Posting Of Pay Site Images - All Read.

[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...

[Jenae LaTorque]

And I might say that for you to publically air anything that is contained in a personal message will be considered by many as an unethical act and not very nice. I will not repute the words you quoted because they do represent my view of someone who makes self righteous claims about relevance and do not bother to back up their assertion. The plain fact of the matter is that the numbers represented by the available data indicate that for the most part, there is not all that much downloading of member exclusive pics going on here.

Then you pull quotes out of context - another questionable action. Those quotes were pulled from my ealier posts where we were questioning the apparent declaration that all posts should be limited to 3 pics per set. At that time seanchi had not made the addition to his initial post as it now stands. Those quotes are in referance to the matter of "promo" pics that are freely available on the net. Many see those as in the public domain and I can appreciate their position. Part of the price we do pay in accessing them is that we are subjected to advertising, annoying pop ups, and in worst case scenarios; the attempts of sites to put adware, malware, and other goodies on OUR COMPUTERS. So I can see where users do feel a certain ownership in these pics. I DO believe they have no right to repost them on their own site in an effort to make money off of them. I do believe they do have some right to post them here on this forum. And as mentioned by other members the site owners do gain a certain amount of promotion this way just as they gain from FHG site promotion.

I have to be somewhere now so I will sign off for now.

[GroobyKrissy]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

And I might say that for you to publically air anything that is contained in a personal message will be considered by many as an unethical act and not very nice. I will not repute the words you quoted because they do represent my view of someone who makes self righteous claims about relevance and do not bother to back up their assertion. The plain fact of the matter is that the numbers represented by the available data indicate that for the most part, there is not all that much downloading of member exclusive pics going on here.

Then you pull quotes out of context - another questionable action. Those quotes were pulled from my ealier posts where we were questioning the apparent declaration that all posts should be limited to 3 pics per set. At that time seanchi had not made the addition to his initial post as it now stands. Those quotes are in referance to the matter of "promo" pics that are freely available on the net. Many see those as in the public domain and I can appreciate their position. Part of the price we do pay in accessing them is that we are subjected to advertising, annoying pop ups, and in worst case scenarios; the attempts of sites to put adware, malware, and other goodies on OUR COMPUTERS. So I can see where users do feel a certain ownership in these pics. I DO believe they have no right to repost them on their own site in an effort to make money off of them. I do believe they do have some right to post them here on this forum. And as mentioned by other members the site owners do gain a certain amount of promotion this way just as they gain from FHG site promotion.

I have to be somewhere now so I will sign off for now.

OOHHH... Blue and Red text! Well, that MUST mean, you're right...

So, hey, guilty as charged. And, don't go spouting 'Ethics' and 'not very nice' at me... take a look at the mirror on those two accounts. At least I have the decency to admit, it may have not been in the best of judgments to post your excerpt publicly... I got caught up in a rare moment of anger because, quite honestly, I didn't do anything to deserve this attack. And, I would call it COWARDLY at the very least to hide those sentiments behind a PM. BUT... hey, wait a minute, since you sent it to me over the Internet, I have the right to post it anywhere I want, right? I mean, I basically own it now, according to your own logic.

Nice backpedal but even for those who read the entirety of your two posts, I don't believe the context will help solidify the validity of your arguments or your own need to backtrack. It's pretty obvious where you were going with those posts. Bottom line, you got caught and now have to backpedal. I pulled the quotes out more for spacial reasons than anything. I invite anyone to read the two posts and decide for yourselves if you'd honestly think that she's only speaking of 'promo pictures' there. I submit, grudgingly, that Jenae is smart enough, with her [self proclaimed] 150+ IQ, to have put those exact words in there if that was the original intent. Unless she was doing due diligence on all the 'FREE' sites she visited (which I highly doubt), certainly there was no way in knowing whether or not her pictures were from a legitimate Affiliate Program or ripped and therefore, 'ETHICALLY' should not have been downloaded or redistributed.

Funny how you still haven't publicly answered or refuted ANY of the points I've brought up concerning your irrelevant posts, confusing the original issue, and etc. ?? Again, I have NOT resorted to name calling and insults other than to say that your logic is at times, faulty and you seem to have a very egotistical view of yourself... a point which it seems others share reading through your 'Ask Janae Anything' thread.

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

I do believe they do have some right to post them here on this forum.

FALSE. And, this shows your incorrect beliefs on this subject. If you don't actually OWN the copyright to an image NOT in public domain, you don't have 'THE RIGHT' to post it ANYWHERE without permission. Just like, if you eat at McDonald's EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR FIFTY YEARS, it doesn't make you able to suddenly open up your very own McDonald's and use all their trademarked images and copyrighted materials. Usage doesn't equal ownership. You're wrong. I know it's asking a lot, but humble yourself and just admit it.

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

Many see those as in the public domain and I can appreciate their position. Part of the price we do pay in accessing them is that we are subjected to advertising, annoying pop ups, and in worst case scenarios; the attempts of sites to put adware, malware, and other goodies on OUR COMPUTERS

So, in the name of good 'ETHICS' and 'BEING NICE' can you please provide a list of the sites that DO NOT put adware, malware, or other goodies on your computer because you're sure making it sound like they all do... which is NOT TRUE. Obviously, there are some bad sites out there. The sites in question (listed) are all well run sites with honest webmasters / owners at the helm. Do you only go out and hold up only the 'bad banks' or go rape only the 'deserving women?' Strong words I know but think about what this course of logic is saying. Basically, because there are sites that do try to put crap on your computer that gives you THE RIGHT to violate the Terms and Conditions of ALL the sites? C'mon!!! If we were FORCING you to click on a link then MAYBE you'd have a small point (and even then weak) to make regarding 'paying' for something. As it stands, you're making yet another excuse for your wanting to view and enjoy something for free and redistribute it to feed your own ego.

[GroobyKrissy]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

I will not repute the words you quoted because they do represent my view of someone who makes self righteous claims about relevance and do not bother to back up their assertion.

And... BTW (this in response to a dig Jenae made in a PM to my typing 'valid' when I mean to say, 'invalid' insinuating once again that I have a low intelligence.

I think you mean... 'Repudiate' here?

Nice excuse... Publicly, I say, you won't because you can't. I've backed up my assertions (Which assertion are you referring to here... quote it back to me please and I'll back it up.) plenty and nowhere have I said anything 'self-righteous.' In order to do so, there first has to be something that I see myself as being superior over morally... please tell me where I've stated this?

Again... feeding your own ego by making posts using words which sound fancy but are entirely inappropriate for the context. Nice. And you call out Bionca for playing the victim...?? Again... classy move.

[ila]

This thread has long ago derailed over petty bickering.

Seanchai,

I am closing this thread because it has gone so far off topic and rapidly sliding into irrelevance. If you need to add more to it then open it, make your post, and close it again.