Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Penthouse.com Goes After Usenet Posters 193

Posted by CmdrTaco from the protecting-the-pr0n dept.
Shibumi writes: " Penthouse.com is starting to pursue legal action against persons who post material to Usenet from their pay site." At least they're going after the poster and not the usenet servers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Penthouse.com Goes After Usenet Posters More

Penthouse.com Goes After Usenet Posters

Comments Filter:
  • damn, u beat me to it......i was gonna say that
  • Personally, I don't have any problems with what Penthouse has done. They produce copyrighted material, they think they have found someone who is violating that copyright, and they are going through legal channels to stop them.

    If people were violating the copyright on GPL'ed stuff by not following the license, I would support taking legal actions against those people to.

    People who don't like the strings attached to someones copyrighted works should go find some other works that don't have those problems. Whether the copyright holder is MicroSoft, the author of a GPL'ed work who won't release it under the BSD license, or Penthouse, it makes no difference. There are always alternatives and by using those alternatives you will send a message that you don't like the strings the other people have attached.

  • OK, I see that you don't respect people with dyslexia (or whatever its called in english). Its always reassuring to know that the world is still filled with nitpickers who don't want to show any form of respect for people with reading/writing problems.


    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
  • I don't know the meaning of "tangible assets". (My native language is not english).

    But, if you're saying what I *think* you are saying - that is - you're saying that its theft even when nobody actually LOSES anything - as long as the duplicator *earns* something on it - its theft.

    I agree with you that making actual profit or getting your own expenses covered - in duplicating it - then you should be guilty of something.

    But, if you copy it for your own personal use - and give it away to others without incurring ANY form of cost to the ones you're giving it away to (not getting any of your own expenses covered) - then it should not be illegal.

    I know it *is* illegal now. But I think that is Wrong.


    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
  • I can't help but think of the similarities between this incident and that where M$ asked /. to remove posters comments. Grated the situatiion and environment are a little different, whereas PH is going directly to the poster and not the ISP, but in many cases such as when AC posts, the easier way to file suit is to file against the ISP and have them disclose information on how to contact the poster, such as IP or account information. I'm glad /. didn't cave in the M$ pressures, but the base is still strikingly similar. Taking copyrighted or licenced property and putting it into the wild or linking to it without permission. Ironic.

  • Hey, it's the dreaded WKiernan, scourge of trolls :) How did anyone not notice this was a troll? Still, if 80md can get away with it, so can I...

  • What part of "You don't have to be guilty" are you failing to understand?

    Within 48 hours title to all properties can be transferred. A month after that it is sold at auction. You might have months before you get to go to a trial where the fact that no evidence other than paperclips, zip-lock bags, and a postal scale being found in your home finally comes to light.

  • Didn't you notice the part of his post where he said that YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE PROVEN GUILTY.

    So whether you were actually doing it is irrelevant. The "I don't need any rights, because I don't have anything to hide" argument has a lot of holes.
  • Siezing evidence is standard procedure in a criminal investigation. The PC is generally locked down, then hooked up to another PC running investigative software [guidancesoftware.com]. Sometimes a sector copy of the HD is taken and the evidence is collected off of that.

    The collected evidence is used by the investigators and the DA to build their case, and generally presented in court and explained to the jury by an expert witness.
  • His sin was wasting his seed, this is what happens when you masturbate. Hence masturbation is a sin. Get it?

    It is a "sin" because god (capitilzation intentional) said "Go forth and multiply".

    The reason for this? The church needed suckers^h^h^h^h^h^h^hmembers to support itself.

    You better face it. Most of the Christian and Catholic traditions are meant to propagate the church and/or it's friends (I like Stephenson in Snow Crash where he hints that organized religion is a virus)

    Fish on Friday? Know the religious purpose behind that? Fishermen approached the Pope, saying they weren't making enough money.

    The Crusades? Goodie, plunder. We also get to beat on some heathens, what fun!

    Christmas? Should be sometime in July. Let's take over some of the current Pagan traditions instead!

    I have no problem with people being religious. I have problems with organized religion. The human nature previously mentioned tends to corrupt the entire organization. If someone says the word of god is XXXX, I say BULLSH*T. There is ONE and ONLY ONE source. And it ain't gonna be the bible. Guess what, that was written by people, so it's still BULLSH*T.

    The religious fanatics posting to this thread are all going to say I'm going to go to hell. Guess what, if you say that you are breaking your own religion. My philosophy is a combination of Pascal and Marx (Groucho, not Karl). Assuming that I am otherwise a decent person (my definition, not yours): 1) I don't believe and God is fair and decent - I end up in heaven. 2) God / heaven doesn't exist, so it's all a moot point 3) I don't believe, God is a bastard and I end up in Hell. For 2/3 of that, there is no problem. If #3 is the issue, I don't want anything to do with an unfair God. As far as I'm concerned, he can go to hell (pun intended). So, by telling me and anyone here to go to hell, you automatically admit that your god is unfair and unjust. Isn't that violating your self-proclaimed religion?

  • Just look in the bottom of your browser to see
    where clicking this link will take you. It's
    not that hard to figure out. Slashdot shouldn't have to warn you where a click is going to take you. Don't be so easily offended.
  • well - one would have to believe in God and Satan in order for the "Devil's views have taken a hold of them". if you look at this from a true Catholic
    standpoint, everything is a sin against God and we are all destine for hell.

    but in the end, there is no manipulation. the ppl that are a part of the porn industry do so by a conscience choice. if they feel that they have a hot body and can make money from flaunting it, more power too them.

  • This is gonna be off-topic, so mod me down to -1,000,000 for all I care. But I'm just fucking sick of people saying ".000000002 percent of people use Napster for legal purposes".

    Sure, they're in the minority, but saying no one users Napster legally is ridiculous. You can get a lot of taped Dave Matthews Band shows, for example (and they permit, even encourage this). Grateful Dead is similar. I get a lot of great live sessions from DJ's, most of them don't care because they weren't recording it for a CD anyways, and they just want you to come see 'em spin when they're in town.

    That being said, this "news item" is hardly worth noticing. It's not even as controversial as Napster. Penthouse.com makes their money from people paying to download images. This guy is making it free for people to download the exact same images, at the same rate, at the same quality. I haven't seen a single post saying this should be fine.

  • Cancels are "advisory". It is the server's option whether or not to pay attention to the cancel. Also, PH would have to receive a post before they would have its message id to cancel it. If there's time for PH to receive the post, there's time for others to receive it too.

    Assuming that people want to receive the posts in question (as opposed to, say, the spam that Cancelmoose cancels), then sending out cancels will not prevent the spread of the copyrighted material.


    ---

  • Re:hrm (Score:1)

    by LiNT_ ( 65569 )
    aaarrrrggggg......

    "but then I feel Metallica does have a legitemate beef with Napster since it's quite obvious that Napster was not making an effort to enforce its T&C by shutting down users trading copyrighted mp3's."

    Napster has complied. A list of over 300,000 users was given to Napster. Napster banned thier nick and thier IP. What the hell do you expect them to do? Because ISP's use dynamic ip's for most of thier users is not the fault of Napster.

    "In not enforcing its ban on pirated material, Napster was assisting in the crime of pirating"

    They did enforce the ban! Napster has never assisted in piracy. They built a tool, a popular tool, one that would have been created by someone else if they didn't. The fact that it's users use it for piracy is not thier fault. The fact that someone used a Glock to go blow someone's brains out does not make it Glock's fault.

    "They DO have the necessary information to track down a user and ban them since they collect the personal info when you register"

    And I'll bet $100 that less than 2% of Napster users use thier real info. Napster doesn't verify names and addresses. If you were unscrupulous and signing up for Napster to pirate songs, would you use your real info?

    "Napster should have complied with the lawyers instead of fighting them tooth and nail"

    In essence, bending over and saying, "do what you want with us, we'll do whatever you say". Someone needs to stand up to these companies and let them no that the threat of a lawsuit is NOT the way to get your way!

    I'm not saying Napster is the holiest of the holies. Sure thier morals could use a little fine tuning. It still does not make thier program illegal. Where does it stop? First Napster, than what? Usenet? IRC? WWW?

    The RIAA had the oppurtunity awhile ago to embrace the technology and create a new and exciting business model. One that could posssibly renew thier strength is this exciting new world. Instead, they fight the technology and sue everyone who has a vision of the way this new technology could be used.

    The RIAA has one interest and one interest only, to keep thier aging business model alive as long as possible. They had the oppurtunity to start something new. They failed. Now they're just prolonging thier fate in an attemp to line thier pockets just a little bit more.

    LiNT

  • You, sir, are a proboscis monkey.
  • No, the stupid person would be the one that doesn't know when their opinion is not wanted.

    But to the REST of your spew:

    >>Look out of the window, and you will see the evidence of God's work. Surely it is self-evident that the world is as the word of God, as revealed to us through the Bible, has told us? What other proof is required?

    What does that have to do w/ Christianity? Every religion has an explanation for why the world is how it is. What makes you so sure YOURS is right? Blind faith!

    >>It's for your own good at the end of the day. Those who do not discover the love of the Lord and move into the light are eternally damned, and this is a fate to be avoided at all costs!

    For my own good? Let *ME* decide what is for my own good! I'll tell you, if heaven is full of fools like you, I don't want to go there!

  • This guy was probably huddled over the warm, friendly glow of his monitor when they busted in the door. Must not have been a pretty sight!
  • Look out of the window, and you will see the evidence of God's work. Surely it is self-evident that the world is as the word of God, as revealed to us through the Bible, has told us? What other proof is required?

    OK, so this world was created by the Christian God? PROVE IT

    For now, let's assume that Nature's splendor is caused by God. Why is it the Christian one? There's the Jewish one (by all accounts, that is the same one), the Moslem one(again, by all accounts the same god). What about the Shinto spirits of Nature? What about the American Indian god (sorry, my SW mythology is weak so I can't give names)? What about the one that put it on the back of the elephants on the back of the turtle?

    Sounds like you subscribe to the watchmaker philosphy. Again, by doing so you contradict yourself. By your own admission, the world is the work of God. He is responsible for everything on it. That includes everything flawed, like the human race and satan. That implies that he himself is flawed.

    So you will say that God works in mysterious ways (e.g. you don't have a fscking clue). Can you come up with a reasonable argument against this or are you stupid?

  • In the latest installment of the Dune series, Frank Herbert takes science fiction in a new direction by exploring the troubled private life of Muad'Dib.

    Soon to be a major motion picture, starring Lars Ulrich and Dr. Dre. Soundtrack available on local Hotline servers.

  • Katz, it's time for an article telling us how kids need access to this porn. It's on the net, it should be free, just like Metallica songs.


    --
    then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
  • Wait a minute! This is not an anonymous coward! ... It was CmdrTaco all along... "And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you lowsy nerds!"--CmdrTaco

  • It's all too much. (Score:4)

    by garethwi ( 118563 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:56AM (#1054334) Homepage
    No Metallica mp3's, no Penthouse Pictures. It's starting to look like everything associated with the word 'wank' is being banned.
  • Given the choice between
    Penthouse saying "Don't pirate our stuff or we'll go after your ISP and cause hassles for lots of others" and

    Penthouse saying "Don't pirate our stuff because we'll go after YOU! You will be the one who suffers."

    I think the second would be a lot scarier. I think this is more likely to stop people ripping off their stuff in the future.
  • For some totally inexplicable reason, a lot of cultures have come up with the turtle theory totally independently. Terry Pratchett just pinched the idea (but I think the elephants are original).
  • ok, put up the mirrors everywhere.

    i would do it myself ( MIRRORING! :-) but i dont think i can convince my girlfriend. funny i didnt have those problems with deCSS....

  • Everyone knows that while Usenet users are decreasing in number, the amount of traffic is increasing, due to all the alt.binaries sites... Are the big movie studios going to go after all the alt.binaries.vcdz, alt.binaries.movies, etc sites???

  • Maybe, maybe not. That's the problem: it's entirely up to how the nntp server is written/configured/administered. The protocol doesn't specificy what should happen, one way or another.


    ---
  • No, you're not.
    Since the legal action against "Muad-Dib" the volume of postings has fallen through the floor.
    It was pretty obvious what he was doing, and I'm surprised it took this long for PH to do something. I ASSume they were gathering evidence to make a legal bust (as opposed to their models and their phony busts)

    Pope

    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
  • One of my chief complaints of Napster is that it removes a lot of choices. Let's take my friend Brian as an example (I'm way to paranoid to run the thing myself.)

    He has a largish collection of mp3's (most burnt to cd's at this point) that took months to rip from the original CD's. He goes onto napster, and what happens? Almost immediately people start to download his Joe Satriani (sp) and Metallica mp3's. He _looks_ for a way to remove them from being downloaded, after all, it is technically illegal and he doesn't really want to break the law. He's on napster to find some very specific rare and hard to find songs (like a copy of BOC's Godzilla where they chant godzilla instead of having a pure musical interlude, or a copy of Kill the Wabbit) Guess what, he can't find that option. He tried to "Remove from playlist" his entire collection to stop the copying, but that didn't work. It just deleted his entire collection (yes, delete, unrecoverable.) ruining months of work (which is why they are burnt on to CD's now)

    Where is the option that let's me comply with the law and not allow people to copy copyrighted songs from me? It might be there, but after a few days of searching it might as well not exist.

    There is another crime involved that you might want to research. Contributory Copyright Infringement. This one carries many of the same penalties as the actual infringement, and napster will get nailed for it.

    As for Metallica being "evil" as I saw someone put it, they are doing only what napster asked them to do. Take a look at napster from M's perspective. They see them as a greedy company positioning themselves for a huge IPO to reap millions, by more or less encouraging people to pirate. They aren't against MP3's, or online distribution, they ARE against not Even Being Given a Choice. Remember Choice? It's one of the things slashdotters complain about constantly not having.

    Sure they could go after the traders, but like, that would be attacking their fans, something they are being made fun of for doing. They have only done what Napster has _asked_ them to do. It really is a catch twenty-two. The only way for them to "win" is to get napster to shut down, or at least provide the tools so people can choose not to provide every single fucking mp3 on their hardrive for anyone to download.
  • Well, I tried to get Slashdot to take the ad but they thought it was too lame and, I guess, sort of insulting so they refused. I only ment it as a kind of homage, but everyone gets to run their site as they wish. So I turfed it over to deja. And it's not really a blatant violation of rights, it falls within the parody catagory -- even if it is a lame parody.
  • I think that you'll find Penthouse around as well as the Internet in a couple of years. Might even stretch it to a couple of decades.

    Sn. Anonymous should know better that to believe everything he reads in the newspapers.

  • "Nice story on anal sex with a sticky ending........baboom bah! "

    We struggle to improve everyone's sex life one little post at a time.

  • This is either the most straight faced joke posting I've ever seen, or really, REALLY disturbing...
  • "And, the comparison between a bookstore is just stupid. The owner of a bookstore has a book less to sell - if its stolen. He has PAID for THAT book. Penthouse doesn't lose anything if someone copies their picture. Its copied - not lost. You cannot call it theft, when you still have your copy intact."

    Let's take a look at that.

    You run a bookstore with (keeping it simple) only ten books for sale. You sell these books to people who come into your shop. One night, some guy goes into your shop and runs off perfect copies of these ten books. He then sets up a monster xerox machine on the sidewalk in front of your shop and hands out one or ten copies of these books to anybody passing by and to those who are starting to walk into your shop. And he's a really great guy because he's handing out copies of ALL your books for FREE! To everyone, customers, kids, cops, whoever shows up.

    Meanwhile, you're sitting in your bookstore filling out checks for the rent, payroll, and checks to the publishers who sold you your ten books.

    You telling me you're *not* gonna stroll out on the sidewalk and have a full and frank conversation with this bozo?

    This "no gain, no blame" concept is not really what's happening in the real world.

    What's problematic here is the real world collision between two key concepts:

    1. Information wants to be free.

    2. People need to get paid.

  • Penthouse has every right to go after people who distribute information that they obtained through special premium access to Penthouse's site. The problem with current software licensing is that it treats all software as confidential information obtained through a one to one relationship with the company that produces it and subjects its use to a contractual relationship. This is clearly misguided (and I have a project in the works that will *prove* that people do not treat EULAs as contracts), because the nature of software distribution more closely resembles distribution of a mass-produced good not subject to this regulation.

    However, when a user is granted special permissions to a site or company network, there is a level of customization that should subject the user to a contract as to how the information can be distributed. Otherwise, I would sign up for an account with Penthouse and use my username/password to reformat their content while displaying my ads. The law needs to recognize the distinction betweem custom content/services and mass produced software.

    Stepping in on the side of the users in this case will discredit us. We need to choose our battles carefully.
  • It was when his wife got home that was not a pretty sight.
  • Hard as it may be for you to believe, we actually are concerned about that.
  • lol! When it applies to YOU, it's OK! Hahahaha

    Wouldn't sex without the intent to bear a child be wasting a "seed"? Isn't birth control a "sin"?
  • Water pipes, not bongs. :)

    They arnt called bongs until someone actually puts pot in them and smokes it.

    I've also read about several local gvts raiding head shops and seizing all their cool heady shit. Usually its 'cuz they find the owner w/ something illegal and use it as an excuse to raid the whole place and break stuff. Most of the time its on the command of some puritan christian coalition type gvt official who has been brainwashed by the war on drugs. No really, marijuana should stay illegal.. just because it helps people who live in constant pain isnt a reason to even explore its possibilities for medical use. And when we do find out it has medical uses, we are going to totally ignore all the research.

    Maybe i should move to canada...

  • >>If I am so wrong then why do you keep desparately trying to counter my arguments? Is it because you realise I am right and that in your heart you are trying to believe?

    Actually, I am arguing because your opinions are ridiculously extreme and I disagree with what you say. That is the POINT of arguing.

    >>Because it is, of course.

    Blind faith. Pathetic. You believe what you believe because you were told to. Never bothered to actually *THINK* for yourself. You are a sheep.

    >>No problem, you have no chance of getting there. Instead you will become part of the army of the Enemy, destined to fight the Lord in the final war between Heaven and Hell. I'll see you there.

    lol. See ya there! ;-)

  • Due to abuse by skript kiddies like Hipcrime, things like cancel requests tend not to be honoured, unless coming from an authoritative src, and suitably authenticated.


    I think we all realised that USENET had become a lost cause when people started referring to it as "dejanews" and threatening to "report you to netscape" when you posted accurate summaries of their spamming activities.


    Explain that one away, Mr Darwin.


    -a-

  • Well RIAA has decided to go after newsreader decoders [superpimp.org] I think that the penthouse action is a lot more reasonable that this kind of idiocy. Thankfully Andover is supporting them legally.
  • Ha! Where exactly are you getting these "exceptions" that magically apply specifically to you so you can do what you want w/ your life w/o worrying about upsetting God? I know they are not in the Bible, it seems you are pulling them out of your ass.

  • Pr0n wants to be free... (Score:5)

    by A Big Gnu Thrush ( 12795 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:42AM (#1054356)
    ...that's free as in handjobs, not free as in speech.

  • New laws needed (Score:3)

    by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:44AM (#1054357) Homepage
    Cool, now we can have lots of new laws lobbied for by Penthouse magazine. Perhaps they will press for censorship of Usenet to filter out all the filth and smut that corrupts our children and damages Penthouse's business.

    Alternatively, every model used by Penthouse could have a barcode tatooed onto her buttocks, so that pirated pictures can be easily and automatically recognized.
  • alt.binaries.penthouse is the main offender I believe.

    Not that I would know ofcourse, but I heard someone talk about it the other day. I didn't have a look or anything, it's just what I heard.

  • Perhaps I'm just too monumentally naive, but when are these poor businesses/publishing houses/musical groups going to realize that once you allow electronic access to material, you lose control over it? Is Penthouse really "losing money" over this...? People are still buying their trash and funneling an obscene (pardon the pun) amount of cash to Mr. Flynt and his gaudy gold plated house. Is Metallica really "losing money" over the Napster issue? People that can afford to buy their CD's already have copies of all of the albums (except maybe the Binge and Purge B.S. economy pack) Let me clue Larry and Lars and Dr. Dre and all the rest... gentlemen, you are no longer the masters of your domain! Just wait until 50 years from now when braintaping is possible... the descendants of these geniuses will try and have their copyright(s) extend to cover people's memories of their performances...

  • Hehe!!! That is just *so* true.

    Someone moderate that up...

    - Oliver
    "exp(i*Pi)+1=0" - Euler

  • Talk about open source (Score:4)

    by Brento ( 26177 ) <brento.brentozar@com> on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:45AM (#1054361) Homepage
    They have an interesting point that you don't hear from the music industry or software industry:

    "Second, and equally important, is the fact that our pay site is an adult site. It is for adults only and we mean it. We take the responsibility of limiting access to our site and our content to adults very seriously."

    You have to give them some credit there: with that one sentence, they actually got the parents on their side. For once, the liberals and Bobby G are on the same side!

  • He posts binaries to a non-binaries group?

    He should go to jail for violating the rule about posting binaries to non-binaries groups!

    So, this does finally reveal who is behind the famed "Usenet Cabal" -- Penthouse Magazine!

    Go Penthouse! :-)

  • What about the one that put it on the back of the elephants on the back of the turtle?

    Errr... that was Terry Pratchett... and I doubt he'd pass as a god amongst the other ones roaming the multiverse... :)

    (Note to the original poster of this thread: I remember you... wasn't it you who always posted his fantasies about a certain actress that'd been turned to stone, and something about a heated cereal and your pants? So stop pretending you've got different feelings now - you don't trick me! HAR!)

    np: Vladislav Delay - Ele (Entain)


    As always under permanent deconstruction.

  • Well, there goes that hobby...
    --
    then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
  • Personally, I just read the binaries. Once you get used to it, UUENCODED pr0n can be very satisfying.

  • Instead of using legal action, they should offer a free "modeling session" to anyone turning in a porn pirate.
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
  • Lets face it, Napster was created to trade mp3's. Trading mp3's that you don't own, under the current law, is illegal.

    Let's face it, money was created to trade goods. Trading goods that you don't own, under the current law, is illegal.

    Beautiful little non sequitur; that's the way to cloud the issues. Now, WTF is the point of that statement? Do you work for RIAA or something?

  • Articles (Score:5)

    by sstrick ( 137546 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:47AM (#1054368)
    But I only post the articles honest...
  • I think that as long as the general public doesn't have a clue about newsgroups except maybe through deja.com, the studios will not throw too much of a fit. instead they'll complain about napster and DVD copying...
    "Leave the gun, take the canoli."
  • Why the current Copyright laws are for exactly this. Ane Penthouse is using them as such.

    The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.

  • Can't they take a backup?
  • Does anybody know if they traced the poster by usenet logs or by watermarking their images?

    (watermarking is hiding should-be-but-isn't- difficult-to-remove tagging information in the image itself)
  • Yes, my post was meant as a joke.

  • From my own humble experinces I have yet to meet a person in real life that doesn't use napaster illegal, I am aware that there are some users that use it for legal purposes, but personally, in the real world, I have yet to meet a one of them. From my own sheltered experinces, that is where I drawed the 0.00002 %, I was trying to convay a small user base of legal users, I am probably wrong.

    Sorry for any pain or inconvience this may have caused slash dot.

  • so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be justifying that Metallica identify the Napster users that are pirating their mp3's and bring them to court?

    "See, they go after the poster, the one that commited the crime, slap him with a small fine and embrass the hell out of him so he doesn't do it again, penthouse gets from cash from it and everyone is happy. "

    So Metallica should go after all hundred thousand users and slap them with a fine...

    Lets face it, Napster was created to trade mp3's. Trading mp3's that you don't own, under the current law, is illegal.

    "Metallica could learn a lot about the way penthouse is handling this."

    Yes, they should go and sue all hundred thousand users that Metallica found trading their mp3's.

    God bless the USA and the lawyers that infest us all.

  • Re:hrm (Score:2)

    by dirk ( 87083 )
    See, they go after the poster, the one that commited the crime, slap him with a small fine and embrass the hell out of him so he doesn't do it again, penthouse gets from cash from it and everyone is happy.


    Which is exactly why the compromise that is before congress is such a goodthing. Napster doesn't track users, so finding a user and going after them is difficult if not impossible. If Napster required some form of identification (even something as mundane as an address or something similar to what ISPs have) then they COULD go after the users. But, since Napster is allowing people to use their service anonymously, they don't have anyone else to go after. Good laws only work when all the sides work together to make them work.

  • It depends on the state you are in. In Florida, the PD can impound your car for 1) buying or selling drugs in it. 2) soliciting prostitution from your car. 3) if your car was used in the crime (drive-by-shooting, getaway car). They can also take boats and planes and RVs.

    Tom
  • Hey idiot.

    You and a LOT of other slashdot posters has a LOT to learn. Have you ever heard of something called dyslexia (or whatever way its spelled) ??

    You (and other stupid assholes) are showing a level of attitude about spelling that makes me sick. Personally I just forget a letter now and then, and mispell a word from time to time - but I know people who proofread their material several times, but they've still got so many errors in their writings that you just have to laugh.

    But correcting them .. is WRONG. Correcting people all the time is the same as harrassing them. Not everyone spells perfectly. Lots of people have *severe* problems spelling correclty.

    So please, AC. and others -shut the fuck up about spelling errors.

    I'm sick and tired of it.


    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
  • First of all - I want to cheer Penthouse for doing things The Right Way.

    They've uncovered the "badguy" - and gone after HIM instead of the carriers (i.e. the newsservers). They've gone after the person who abused their services - and not some innocent common carrier.

    Their first point is - good. Even though I think we should rethink patents, copyrights and tradesecrets - more about that later.

    Their second point on the other hand. The one about minors. Sure, it gives them a 'plus' in the almanac of christian puritans - but seriously - do you think they care? I don't.

    And, the comparison between a bookstore is just stupid. The owner of a bookstore has a book less to sell - if its stolen. He has PAID for THAT book. Penthouse doesn't lose anything if someone copies their picture. Its copied - not lost. You cannot call it theft, when you still have your copy intact. Its duplicated, not removed. If it had been theft - this Muad'Dib would have to break into penthouse and steal their master copies. That DID NOT HAPPEN.

    More about the first point - which I promised to rant more about.

    The more I read about these cases of copying - the more I realize that we need to rethink the entire issue of copyright / patent / tradesecret. In this world, its *extremely* easy to make a copy. I've pirated music, I've pirated games - and I don't feel bad about it. I wouldn't have bought any of it - simply because I would have no way to afford everything I want.

    I buy the things I can afford. But what I cannot afford to buy - I copy. I never had any possibility of buying Autodesk 3D studie for .. what was it? £2500 ? Something like that. I copied it, played with it - and found that I didn't want to spend the time learning it. Then I deleted it. I don't have the possibility to pay £2500 at the age of 16 (when I copied it, some 4 years ago). I still don't have the possibility to pay that kind of sums.

    Also, I cannot afford to buy every magazine I want in the store. I cannot afford to buy two dozens PC magazines. I buy a couple a month and read a lot of articles on the web - for free.

    Of course, we have a problem if we remove copyright law altogether. We would then face the problem of an author writing a book - releasing it - and two days later another bookprinting-shop would release the same book, but cheaper - and they would earn money.. Then the author would lose money. The books would be available in the local store, but he wouldn't get royalties.

    If, on the other hand, someone typed in the entire book, and posted it to a newsgroup. It would still be a breach of copyright, but you wouldn't get it in the store. You would have to spend lots of money on paper printing the book - and you wouldn't get a nice cover on it. And - nobody would earn money on you copying it.

    The later, imho, should be allowed. If nobody earns actual money on the copying - it should be allowed. Specifically - by law.

    .. in my opinion.


    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
  • oh, I'm not disagreeing. I think both groups should pursue legal action against those pirating their wares (not warez). However, I know it's not the general feeling in /. that ANY of the users have done anything wrong.

    Metallica, and all those other bands, should be able to collect or fine those that have been illegally trading or repackaging their IP.

  • Re:hrm (Score:5)

    by jbarnett ( 127033 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @04:50AM (#1054416) Homepage

    Yes Metallica should go after the users trading the mp3 files, not after napaster. The users are commiting the crime, not Napaster.

    Think about it, go into a head shop, buy a bong then go smoke some weed out of it. When Mr. Police Man sees you smoking pot, who is he going to arrest, you or the head shop.

    What law did the head shop break? None. What law did Napaster break? None.

    Did you break a law when you started smoking pot? Yes (At least under the current laws in the United States). Did you break a law when you started trading copyrighted mp3's? Yes (At least under the current copyright laws in the United States).

    Did usenet or [insert isp here] break any laws when they made there newsgroups public? No. Did you break any laws when you posted copyrighted porn to these news groups. Yes (At least under the current copyright laws in the United States).

    So who is responiable you or the head shop? Who broke the law, you or the head shop? Who should get fined or put in jail, you or the head shop?

    Napaster *CAN* be used for legal purposes as what the company claims, as bongs and newsgroups *CAN* be used for legal purposes as what the companies claim.

    You can used Napaster to trade legal mp3's (like self-written, self-produced material) as you can use both bongs (for smoking tobacco) and newsgroups (for posting self-produced material). All which are pretty legal.

    Does anyone use these things for legal purposes though? No not really, maybe 0.00002 % of the entire population.

    Please take responiablity for your actions, even if sometimes you actions are illegal and may laid you in jail.

  • OK, just assuming this isn't a total put on... It serves no purpose to society but to sate the unwholesome appetites of certain elements of the male population who, for whatever reason, cannot find themselves a woman to marry.

    Or in other words, as long as they're married, it's alright for them to have unwholesame appetites and use women purely for sexual satisfaction? That'd be the "marriage as legalised sex slavery" school of thought, then?

    Besides which, marriage is an invention of religion, and not being religious, I do not take suggestions that I need to have my relationships officially "sanctioned" particularly kindly.

    Pornography is degrading to both men and women. It encourages the myth that all men are interested in is looking at naked women and thinking about fornicating with them

    No it doesn't. Men buying pornography might encourage that idea, and, oh, look at that, men do buy pornography. In fact, history has proved that if pornography is not available, people create their own.

    You are also revealing your own sexism; pornography for women also exists. Strange though it may seem, women are also sexual creatures who can, shock, horror, get aroused by looking at pictures. I've even heard tales they can have their own orgasms, but I'm sure that's a myth.

    and its whole purpose is to encourage the sin of onanism, something which God-fearing Christians know to be wrong.

    IANABS, but wasn't Onan's sin that he didn't fertilise his wife when God wanted him to, i.e., his sin was disobeying God and not consummating his marriage. I don't believe there's anywhere in the Bible that states that a single man masturbating is a sin, but, like I say, IANABS.

    A true man has no need to look at glossy pictures of naked women, they are quite capable of finding themselves a real woman...and dragging her back to his cave by her hair if necessary.

    Actually, I think you'll find that population dynamics put forward very good reasons why not every man, no matter how "manly" will find a lifetime partner.

    Women are exploited in these magazines with both the promise of money and the supposed "liberating" experiance of being photographed without any clothes on.

    Hm. Have you actually talked to any of these women? Their general attitude tends to be that the liberating factor is the money. They're not doing for art's sake, they're doing it for their bank balance.

    These are lies from an industry filled with perverts of the highest order, people for whom Satan is a way of life.

    Good job you didn't mention any names there, or you could have been in for one (ehem) hell of a lawsuit. I very much doubt you could prove any member of the porn industry is a secret Satanist!

    Being Christian is one thing. Not being able to face up to human nature and blaming Satan for it is another.

  • Re:hrm (Score:3)

    by kootch ( 81702 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @04:54AM (#1054420) Homepage
    alright then, we're agreeing.

    but then I feel Metallica does have a legitemate beef with Napster since it's quite obvious that Napster was not making an effort to enforce its T&C by shutting down users trading copyrighted mp3's. In not enforcing its ban on pirated material, Napster was assisting in the crime of pirating. They DO have the necessary information to track down a user and ban them since they collect the personal info when you register.

    Based on this, Napster should have complied with the lawyers instead of fighting them tooth and nail. If they had complied, then Napster would have established itself as a genuine article that wasn't JUST created to pirate mp3's, but to trade mp3's that were allowed to be traded.
  • Why on Earth would the subject of immortality be a joke?

    So you're saying if you don't read Penthouse you'll live forever? Hmmm. Nope, I'll take the boobies, thanks.

  • Are you trying to argue that wet dreams didn't happen prior to the widespread availability of porn , in the 60s or so ? Nope -0- people have been having wet dreams for thousands of years. I suppose it was the witches, huh ? (-;

  • What, so you can come round and spread your Satan-loving perversions t

    I challenge you to show us where he claims to love satan

    Your "Christianity" is like pick 'n' mix

    AFAICT, your "Christianity" is just a front for bigotory and the desire to impose your will on others. 99% of the BS you spout has little to do with the scriptures.

    Only by taking a stance against the Devil are you assured a place with our Lord in Heaven.

    What a load of crap. This is a perfect example of you simply spinning shit that is not supported by anything in the bible. Again, I put it to you that you are simply using christianity as a front to impose your will on others. Christianity is supposed to be about a relationship with god, not about making a protest march against "satan".

  • hen unless you can be turned to the path of righteousness, your soul is lost to us, and you are of the Enemy.

    Your path sounds more like one of self righteous and a zealousness about imposing your will on others.

    Remember this - one day you will be found wanting and will suffer the consequences of your filthy behaviour.

    And you'll just be grinning like a cheshire cat when he "suffers" and receives "the wrath of god" ? Yeah, that'd be right. You are full of hatred and spite for those who protest when you try to impose your will on them. I would rather be called a "satanist" than to be as full of bile as you seem to be.

  • Sin is the act of doing something that is not the Lord's work. Nothing you do in the name of the Lord can be a sin.

    "WItches" were publically burned in the "name of the lord". The spanish inquisition was conducted "in the name of the lord". Arabs were slaughtered in "the name of the lord".

    While you sanction such attrocities, you go purple in the face at such "moral outrages" as women being paid first-world wages to pose in "dirty pictures".

    You are truly a hateful and sick man, and I bet god is embarrassed to have you misrepresenting him. If it weren't for his infinite mercy, he'd sue you for defamation.

  • It serves no purpose to society but to sate the unwholesome appetites of certain elements of the male population who, for whatever reason, cannot find themselves a woman to marry.

    You don't need to be unmarried to view porn.

    Pornography is degrading to both men and women.

    How so ? I consider your patronising attitude towards those that are "exploited" to be degrading.

    A true man has no need to look at glossy pictures of naked women, they are quite capable of finding themselves a real woman.

    Are you arguing
    (1) that anyone who is single is not a "true man" ? Where does the bible suggest this ? Your bigotry is disgusting. There are many perfectly decent men ( even christians !!! ) who have some difficulty finding a partner.

    Women are exploited in these magazines with both the promise of money

    Well it's a promise that is met, almost all the mags do pay up. Why are you so outraged by this "exploitation" ? They actually get good money for it, they are not "victims", and most of them would consider your attitude both chauvanistic and patronising. Do you own any clothing made in China ? There is real exploitation taking place in the world, workers locked in factories, etc, and while all this happens, you are more concerned about the "dirty pictures" stuff.

    It is a symptom of the moral decay of modern society that the pornography business has become so huge.

    No, it's a symptom of technology. Before then, we had prostitution, and that is not only a large industry but a very old one, and it thrived even in the "morally correct" victorian era. You can strike out the industry, but like it or not, "god" gave us sexual desires and industry or no industry, they won't go away.

  • Come on guys, break out the usual excuses for IP theft:

    1) Those models don't really get that much money from the magazine, they make up for it by dancing live or giving lap dances or whatever
    2) Theres only a few good pages in every issue of Penthouse, why do they make me buy all those pages I'm not interested in (like the ones with words on them)
    3) The porn industry is controlled by the major players and they keep the prices too high anyway...

    etc.. etc... etc...
  • Property seizure and forfeiture laws are one of the biggest ways police depts can support themselves these days... I'm sure some of it is "evidence gathering" but sometimes it seems like outright theft. You may cheer when the Mafia king loses his house, but there are some pretty scary ramifications to these laws.

    In Conneticut [ctstateu.edu] you can lose your car if you use it to solicit a prostitute.

    Or how bout this one [westcov.org]:

    On May 20, 1993, The City's Police Department

    obtained a warrant to enter the home of Mr.
    Lawrence Perkins as part of a homicide
    investigation involving a former boarder of the
    Perkins household. Neither Mr. Perkins nor any
    member of his family were suspects in the
    investigation. During the search, the West
    Covina Police Department confiscated a
    number of items including $2,629 in cash.


    There's an article (from a libertarian point of view) on this here [libertarianworld.com]

    ---
  • Britney Spears is still allowed...

    //rdj
  • MS /. case (yikes MS /.)

    Didn't realize I did that, does look pretty bad. . .


  • What are the legal differences in going after the individual ? Won't the level of costs be determine by how much the information was diseminated ? This would be a result of the ISP rather than the individual.

    This however appears to be almost the individual as a corporation. As Maud'Dib was servicing requests from others (ooerr). Sort of like one individual on Napster acting as the sole copier of Metallica CDs.

    Personally I think that these various cases addressing the different issues (negligence in the part of Napster, copyright violation by Napster users, and this one theft and distribution) are a good thing(tm) for us all. By allowing the LAW to determine what is right and wrong you can remove many problems associated with letting Politicians and "interested parties" defining the process.

  • > > Wouldn't sex without the intent to bear a child be wasting
    > > a "seed"? Isn't birth control a "sin"?

    > Not as long as you have already fufilled the purpose and
    > created a child, no.

    Dear me, dear me, dear me. I am shocked. Your words are ghastly. This is absolutely horrible. You mean to tell me that you think unlimited hedonistic fornication is not a sin just because you and that harlot of a wife of yours have already had a child once? Dare you to mouth such heresy before the open public? Do you suppose, in your vanity, that the fact that you are a parent bleaches out the black immorality of your pleasure-seeking lustful genital connections?

    This is a lie and an abomination against all decency and sanctity, as you are well aware. Holy Church doctrine clearly states that the only excuse that is acceptable for any instance of sexual congress is the intent to create a child during that one particular act of copulation. The incidental fact that you might once have had a child doesn't free you from the indelible stain of lewdness, should you and your Hell-bent wife shamelessly indulge your gross appetites for the sheer pleasure of such indulgence, as you have already publicly confessed to so doing. In fact, even to merely contemplate so nightmarish an obscenity -

    Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    is the very depth and nadir of mortal sin.

    Hell yawns wide for such as you, sex fiend. Hell, Hell, Hell, Hell, Hell, inevitably awaits you. Doomed sinner! Lewd, proud fool! You are damned! You have fallen! And you can't get up.

    Unmercifully yours, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  • Person, not personS, and not out of line (Score:5)

    by Northern Hunter ( 89531 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:50AM (#1054454)

    They are pursuing action against one single individual, who was COMPLETELY mirroring absolutely EVERYTHING in near realtime, from Penthouse's internal pay-site to Usenet.

    Literally hours after being put up, shoots were appearing on Usenet.

    In the time since the story (May 2) another person or two have taken up the 'mirroring'. I haven't heard whether he/they/(she?) have been brought to task yet or not.

  • When did this start?? (Score:3)

    by FascDot Killed My Pr ( 24021 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:50AM (#1054455)
    Penthouse magazine contains pictures of naked women?? I was so busy reading the articles I never noticed!
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

  • Why do they always do this? (Score:4)

    by garethwi ( 118563 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:50AM (#1054457) Homepage
    Officials entered the subject's premises, which were then searched and all computer equipment and storage media found there were seized and placed under seal.

    Why is it that they always sieze computer equipment in these cases? It strikes me as rather strange. I mean, if someone was distributing photocopies of a magazine from a car, then they wouldn't take the car off you after you had been caught, would they?
  • Actually one major difference to this and the MS /. case (yikes MS /. ;-) is that what was posted on /. was publicly accessible to everyone via MS. Whereas the penthouse photos were exclusively for the pay site. So what was being published on the Usenet was something that you can only get if you paid Penthouse. So, I would say that Penthouse has a legitimate claim that they are losing money from these postings.

    So, MS complains that someone posted something that they freely post anyway. Penthouse complains when someone posts something that is NOT freely available.

    Steven Rostedt
  • depends on the picture...

    //rdj
  • This is becoming more and more common. In drug busts, you are usually taken for everything that's not nailed down. You have no rights, don't have to be guilty, and have little chance of getting your stuff back even if you beat the charge. It's called forfeiture, and it's how cops furnish their homes.
    I'm not joking, this actually happens. Same thing with getting busted for solicitation... your car usually gets seized.

    All this in the name of "decency". It's all pretty indecent as far as I'm concerned. When are we going to realize this trickle of lost rights is turning into a flood?
  • If the statement is true, that a large bulk of material has been copied from a pay site.. I say fair play to the guys. They pay their money to get the pics, and recoup it from memberships. I doubt very much that they'd have instigates such expensive and draconian measures if the quantity of material lifted from their site wasn't suitably vast. Maybe I'm missing something somewhere, but this seems a perfectly legit use of the copyright laws. Just my tuppence worth, Malk.

  • hrm (Score:5)

    by jbarnett ( 127033 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:51AM (#1054475) Homepage

    This is really good IMHO. Not that people are stealing porn, or penthouse is showing off it's huge uh legal team, but they are doing it the right way.

    See, they go after the poster, the one that commited the crime, slap him with a small fine and embrass the hell out of him so he doesn't do it again, penthouse gets from cash from it and everyone is happy.

    If penthouse decided to go after the news group or hosting provided, this would be a bad thing almost as stupid as if Metallica went after Napaster instead of the users.

    Metallica could learn a lot about the way penthouse is handling this. Like I said a million times before, dam Metallica really needs to get some porn and just fsck chill out.
  • And of course Deja specifically refuses to carry the binaries unless you pay them extra, which most people do. Hell I couldn't even put a screenshot into alt.binaries.games.quake because they said it was a "Spam Zone", yet alt.troll is alive and kicking :(

  • Re:New laws needed (Score:3)

    by pigpogm ( 70382 ) <michael@pigpog.com> on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:53AM (#1054480) Homepage
    They'd have to tattoo the breasts too.

    In related news, Penthouse today announced a world record number of job applications for the new post of tattoo artist.
  • The copyright violation is wrong and should not be taken lightly. Penthouse has every right to make money on their product.
    By the way, exactly what newsgroup was this posted on? I just want to um... do some research on copyright violation.
  • Nope it was Hustler that had all those legal troubles. And this matter has nothing to do with freedom of expression. They are not going after posters who are posting pictures of themselves. ( Which would fall under expresion )

    They are going after posters who are distributing Penthouse Copyrighted material. ( Which falls under stealing )

    Why is it that just because something is done online people automatically presume it's their right to do it? If you went out and bought say the New York times and then made 1000 copies of it and sold it or distributed it for free int the "real world", you would be arrested for copyright infringement. But it's ok to do the same online?

    Look I applaud Penthouse for handling this the Right Way. They are going after the copyright violators, not the services those people are using, unlike the RIAA which is after the service providers.

    Ex-Nt-User

  • You don't have to be actually dealing any drugs to be robbed at gunpoint by the cops. Just drive down I-10 through Louisiana with some cash in your car. Oh, yeah, and it helps - a lot - if you're black.

    You think I'm kidding, don't you? God, I wish I were. Here, read this [fear.org]. Or, from the President of the ACLU, this [aclu.org]. Or lest you fall for the anti-ACLU business that is so popular with demagogues in this country, and dismiss the above as just the ranting of some left-wing weirdos, here [house.gov] is a statement published by the office of conservative Republican congressman Henry Hyde. In fact, the appaling damage which the logic-twisting pro-police-state judicial activists of the Rehnquist Supreme Court [magnet.ch] have inflicted upon the Constitutional rights of American citizens has outraged many Congressmen of both the Democratic [mpp.org] party and the Republican [mpp.org] party, who have responded this year with legislation [loc.gov] to undo their excesses and restore those Constitutional rights to the public. This bill has not yet been signed by President Clinton, who has a terrible record of siding with the law enforcement gang against the interests of mere citizens. Let us hope that FBI Director Freeh and Drug Tsar McCafferty (that war criminal [cryptome.org]) don't talk him into vetoing this bill.

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  • story is just an excuse.... (Score:4)

    by MeYatch ( 110355 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:53AM (#1054498) Homepage
    for Rob to post a link to Penthouse!! I'm on to you Rob Malda........

  • They're doing the right thing - good.... (Score:3)

    by voop ( 33465 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @03:53AM (#1054499)
    I happen to agree with the many postings to the story of Open Source Leaders Speak About Napster [slashdot.org], that copyrights should/must be respected - for many reasons, notably that the copyright laws also are what protects GPL et. al.

    Even so, I've been worried about the fuzz of napster, where the lawyers seemed to have had a hard time comprehending what exactly napster is and what exactly napster is not (the napster guys merely provide a service - some people are abusing that service, but not the napster-guys) - and in the name of "copyrighting" and "protection of property" (be that intellectual or not, depending on taste in music...).

    It's good to see, that penthouse have taken a slightly different approach, and understood what USEnet is and is not - and have attacked the "problem" in the right way: by tracking and going after the people, not the medium.....

    I just PRAY that they (being penthouse or the legal systems in various countries) will keep it that way, and not trying to enforce additional requirements of either the ISP's tracking the identity of every poster, scanning the postings etc....or even worse: that eventually it makes someone going after (gasp) the servers, to where the offending material is being probagated.

    But for now: credit to Penthouse. They have very good points, they have the law on their side - and they seem to be doing the right thing with it....
  • I think its interesting no one is defending the copying of porn, the prices and quality of the porn industry makes the RIAA look like an overpriced and pretentious 'zine factory.

Slashdot Top Deals

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Close