more images is no longer the question, SSL has clearly defined the proposition.
Moreover, philosophical discussions have sometimes sexy
surprises: the first blog to your views and not the last times. friendly greetings

[Jenae LaTorque]

I see that we have new additions to the rules. Looks like some solid steps in the right direction. I would not mind if the rule was amended to require that only 15 pics from a set could be posted by all members cumulatively. Most have you noticed that many times we have one member posting 15 from a set, then another member posts some more from that set, and sometimes even another posting more. I think that 15 from a set are more than adequate, in fact: I think 6 pics (2 neat rows of 3) should be adequate to showplace the model. If others require more; than a link to the authorized "FHG" site could be followed and they could then download the rest there.

The only objectionable drawback I can see to this reccomendation is that it will place a larger load on our moderators. Perhaps this load may be lessened soon if warnings and penalties are levied on members violating the rules. Hopefully incidents would decrease as the awareness rises.

In summation, I do believe, that for most of us, restrictions in the number of pics of a set are no hardship. There are a lot of promotional pics out there on the net anyway and there is no need for this forum to act as a prime source of pics.

[citoyen]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

I see that we have new additions to the rules. Looks like some solid steps in the right direction. I would not mind if the rule was amended to require that only 15 pics from a set could be posted by all members cumulatively. Most have you noticed that many times we have one member posting 15 from a set, then another member posts some more from that set, and sometimes even another posting more. I think that 15 from a set are more than adequate, in fact: I think 6 pics (2 neat rows of 3) should be adequate to showplace the model. If others require more; than a link to the authorized "FHG" site could be followed and they could then download the rest there.

The only objectionable drawback I can see to this reccomendation is that it will place a larger load on our moderators. Perhaps this load may be lessened soon if warnings and penalties are levied on members violating the rules. Hopefully incidents would decrease as the awareness rises.

In summation, I do believe, that for most of us, restrictions in the number of pics of a set are no hardship. There are a lot of promotional pics out there on the net anyway and there is no need for this forum to act as a prime source of pics.

this is exactly the core. friendly greetings

[GroobyKrissy]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

I see that we have new additions to the rules. Looks like some solid steps in the right direction. I would not mind if the rule was amended to require that only 15 pics from a set could be posted by all members cumulatively. Most have you noticed that many times we have one member posting 15 from a set, then another member posts some more from that set, and sometimes even another posting more. I think that 15 from a set are more than adequate, in fact: I think 6 pics (2 neat rows of 3) should be adequate to showplace the model. If others require more; than a link to the authorized "FHG" site could be followed and they could then download the rest there.

So, this is how you represent yourself publicly... wise, reasonable, etc.

BUT... this is how you answer someone privately? (see below) You have no other recourse in the face of logic but to backtrack on your statements, and hurl insults? Seriously... get a life.

Sorry folks... I typically wouldn't post something publicly that someone has stated privately but this is just rubbish and the true face of Jenae isn't as pleasant as her posts represent. This sent to me by Jenae in response to a private email she sent me.

PS: It was my CHOICE to get into porn, not out of necessity. I actually left a very successful career in the tech industry as an OM. My site has (and continues) to survive the current economic turmoils, which in itself proves that I have some business acumen. Quite honestly, I could really care less about your opinions about my looks, since my worth as a person isn't dependent on that, but you won't find me wallowing in the mud of insulting other people because I cannot build a logical and cohesive debate. If you take the time to read my posts, I think I've more than proved that I am pretty intelligent and can put together a reasonable discussion without having to stoop to insults. As stated before, I have yet to see some logical and well thought out answers (NOT EXCUSES) to the points I've made.

Damn if you ain't rather stupid. Because you can't understand numbers and what they indicate or downright prove, then you think they are irrelevant. Not only are you ignorant, but you wallow in it. No wonder you went into the sex business, you don't have the capacity to make it otherwise. To be honest, I did find your musings on your site somewhat interesting; I see now that is all you've got. You certainly ain't much to look at.

[GroobyKrissy]

If you look at the posts again, you will see that I am not contending the rights of the pic owners. There were others that do, I don't.

Jenae:

Seriously? I'm PRETTY SURE that your first two posts in this thread are pretty much contending just that.

In my mind, I see those pictures as paid for since we have to endure the advertising, pop ups, and other miscellania that accompany them.

Because I watch the commercials on TV I therefore own the shows that I watch and can reproduce, rebroadcast, and resell them as I see fit?

Nowhere do I see a claim of copyright which forbids the further dissemination of the pics.

You clearly do NOT understand copyright laws.

For you to come on here and plead for a lower limit is ridiculous.

Basically saying that we, site owners, shouldn't have the right to request (I see no pleading going on here) a limit on what is posted on a Forum that bills itself as a 'legitimate' Forum?

Backtrack to follow please... I'm interested to see what you say to this...

[seanchai]

Originally Posted by citoyen

ask: in the news-groups are galleries with more than 15. how it behaves there
with Seanchai's postulates, because there you no restrictions.
who offers a fair, you need not fear for his client. friendly greetings

Yoda ?????

[citoyen]

Originally Posted by seanchai

Yoda ?????

I am not master yoda from star wars, I must disappoint you, unfortunately. friendly greetings

[Jenae LaTorque]

Master Citoyen??

[citoyen]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

Master Citoyen??

citoyen is the condition of the masters still far away.
friendly greetings