Guest zipperzone Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 His name is Rory. Claims he's Bi - yah sure. I think the "shooter" pic is HOT Lovely pics. Hotter than hot. Also one of the forbidden studios. I have removed to avoid potential legal issues. Please see the pinned post about Photo Sharing. You can see him at: http://www.chaosmen.com/video_gallery.php?video_id=1244 TY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zipperzone Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 His name is Rory. Claims he's Bi - yah sure. I think the "shooter" pic is HOT Lovely pics. Hotter than hot. Also one of the forbidden studios. I have removed to avoid potential legal issues. Please see the pinned post about Photo Sharing. You can see him at: http://www.chaosmen.com/video_gallery.php?video_id=1244 TY Sorry TY - I had read the warning post but I guess I was so caught up in his hotness that it never dawned on me that he was verboten. Something that puzzles me about copyrights - I would have thought that it was only a violation if one was distributing them for profit. If, for example, I had copies of these pictures at home and you visited my house and I showed them to you, is that a violation? I very much doubt it. So why is it a violation if I show them to you by way of my computer. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just genuinely confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TampaYankee Posted August 23, 2010 Members Share Posted August 23, 2010 Sorry TY - I had read the warning post but I guess I was so caught up in his hotness that it never dawned on me that he was verboten. Something that puzzles me about copyrights - I would have thought that it was only a violation if one was distributing them for profit. If, for example, I had copies of these pictures at home and you visited my house and I showed them to you, is that a violation? I very much doubt it. So why is it a violation if I show them to you by way of my computer. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just genuinely confused. The reality is that copyright owners have the prima facie right to protect their property and to sue for damages caused them by someone else using their product. While sale of their property by another party gives them a strong case, a case can be made that free distribution cuts into their sales. In fact, because it is their intellectual property, the presumption is with them so it basically comes down to the other party proving that it did not cause harm. That is a murky argument to establish. That involves lawyers and cost money whether or not they ultimately prevail and comes with an uncertain outcome. This is not a risk that the other party would undertake unless there is a much bigger objective to maintain or establish. We certainly have no such objectives or desire to misappropriate their intellectual property. There is a 'Fair Use' exemption that permits organizations to use samples for reporting or documentary purposes where the limited use of the intellectual propery is central to the work product. Also to be considered by the copyright holder is the likelihood of a desirable outcome should they pursuit legal action. Your pictures at home may be as much a violation in principle, but the probability it comes to their attention much less, Then there is the uncertainty of what damages they can exact from an individual and whether that is worth their time. Also, I suspect they mind less personal sharing on that level in the hope that it spurns sales of their product. However, that is only conjecture on my part does not in any way mitigate individual risk. Bottom line: we would be open to a law suit which cost big bucks whether or not we would prevail in the end and the probability of prevailing would be at best uncertain. Everyone, please help us respect copyright law and avoid legal entanglements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted August 23, 2010 Members Share Posted August 23, 2010 An irate copyright owner would argue that MER is a for profit site and that allowing their IP to be posted here amounts to its appropriation for commercial purposes. Many porn producers are experiencing finantial pressure from competition with free internet material and have gotten quite trigger happy in the past year or so. It's Oz whose pocketbook is on the line. If he chooses to be cautious in allowing the posting of copyrighted material we should respect his decision. For all we know MER has already gotten one of those "I'll strangle you with your own intestines if you don't cease and desist" letters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
