Hey there! Just sent in a dmca request to my legal team as this is (as you know) copyrighted content. Have a good one!
Shane hall
- Thread starter jayson_steyn
- Start date
You should hire a PR team next.
While I really do understand why these guys have to protect their content, this did make me chuckle. Valid point.
Maybe not post on a free porn sight like pornhub where its PUBLIC domain 
I am no lawyer but I don't think that makes it public Domain. No more than if I posted the latest MCU Movie there it would not become public domain. You could argue that in posting it publicly on a tube site it is not much different than someone posting it here.Maybe not post on a free porn sight like pornhub where its PUBLIC domain
You keep making similar statements about the "Public Domain" as if it means anything posted in "public" is free of copyright... That's not how the "Public Domain" works or what it means...Maybe not post on a free porn sight like pornhub where its PUBLIC domain
All works (content), regardless of whether it is or isn't posted in private AND public, by the very nature of simply existing IS copyrighted. Yes, the cute picture you took of your dog/cat last night is copyrighted and you (the person who clicked the button) holds that copyright. You don't have to register it or do anything, you automatically hold the rights to that photo. (I'm not going into works for hire or works created in your normal job function at your employer)
This is a simplified explanation:
Think of the "Public Domain" as an imaginary copyright holder of works that were created before 1927, some works created between 1927-1978, works that have had their copyrights expired, surrendered, forfeited, or explicitly waived, and works created by a public entity (Court documents, congressional documents, things created by the government like NASA photos, USGS pics/data, etc.). This entity cannot exercise any rights as a copyright holder because they are imaginary and they're just a cool imaginary being.
Posting a work in public does not waive any rights of the copyright holder AND does not grant you any license to copy, display, or distribute said works.
Yes, I've used examples of entities who's works fall into the public domain that are US centric, the concepts are still the same as most countries have adopted almost identical copyright laws.
While Tyler has every right legally and morally to protect his content, the business decision on how aggressively to enforce these rights and disparage those who infringe is a trickier decision.
Some creators look at it simplistically -- unauthorized downloads are lost sales/revenue, which must be prevented by coming down hard on pirates and sending a strong message.
Others see a more nuanced bigger picture, and recognize that a limited amount of "back-channel distribution" has promotional value, and since copies are usually degraded (lower quality or clipped) , they may not significantly cannibalize sales -- i.e. for many viewers it will encourage the purchase the full quality original content, and many viewers would never have bought the content under any circumstances.
I also think performers who are more lowkey on enforcement benefit from not branding themselves as being "in it only for the money". Many people are more willing to hand over their cash to someone they feel a connection with and want to support, as opposed to a performer who comes across as purely transactional, like a content vending machine. I think Shane, for instance, has always done an excellent job of cultivating his overall relationship/image with the audience, and thinking long-term, big picture.
Agree or disagree with the approach Tyler is taking, it's his choice to make. Either way, I think he would be well served to dial down the rhetoric, no one needs a "legal team" to file a DCMA request, don't be so extra.
It's pretty common for laymen to misuse the term "public domain" as the colloquial equivalent of "publicly accessible" rather than as the legal term of art that you correctly described. Hell, I've done it myself, notwithstanding the fact that I'm pretty well versed in the law. I would be willing to bet, however, that when misused in this context, most people reading it understand what the writer intended to convey, i.e. that the content is published in a domain that is accessible to the public, and that they are not challenging legal ownership -- so no harm done.
jayxx2
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Posts
- 114
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 225
- Points
- 88
- Location
- Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
jayxx2
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Posts
- 114
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 225
- Points
- 88
- Location
- Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
ah.
have never heard of an OF getting blocked before, but I guess even they have terms of service.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
- Posts
- 3,789
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 7,473
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Missouri (United States)
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I love seeing Shane bottom
apparently subscribers can still get in or join, but Shane can't get in... what may have happened is that Shane has been hacked and someone has taken over his account and changed the access passwords...
jayxx2
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Posts
- 114
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 225
- Points
- 88
- Location
- Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada)
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
awesome. just needs a big cock sliding into it.. repeatedly.. and then cumming... inside... repeatedly.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
- Posts
- 3,789
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 7,473
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Missouri (United States)
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
