Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  butt pirates

Will Corbin Fisher’s Gay Porn Piracy Crackdown Inevitably Out Gay Teens?

Like movie studios and record companies before them, it’s hard to fault companies like Lucas Entertainment and Corbin Fisher for trying to fight online piracy. Both companies have launched legal battles against Internet users trading their porn flicks on BitTorrent without paying for them. (Corbin Fisher went so far as to offer a two-week amnesty period where users could come forward and pay a one-time $1,000 fee and lose any risk of a lawsuit.) But with lawyers preparing to go fishing for the names belonging to tens of thousands of IP addresses, are these gay smut companies also about to out gay teens? And adults?

With no access to a credit card, teenagers resort to tube sites like XTube and RedTube. Or illegal piracy. Sure, that’s no defense, but it is a reality. Which means when these firms’ lawyers come hunting for people illicitly sharing porn movies, inevitably they will turn up the names and addresses of gay kids still living a closeted life under their parents’ roof. Except those kids won’t be the ones getting served with a lawsuit; their parents, who pay for the Internet connection, will. Which means mom and dad are going to have one very awkward, possibly violent conversation with their youngsters. (NB: Closeted gay adults could also be outed by these lawsuits, of course, for they too might not want sketchy merchants showing up on their credit card statements.)

Meanwhile Corbin Fisher, which last month claims to have secured a possibly record-setting $250k settlement from a single defendant, couldn’t possibly expect a gay teen to have $1,000 in cash to apply for the company’s amnesty program, which already wrapped up three days ago.

So a reasonable business decision (to crack down on file sharers) will also, unarguably, have the effect of persecuting the very members of the LGBT community these businesses serve. This isn’t gonna go well.

[photo via CorbinFisher.com]

By:           Ryan Tedder
On:           Feb 11, 2011
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 121 Comments
    • Fagburn
      Fagburn

      Great piece, Queerty – brava!!

      Feb 11, 2011 at 12:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Xtincta
      Xtincta

      And? I hate how we live in a culture where everyone feels entitled to whatever they want even if they have to steal it and don’t want to face the consequences. We all know it’s stealing, nobody just wants to admit it.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 12:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      It’s not about being queer, it’s about stealing and being a thief and not paying for a product. A thief needs to PAY via lawsuit or jail time, ‘nuf said.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 12:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tom
      Tom

      @Ian: Stop calling gay kids “queer” you self-hating poseur.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 12:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      @Tom: Um, you are clearly not educated on the majority of gay teen & coming out literature out there. The majority of the books refer to young teens as “queer”, not a term I myself use as I simply prefer gay, but then lesbians at times have problems with being called gay and not lesbian, etc. etc. In other words you are getting caught up in semantics in a group as large as the gay community that does not completely agree on wording to be used to describe itself in only one way with all of it’s sub-sects and niche groups.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mathew
      Mathew

      Okay, so what if you simply had an X-Tube account just to look at and favorite videos? The website is free, after all.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NG
      NG

      Is it really stealing if people are using an internet provider they have to pay for?

      Feb 11, 2011 at 12:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fagburn
      Fagburn

      Carry on stealing kids!
      But wanting to watch a Michael Lucas porn film?
      That is sick!

      Feb 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FrankOHara
      FrankOHara

      @Mathew: x-tube and streaming porn sites aren’t illegal, it’s only illegal when you dl copyrighted material.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FrankOHara
      FrankOHara

      …it’s also illegal to buy a movie, and then host it on a site like x-tube for others to stream or dl.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim
      Jim

      @NG …is it really stealing if the car you used to get to the bank you robbed is paid for ?

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tom
      Tom [Different person #1 using similar name]

      This would appear to be a risky strategy on the part of the companies. If another kid commits suicide after having had his parents served, the company involved will be done. I sympathize with the companies trying to stop piracy, but you can be right and wrong at the same time. It wouldn’t be worth the potential consequences of outing some kid to me at least.

      Having said that, who still pays for porn anyway? There are so many free alternatives that don’t involve piracy and all the hassle of waiting for the file to download.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chad
      Chad

      I don’t think anyone is really arguing that torrenting isn’t stealing. The article simply raises a valid problem that using this particular tactic will lead to. Not all crimes are equal and just because someone does something illegal doesn’t mean they need to have their life ruined. If you get on YouTube to watch a music video that someone posted without the artist’s permission you’ve done the same thing these people have. You’ve taken and used someone else’s copyrighted property. It doesn’t matter that it was easy or that everyone else does it or that someone else did the really bad part which was posting it. It also doesn’t mean you need to be punished by being outed to your parents.

      If the ultimate goal is to safeguard Corbin Fisher’s business so they can continue to operate as a company then hurting people who can’t afford to pay for the content now but may someday be willing to seems like a bad call. Also suing teenagers and college students often costs more than a company can ever hope to get back from these people.

      Bottom line, this is going to cost CF money and probably alienate a large segment of their potential paying audience they may otherwise be able to find a way to cash in on for the purpose of making a point. I personally don’t think that’s a sound business strategy and it doesn’t seem to have worked in other industries.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      @Xtincta:

      Exactly right. People seem to be under the impression that because you have internet access, you can access anything, legal or not. Whether it’s porn or music, file sharing and piracy are illegal. When you do something illegal, there are consequences.

      @Tom:

      Enough with the “teen suicide” meme. Folks may think I’m being mean, but we can’t give kids a pass because of this. The idea that a business should simply allow folks to steal from it because demanding they be paid for their goods and services might out people and impact their lives is a poor argument for not pursuing their rights under the law.

      There are consequences to actions, and if that means some kid or adult is outed because they were stealing, so be it.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @Chad: this is basically what the RIAA and it’s associates have done, no? And how is the record industry doing sales wise? If it wasn’t for Apple, I think they’d be in BIG trouble.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fagburn
      Fagburn

      @scott ny’er:

      “I think records were just a little bubble through time and those who made a living from them for a while were lucky. There is no reason why anyone should have made so much money from selling records except that everything was right for this period of time. I always knew it would run out sooner or later. It couldn’t last, and now it’s running out. I don’t particularly care that it is and like the way things are going. The record age was just a blip. It was a bit like if you had a source of whale blubber in the 1840s and it could be used as fuel. Before gas came along, if you traded in whale blubber, you were the richest man on Earth. Then gas came along and you’d be stuck with your whale blubber. Sorry mate — history’s moving along. Recorded music equals whale blubber. Eventually, something else will replace it.”

      The great Brian Eno.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Casey
      Casey

      Fuck Da Police!

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      By this time, every adult American has watch porn via pornotube/Xtube or download free porn through other internet site providers. It’s incredibly silly and unfair to fine individual who pays the internet connection. They clearly wage the legal battle against the wrong person. I often buy porn at the traditional adult video store, but I will stay away (very far away) from Lucas and Corbin Fisher production.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • uu
      uu

      I would actually argue that illegally downloading copyrighted material isn’t stealing, It isn’t exactly; in the same way that photocopying bits out of a friend’s book isn’t comparable to breaking into people’s homes and making off with their silverware. You can call it stealing if you want but to equate the two is mistaken.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • McMike
      McMike

      Sorry, but with the massive amounts of free porn available online I’m having a hard time feeling any sympathy here.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenmanTN
      greenmanTN

      Some people might get hurt by this but it’s just a tiny part of a much larger upheaval.

      The computer revolution is just as radical, if not more so, than the industrial revolution and we really haven’t even begun to adapt to it. So many jobs and even entire professions have been wiped out and even though new jobs and professions have been created there aren’t enough of them to replace what’s gone. A lot of things that used to exist as physical objects are now just digital files so the industries needed to manufacture, ship, and sell those items are gone. Yeah, the current unemployment figures have a lot to do with the state of the economy but it’s also true that many jobs are gone and aren’t coming back. Since the US hardly seems to actually MAKE anything anymore the consequences are dire for everyone but particularly the middle class.

      And so far we haven’t really dealt with the implications for intellectual property, which is technically what porn is. If you’re in the music or film business, or increasingly in publishing, all the training, time, and money you’ve spent creating something is eventually reduced to a digital file that can be downloaded in minutes if not seconds.

      Maybe this is off topic, but even though it might be traumatic for some people to be outed by their illegal downloads that’s just a TINY issue in comparison to others. Everyone, including gay teens and adults, will be far more affected by the new realities in the economy and job market created by the computer revolution.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 1:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavyJones
      DavyJones

      @Jim: Actually, it’s not stealing at all. It’s infringement. There is a big difference there; because Corbin Fisher (et al.) don’t actually lose any merchandise or suffer any direct loss as a result of these torrents. What they lose is the profit they would have gained had the people downloading their videos illegally paid for them online.

      That said, the ‘kids’ referred to in the article could not possibly access this material legally by paying for it; therefore Corbin Fisher (et al.) isn’t losing anything when they download it illegally; not even some imaginary profits…

      Feb 11, 2011 at 2:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pip
      Pip

      fuck the porn industry. they charge 30-50 bucks a month which is bullshit. if they want to have people buy their movies then they shouldn’t charge such ridiculous sums.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach

      Folks, please stop referring to file-sharing as a ‘crime’ or ‘stealing’. It’s neither. I’m not condoning unauthorized file-sharing, but please get the terminology right.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 3:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tangelo
      Tangelo

      First, go after the people who uploaded the movie. They violated the Terms and Conditions agreement they signed when they subscribed. Next, go after the BitTorrent organization allowing the file to be shared. Turn off those taps and the flow stops.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      @Chad: Your argument — that all crimes are not equal — is taken into account by our justice system (albeit there are arguments that mandatory sentencing and similar reactionary tactics diminishes this noble goal). The sentence for stealing a candy bar is not the same as stealing a car, for instance. Nevertheless, the overall argument you’re making is not really applicable to what Corbin Fisher is doing, as DavyJones points out; it’s not theft but infringment. Does CF (or any content producer) have a right to sell their product for a profit? If not, you’re discarding one of the basic tenets of capitalism.

      Sadly, your statement that today’s infringers will someday pay for the product is specious. The data shows that once a price point has been established for a specific product, particularly a mass-produced consumer product, the best any owner can hope for is a marginal increase in price usually tied to inflation. If that price is set at zero, as many in this thread as well as countless other threads have stated, who still pays for porn?

      The bottom line is that what many have hoped for in the past decade has come to fruition. The price of porn has fallen to the point that producers are going bust, and with a few exceptions like (apparently) Corbin Fisher and Titan, no one will have the resources to produce new titles or defend their intellectual property. We’re headed for the land of the bland when it comes to gay porn. At least we know where Corbin Fisher got the money to lease his new 15,000 square foot production studio in Las Vegas! (And a note to the AHF and their ilk with regard to their condom-only production demands in California: note that San Diego-based Corbin Fisher set up shop in Nevada…)

      And of course, there’s always the Michael Lucases of the world, who have been losing money hand-over-fist for quite a while, but whose rich husbands will write checks to keep them busy.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 3:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ben
      Ben

      @Zach:

      Why you would tell people what “not” to say without telling them what “to” say is completely baffling, and thus pointless.

      Besides, the actual definition of stealing “to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force” is vague. Yes, downloading these files is stealing. The definition of stealing has nothing to do with whether or not the company could have legally sold the product.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adonis-of-Fire
      Adonis-of-Fire

      Good for me I never download their porn, it’s too boring and fake

      Feb 11, 2011 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      Without the porn industry the little whores of the world with no talent or ambition will have to actually work for a living.

      How sad.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      Oh and FYI downloading still isn’t illegal, sharing aka uploading is.

      They’re just playing on words as usual to make people fear consequences that will never come. The same way the music industry attempted to(and still attempts to).

      That’s why I don’t use torrents to download anything. You can find the same files hosted by other people elsewhere without the risk of sharing files unknowingly thus putting yourself in danger of a suit.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 5:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • wannabegay2
      wannabegay2

      the porn industry is being killed by people freely sharing their bodies. xtube and dudesnude are two website that show (or used to) amateur porn.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • james
      james

      thank god i live in Canada. its not illegal to download or upload here…. yet

      Feb 11, 2011 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jon
      Jon

      I’m not sure why gay teens or any teens NEED porn and that we should feel sorry for them that they can’t get it legally. When I was a kid and there was no such thing as the internet I simply just had no porn. I’m not sure when watching porn suddenly became a right and that porn companies should just give it away to people who can’t afford it. Try using your imagination when you fap off.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      So I guess we can all agree that bittorrent sites and free sites like XTube are breaking the law by providing porn to underage users?

      Seriously… what a red-herring argument.

      I should hope that those who don’t think stealing copyrighted material is illegal never actually watch any of it or ever enjoy any of it. Because it all has to come from somewhere, and those producers have to make money for it. Even sites like XTube can’t survive on amateur user submissions alone. Look at all the ads and sponsored clips all over that site. Professionally produced porn is what keeps that site up and running and provides them the revenue to show anything for free. It surely can’t be cost-free to produce porn, so producers are entitled to make money. If everyone out there downloaded the stuff illegally, there’d be nothing more produced and nothing left to watch… except for the odd, small-dicked, out-of-focus, amateur jerk off video some gross-bodied, faceless, old pale guy uploads to XTube now and then.

      Plus… where’s your proof that it’s just underage, closeted gay teens or other closeted people that make up the majority of content thieves? Do you have anything to back that statement up?! I’m sure closeted people might indeed account for some of those stealing, but I have plenty of out, employed, well-off gay friends who still seem to think it’s their right to download stuff for free online and steal porn, movies, music, games, software, etc… they have the money to spend on vodka/Red Bulls at the club every night, pay for high speed internet, pay for fancy new computers with massive harddrives to store all their stolen content, pay for the iPods and iPhones and portable harddrives they play and store everything on… and yet steal.

      Hell… look at all the guys here commenting on how it’s not theft. Are they all closeted gay teens, or are they instead a likely sampling of people at large who not only admit to stealing but justify it and are thus likely representative of the people susceptible to these lawsuits?

      There’s a lot of shit in this world that I’d like, but can’t yet afford or can’t justify spending money on. And you know what? I don’t get that stuff. I budget. I buy what I can afford. I purchase things when I have the means to do so. I don’t steal it. This goes for physical product as much as digital product online.

      Stealing is stealing. If some other blog or site owner copied this Queerty article word for word and through it up on their site to try and pass it off as their own, that’s as much stealing as going in to a store and walking out without paying for product off the shelf.

      So I hope that you people who seem to think that digital products shouldn’t be safe from theft never actually enjoy any of it – don’t listen to music, watch movies, watch porn, read articles online, nada. Stick to your DVDs, books, newspapers, CDs, and whatever else. Because you clearly don’t feel the stuff need be produced at all.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 6:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      BTW I wonder who stole the idea for this article from who.

      http://unicornbooty.com/2011/02/corbin-fisher-sues-illegal-porn-downloaders-outs-gay-teens-to-their-parents/

      Feb 11, 2011 at 6:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 9 · FrankOHara wrote, “@Mathew: x-tube and streaming porn sites aren’t illegal, it’s only illegal when you dl copyrighted material.”

      …. the problem is not the downloading but putting the material there to be downloaded – users have no way of knowing if someone paid to make some copyrighted material available or if it was being shown for promotional reasons.

      It’s the people uploading it – putting it on these sites — that the companies should go after. E.g., if you buy a book in a store and someone had violated copyright laws to print the copy you bought, the person or company that printed it is the one who violated the copyright laws, not the consumers who bought it.

      If you are using bit torrent to help distribute the material and have explicitly made copyrighted material available to others, then you are a reasonable target for a lawsuit. If the bittorrent software made the material available without the user’s permission, it is unjust to blame the user – users are not supposed to understand the details of how a particular application works.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 6:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chad
      Chad

      @Jamie: I made two separate arguments neither of which you actually addressed in your response. First that Corbin Fisher’s choice of suing users in this case would have harsh consequences which were unintended by the law and presumably by CF. That is outing closeted people. I don’t really know why you wish to make a distinction between theft and infringement because that isn’t really relevant to a point anyone has made here other than perhaps a moral one about whether one is worse than the other. Both imply an illegal act was done and therefore the law must provide a remedy against the person who was wrong through either monetary damages or criminal incarceration. The law does not provide outing someone as a remedy for their illegal act. It is an unintentional side affect, which I personally feel is too harsh. You can disagree, but the fact remains the legal system doesn’t have anything to do with it. It is a factor for Corbin Fisher and the public to consider.

      Second I made a business argument that this will not be in CF’s best interest. I agree that they should have a right to sell their product, I don’t think anyone reasonable is saying they don’t have a right to profit from their work. I’m saying in the long run this is going to hurt them. My argument that people who are infringing today may pay for porn in the future is speculative not specious, which is why I used the term “may”. Consumers do not currently value porn at free. If they did CF would have no subscribers. Neither is there any evidence that infringers value it at free. Getting something for free does not mean you value it at that much. It simply means they either cannot pay for or do not value it at it’s current price. Suing people simply removes them from the market all together since most people will not buy from a company that sued them. The solution is to find ways to profit off these people who are unwilling or unable to pay your current price. That can mean a free “lite” version that is ad supported. It can mean lower prices. It can mean adding different content that cannot be stolen to up your sites value, like live / interactive shows. CF can profit from these people if they put their minds to it, but suing a bunch people into the arms of your competition rarely helps raise profits.

      Again bottom line CF’s actions will have consequences no one wants, and probably won’t make them any more money.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 7:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jon
      Jon

      @B: “it is unjust to blame the user – users are not supposed to understand the details of how a particular application works.” Actually, my 7th grade Social Studies class taught me that, “Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but because it is an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.”

      If you go to a free website and watch something for free it is compleley unreasonable to think that the website paid the producer for the content. Why would they pay for the rights and then give it to you for free? It is quite obvious to anyone, young or old, that the content is stolen.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 7:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mikeincleveland
      mikeincleveland

      i would really like to take a baseball bat to all of those who say that stealing (that’s what it IS- stealing) music, movies and games online (and now digital books) is no big deal at all.

      as though all of those artists and companies that fund those artists somehow deserved it.

      because “all of them” ripped those poor consumers off for years.

      so did frank zappa rip everyone off? or did arcade fire?

      or was it only britney spears’ monster record label that did it?

      what’s the difference?

      to file-sharers, there is no difference.

      so everyone, from the egotistical mega-star to the indiest of the indie musician who just put out their first record on a small indie label gets hurt.

      and now, if you actually know anything, artists from all walks of life are not being able to make a living anymore because as soon as they create art and try and sell it- it’s stolen, thrown on a BitTorrent site and everyone takes it for FREE because…wait for it….they “deserve it”…

      who the fuck says that?

      they deserve for artists to work for zero money, starve, or have to get a day job, just so they can make music, movies, books- whatever- to give away for free to the insatiable few who think it’s their duty to steal and give back to the world for all of the years, who?, Sony Music charged too much for a couple of Mariah Carey’s releases in the early 2000’s?

      Check out Kickstarter- it’s the future. Artists (that have any sort of fan base, that is) ask fans to donate money UP FRONT before the art is created. That way the artist can pay their expenses to create said art, is paid for their art and can pay rent, and all those lazy, spoiled, downloading “to fuck with the MAN, MAN” assholes can be prevented (at least SOMEWHAT) from destroying the entire idea of getting paid for your work.

      downloaders are lazy and spoiled.

      let’s face it.

      artists are going broke because of downloading and Napster-founder Shawn Fanning sits in a multi-million dollar penthouse in San Francisco.

      what’s fucked up with that picture, huh?

      Feb 11, 2011 at 7:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Benjamin
      Benjamin

      I’m sorry. But is there some critical shortage of internet porn that I’m unaware of? Why steal porn? It is EVERYWHERE. It’s like stealing air.

      Though I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to a little enjoyment over the irony of porn producers with hurt feelings running around talking about how they’ve been screwed out of money, while the performers they exploit continue make next to nothing in most cases.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 8:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Baxter
      Baxter

      The whole “give me $1,000 or I’m going to sue you and make it public that you watch gay porn” thing doesn’t seem too far away from extortion or blackmail.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 8:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devon
      Devon

      Why even bother with the videos? Sites like Queerclick and Justusboys have those photo compilations that show you pretty much everything you’d need to see.

      To be honest I’m surprised pay sites still exist.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nunya
      Nunya

      Sorry but it doesn’t matter if these kids are closeted or not, just like downloading music illegally, if you get caught then you gotta pay the price. Stealing is stealing and there’s really no justification for it. I’m not judging anyone who does this, but know the risks.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 9:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jamie
      Jamie

      @Chad: So because teenagers — who shouldn’t be looking at adult content regardless — may be outed to their parents means that Corbin Fisher (or any adult producer) shouldn’t prosecute any infringment/theft/what ever you want to call it? How convenient for… you.

      This is just furtherance of the side-effects meme, wherein we’re supposed to forgive the fact that these teenagers break the law and their irresponsible parents aren’t doing their jobs so there should be no consequences to their childrens’ actions. I call bullshit. I have underage nieces and nephews and I’ve casually reminded them that their parents watch everything they do on the internet, and unless they want to deal with their mother’s wrath they’d better not be looking at anything they shouldn’t. Of course, I doubt that the teens’ irresponsible parents exhibit such care; otherwise, they wouldn’t be looking at porn.

      You’re also suggesting that outing these kids is CF’s intention, which it isn’t. And that this inevitably leads to ruination of their lives, which it doesn’t. And, that it is merely teenagers who are downloading copyrighted material, specifically adult material, when it isn’t.

      What’s bothersome about your argument in general is that you seem to be saying content owners should be more concerned with what happens to people who have no right to look at their content than their own self interests. I guess we should just close our prisons and set all the criminals free, because there is always some unintended consequence to every action, and someone who didn’t do anything wrong always ends up getting hurt as a side effect. Think about the kid who suffers when his parent steals a car and goes to jail. Should we stop prosecuting anyone who has any relationship with another, for any crime?

      Now, specifically for the poor-business-decision argument: If the premise is that people who have been sued don’t go on to be customers, I’ll give you that one. (Or, stated in the same terms as above, think about how that parent won’t buy a car in the future if they get caught stealing one today!) However, how many content pirates has CF sued, how many settled right away, and how many have they obtain settlements from? Contrast that with the amount of copyrighted content out there, and you end up with the situation the porn industry is currently faced: only about one in five viewers has paid anything to watch that content. And that ratio is only getting larger.

      My point was that once someone steals your content they are unlikely to ever pay for it, as pointed out over and over by people here on this thread and elsewhere when they say that they will never pay for porn. Look at the fall of the father-ship of gay porn, Falcon, which just ended up being acquired by AEBN. To my knowledge, Falcon never sued anyone for illegal downloads — your prescription for staying in all those viewers’ good graces — and yet ended up being just another division of their banker/distributor. Could it be that piracy has killed the future of gay porn and unless someone in the industry stops the thieves, there won’t be a gay porn industry?

      Put yourself in CF’s shoes. You can go easy on the pirates today for fear of outing some teenagers and closet cases which may very well mean you won’t have a future, or you can go after the thieves and defend your right to be around in 5 or 10 years.

      Copyright is a concept so foundational to our system that it was written in the Constitution. If we don’t allow copyright content holders protect their interests — and I’d argue despite the unintended consequences — nobody will create any content.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 9:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aalan brickman
      aalan brickman

      Just put advertisments on your sites..this would pay for all the porn anyways…

      Feb 11, 2011 at 10:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • aalan brickman
      aalan brickman

      leave the teens alone….

      Feb 11, 2011 at 10:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 38 · Jon wrote, “If you go to a free website and watch something for free it is compleley unreasonable to think that the website paid the producer for the content. Why would they pay for the rights and then give it to you for free? It is quite obvious to anyone, young or old, that the content is stolen.”

      Not true at all, Jon. In fact, there was a recent court case about that issue. Read http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/appeals-court-free-porn-isnt-unfair-competition-to-pay-sites.ars for a summary.

      It is not unusual for businesses to give stuff away as a means of attracting customers. In the past, radio stations would be sent records by stores, play the records as part of a program, and tell listeners where the store carrying those records is located. The store did that to attract customers.

      The court case involved some company called “Bright”. As the judge(s) said, “The undisputed evidence showed that Bright obtains most of the videos it shows on Redtube free of charge from advertisers who pay Bright to display their videos containing their ads. Fundamentally, there is no difference between Redtube and a radio station in the early 1900s that broadcasted records it obtained for free from a music store and, in return, told its listeners where the records could be purchased.”

      So, just because the content is “free” does not mean it was stolen (the case I cited was not about theft of content, but unfair competition due to “tube” sites giving out videos for free – it is a good illustration of why, just because some “content” is free, that doesn’t mean it was stolen).

      Feb 11, 2011 at 10:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 39 · mikeincleveland wrote, “let’s face it. artists are going broke because of downloading and Napster-founder Shawn Fanning sits in a multi-million dollar penthouse in San Francisco. what’s fucked up with that picture, huh?”

      … Nothing is wrong with it – Fanning was involved in a series of start ups and if you do enough of those, there’s a fair chance that one will finally pay off.

      Napster was in reality trivial programming – he wrote it as an undergraduate, so it’s not like you had to have a deep understanding of data structures or be capable of developing new algorithms. It was more a case of being in the “right place at the right time” (but in fact Napster went out of business).

      Feb 11, 2011 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      They’re not suing people for viewing videos on XTube and RedTube. They’re suing people for downloading full cliips of their videos off of the torrent sites. And no one is using the torrent sites to freely distribute full-length, extensive catalogs of the materials they produce.

      Feb 11, 2011 at 10:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Diz
      Diz

      Worried there for a sec, but I’ve never got anything from either of those companies. Besides, I haven’t had my BitTorrent for a long time. And this is the first I’m hearing of the amnesty period…they can’t get me…right?

      Oh shit, I’m going to jail D:>

      Feb 11, 2011 at 11:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      I’m going to assume everyone saying “download illegally” is over 40 because it’s not remotely illegal to download anything on the internet at all unless you hacked(or cracked/bruteforced a password) a site to get it.

      The fact that I’ve had to post it twice and it’s still being said is ridiculous. Downloading is not illegal, uploading aka sharing is.

      The loophole comes from people sharing via torrents since most if not all of the people running sites with downloads don’t even live in this country and won’t face retribution.

      If you don’t know anything about the internet or this topic then why write 20 page essays on it?

      Feb 12, 2011 at 1:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      @THOMAS KELLY: sew up that hole of yours. You are an annoying rodent.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 2:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 51 · Nick wrote, “I’m going to assume everyone saying “download illegally” is over 40 because it’s not remotely illegal to download anything on the internet at all unless you hacked(or cracked/bruteforced a password) a site to get it.”

      … actually, some things are illegal to download (e.g., child pornography), whether the site is password protected or not.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 2:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric
      Eric

      @Nick:

      You obviously don’t know anything about the internet, torrents, or the DMCA.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 3:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      For everyone’s own sake, don’t listen to Nick. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Or maybe he’s Canadian? (that’s not an insult… in Canada there have been some legal decisions suggesting that uploading is illegal, while downloading is more often permissible under law). As for the US, however, it is just as illegal to download stolen material as it is to upload it. It is illegal to both distribute (upload) and reproduce (download) copyrighted works without permission.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 5:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      Lord, just reading all these comments does NOT speak well of the gay community. Just the shear number of comments speaks into the stereotype of gays being obsessed with sex, as this comment section has a large number of comments but all the other subjects on the board NOT having to do with sex are only averaging a few comments per story. Just sayin’…

      Feb 12, 2011 at 9:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fagburn
      Fagburn

      @Ian: I think people here are mainly talking about piracy and copyright issues. Just saying…

      Feb 12, 2011 at 10:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      @Fagburn: No what the discussion is really about is talking about paying or not paying (through piracy) for online gay porn sexual content, thereby feeding into the apparently accurate stereotype.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 10:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GeriHew
      GeriHew

      @Tom:& @Ian: Queer doesn’t simply mean gay. “Gay” these days means homosexual. Queer is an umbrella term. Bi & trans people are every bit as queer as gay people. Women who identify as queer are often not homosexual and that is why they don’t identify as gay or lesbian although that’s what they might appear to be to you.

      On Topic. Tube sites and torrents are not the same thing. You’re not downloading anything when you watch a video on sites like XTube and RedTube or YouTube. Corbin Fisher and Lucas Entertainment are going after people who download their movies from torrents – and the people who do that are often the same people who then go and upload movies to tube sites without the copyright owners permission. So they steal something and then distribute copies of it.

      As to this argument about outing the closeted, I’m sorry that’s just a Red Herring. I see no reason to assume that the single defendant in the U.S., an East Coast man who has consented to a $250,000 judgment against him for uploading six Corbin Fisher movies, is queer. If he has the means to pay a £250,000 fine then that just tells me that he is wealthy in addition to being a thief. It doesn’t tell me a thing about his sexuality. It wouldn’t surprise me if he wanted the gay content for his tube site that makes money by selling viagra, dating site subscriptions, live webcam shows etc. And by infecting surfers computers with viruses and spyware he can use to steal their CC details etc.

      I see no good reason to assume that someone who downloads some gay porn from the net is gay – especially when they’re not even bloody paying for it. I know some people do make assumptions like this, but that’s because they’re being stupid and naive.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 10:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      Please! A closeted gay teen gets diplomatic immunity or such from prosecution? So, it’s OK to steal gay flicks until you are no longer at odds with your life, but it’s not OK to steal music? Not right, not at all.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      The thing is, there is enough truly free porn out there to where no one should have to steal it from pay sites. Torrents are stealing. End of story.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 11:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PopSnap
      PopSnap

      It honestly makes me a little sick that a site owned by gay men would out other gay men to their families- especially gay teens. It’s like a black person supporting a resteraunt that serves whites only in the 50’s.

      it’s PORN. get over it or get a real job that doesn’t involve you watching people fuck all day.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 12:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      @PopSnap: I don’t think the intention is to out people, but obviously the potential for that is there, because in a lawsuit the thieves would be identified. The thing is, its a business like any other. No different from stealing goods from the mall. People seem to think stealing intellectual property is ok because it isn’t physical goods. Not true. Stealing is stealing.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jurlesia
      Jurlesia

      As a small business owner I completely understand the company’s desire to prosecute theives however, as a small business owner I also know that ANY BUSINESS–no matter how many security tags you place on your products, no matter how many security cameras you install, no matter how many employees you have on the floor–will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS have a little shoplifting. Now, once you accept this as part of the reality of doing business and not take it personally (since realistically that kid would put that item in his/her pocket no matter if you, your brother, or your enemy were the owner), you will benefit far more than you ever would trying to chase down every single person that ever shoplifted in your store. If I went after every shoplifter, I probably would not have any more customers left. When you have such a specific customer, and then go after the ones breaking the rules, from the public’s viewpoint it just looks like the rich, greedy, opportunistic business owner going after the small, poor guy who just couldn’t afford the product; especially when the business sues the for $250k! Opportunism at its worst. The company should really just move on, and learn that it’s more about prevention than punishing people who like and share your product, particularly those who are vulnerable and have a lot at stake (minors, closeted people, etc). If any child is hurt as a result of their litigation, they will have blood on their hands.a

      Feb 12, 2011 at 1:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Red Meat
      Red Meat

      If I lend a movie to a stranger in real life is that stealing? No. Companies are going to have to deal with it, people can lend whatever they want. The internet is for the people, not for companies to make a buck out of everyone.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      This is a tough one.

      It’s bad to condone theft.

      On the other hand, these porn guys are real sleaze bags. Hard to work up a lot of sympathy for them.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie Jackpot
      Charlie Jackpot

      Corbin Fisher is a load of shit anyways, I used to pay for Sean Cody when I was younger

      Feb 12, 2011 at 2:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jurlesia
      Jurlesia

      The sad part to all of this is that they’re suing and scapegoating members of their own community for their declining revenue and the restructuring of the porn industry. Sorry Mr. Porn Peddler, your cash cow just croaked. It’s reprehensible to out closeted kids because you guys need a new Ferrari. Disgusting, self-serving opportunists.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 3:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • caffesilvia
      caffesilvia

      Another question: where are these lawsuits being filed? I seriously, seriously doubt that Corbin Fisher has retained nationwide counsel. That means it’s either limiting itself to suing users in a limited geographic radius, or else it’s filing meritless claims in courts that have no personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      @Ian: What has anybody who downloads these stolen? Nothing.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ryan
      ryan

      Really, Jurlesia? So they should just provide porn for free? And people who sell a product for profit are “opportunists”? Wow.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • camron
      camron

      @Fagburn:

      So I go to XTube to see this stuff?

      Feb 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      @Andy: Correct as long as they paid the appropriate fee for access, otherwise they are a THIEF no matter those who want to view porn productions online and NOT pay for the content want to try to sugar coat it to justify their THIEVERY.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Simon
      Simon

      Corbin Fisher’s porn sucks. It’s one of the worst porn studios over the Internet. LE is different tho. Anyway they are greedy bastards and they will do a major harm by that. At least they can blow me since im EU citizen. Long live dynamic IP!

      Feb 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      Personally I have a membership to Corbin Fisher and, as far as I’m concerned, these people are stealing from me, also. If I like and support a product and company enough to pay for it, I may find myself having to pay more because of others stealing. I may also find the quality of the product declining because of the theft of others. Companies are forced to put measures in place to protect themselves from theft, and that may negatively impact my experience (as was the case when many companies used the pain-in-the-ass DRM technology). Just as customers pay more for car insurance premiums because there are those breaking the law by not having insurance; or companies may have to pass on the cost of losses from shoplifting and theft to paying customers.

      If you’re not willing to pay the right price for it, then go away. You’re not entitled to anyone’s product just because you won’t or can’t afford to pay.

      Whether we like it or not, the internet is built upon and by companies that make money off it. The notion of the internet being just by, about, for and of the people is a myth. The reason your neighborhood has access to affordable, high-speed internet is because there is an economic incentive to providing it. Money-earning companies are why we have so many great services and products available online, have the technology to access it easily and quickly, etc. Otherwise, it’d just be military bases, government institutions, and university and research facilities that had it – as was the case before it was opened up to private enterprise.

      Ultimately, though, saying Corbin Fisher is outing gay teens is a total red-herring argument and a ton of BS. No company should be forced to suffer through theft and losses because of some far-fetched red-herring outcome someone conceives to try and come up with a fancy story for their blog and attract loads of traffic. If you’re closeted and don’t want to be found out, that’s your right. But, perhaps stealing gay porn on the family internet account isn’t the best idea. A lawsuit isn’t necessary to go through internet history, get busted through parental controls, find what’s in the cache or downloaded files folder, etc.

      If you’re willing to steal, you should be willing to face the consequences if and when busted.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 7:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 56 · Fagburn wrote, “@Ian: I think people here are mainly talking about piracy and copyright issues. Just saying…”

      Yep – that’s what the discussion is about. One issue that hasn’t been discussed: the DCMA provides protection for ISPs (including web sites) that make user-provided “content” available, as long as they respond promptly to “take-down notices” if some material was put there by a user in violation of copyright law.

      If you are running a Bit Torrent client, why shouldn’t this protection apply to you too as long as you did not explicitly make copyrighted material available? This is an “equal protection under the law” issue – an individual providing a Bit Torrent service for the community should not be treated any differently than a large corporation like Google that runs a service distributing videos (e.g., youtube).

      If a company goes after an individual but not Google under what are really identical circumstances, the only rational basis for that is that an individual usually doesn’t have the financial resources to defend himself in court against a large corporation, even when that individual has a solid legal defense. That’s something we should really be questioning.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      @B: That’s not remotely the topic at hand and you know it. Very nice try though I’ll give you that.

      @Eric: Nice empty statement. Got any links to proof where they’ve successfully punished someone who merely downloaded something for free, not hosted, not used a torrent to upload, but just downloaded.

      I’ll wait.

      I already know you can’t because it’s not illegal to download. You’re the one who doesn’t know anything about the subject. You’re just going off unfounded rumors spread by people who didn’t know what they were talking about.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 11:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nick
      Nick

      @Eric: Oh and PS I’d be facing a suit or in prison by now if anything you posted was remotely true. Suck on that.

      Feb 12, 2011 at 11:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Coty Smith
      Coty Smith

      I sure can tell who the log cabin people are above,I for one say screw most of the porn companies because they use and abuse people. I agree they will end up with blood on there hands but I don’t see that giving them a moments pause because there used to it.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 10:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KC
      KC

      Did CF bother to try to stop illegal sharing of their films with the take-down provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? If they didn’t take that basic step, then I question why they would just let the files stay on torrent sites for years and do nothing to stop it. Maybe the plan has been mass extortion all along, but they needed to get a good base of sharers established first. If this turns out to be the case I hope they get smacked down, hard.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 12:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      Ugh the logical fallacies throughout this article and the subsequent comments are just mindboggling.

      The entire premise of the article is flawed. Queerty attempts to state, almost as a matter of fact, that the majority of those illegally downloading are closeted teenagers – with no evidence of that whatsoever. Maybe Queerty should also contact CF before making such reckless statements. Perhaps they have a policy on how to deal with those situations?

      And Nick… just because you are unaware of any cases involving solely downloading, doesn’t mean it’s not illegal. If I’m a plaintiff in a case, I’m going to nail someone for all I can. So, if I’m going after someone for downloading and can also prove they might have uploaded as well, I’ll sue them for both. It increases the amount of evidence I can introduce against them, increases the statutory damages they’re liable for, etc. Makes for a better case. Further, it’s often easier to prove uploading than downloading, so plaintiffs may favor that as the path to take in going after people. It’s still illegal to download files, whether you like it or not.

      http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20100529-Movie-studios-ramp-up-lawsuits-over-7816.ece

      case in which downloaders have been sued.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

      individual losing a case and found liable for downloads and uploads.

      http://www.homorazzi.com/article/hurt-locker-lawsuit-voltage-pictures-subpoena-isp-1500-penalty-torrents-settlement/

      again, people being sued for download.

      And, KC, that is the entire issue with torrents and bittorrents. They are peer-to-peer. They don’t actually host the files but are a way to enable the files to be transfered directly between users. So there is no one to send a take-down notice to. Especially as they are usually based overseas. So, since you can’t go after the torrent itself, that leaves the individuals using it as the best target. I can’t speak for whether CF sends out takedown notices or not but as far as bittorrents go it’s unfair to demand that of them because it wouldn’t do any good anyways. And it’s unfair to assume they haven’t tried that route. Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t.

      And

      Feb 13, 2011 at 1:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 75 · Nick wrote, “@B: That’s not remotely the topic at hand and you know it. Very nice try though I’ll give you that.”

      Really? As an example, look at No. 53 ·(Eric): “@Nick: You obviously don’t know anything about the internet, torrents, or the DMCA.”

      Others had talked about bit torrent and the DMCA – it is part of the discussion, whether Nick likes it or not (and usually the reason for pretending that something is not part of the discussion when it is part of the discussion is that there are some “inconvenient facts” one would like to ignore). It’s worth discussing – it is not like any responsible person would condone ignoring copyright laws, but we would want the blame for a violation placed on the individual(s) really responsible, not a person who is merely a convenient target due to not having the resources to defend himself in court.

      There have been cases of innocent people being sued or harassed for internet related copyright violations – http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10444879-261.html has one example.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 2:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KC
      KC

      BJ – Of course there is someone to send a takedown notice to – Demonoid or Pirate Bay or whereever – someone has to be the torrent host site. If they refuse to take it down, fine, at least CF tried. But to do nothing for years until someone turns you onto an extortion racket would cost them my commiseration. And nowhere did I ever “assume they haven’t tried that route”. Note the words DID THEY and IF THEY and MAYBE. Those are questions, not declarations.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      BTW here’s a case of CF going after a filetrading host/company, as well as those uploading the files (not just downloaders).

      http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=130470

      Feb 13, 2011 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      If it was the case that CF was only going after the downloaders – the “easy targets” – I’d probably have a problem with that (though it can be debated whether they’re actually the “easy targets”… I wonder how many actually have tangible assets worth pursuing in court. The big companies are where the money must be at, for sure).

      But, with this latest suit being just one of many, I simply can’t fault them.

      http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=116256

      There, they took down a tube site that was illegally showing their videos.

      The link I posted in my previous comment shows them going after a hosting and file-trading site.

      http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=117413

      there, going after someone selling their vids on ebay.

      So, this torrent user stuff is just part of a comprehensive campaign against all kinds of pirates, thieves, violators. They’ve chosen (rightfully so) to protect their IP rights, and are pursuing all channels in that aim. More power to them, in my opinion.

      It really all comes back to the flawed premise of this article, though. There’s no foundation to assert the author of this Queerty piece knows who these illegal downloaders are, and there’s absolutely no way they can know with any certainty that the downloaders are closeted gay teens. It just strikes me as the author of the piece wanting to stir up some controversy to attract traffic and attention by invoking a name and brand that’ll draw people in (as has happened… this is by far the most commented-on and read piece on this site right now… thousands upon thousands of views when most other pieces can only muster a few hundred).

      “We shouldn’t prosecute shoplifters because clearly many of them are poor and now their children will starve!”

      Silly.

      Might as well ask… “Is Queerty contributing to online piracy and theft by making excuses for those doing it?”. “Is Queerty killing gay teens with HIV by writing and article that justifies bareback sex?”. Those are silly questions as well, and involve pulling silly conclusions out of one’s ass, without regard for fact. It’s stupid.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GKS
      GKS

      BJ – “there’s absolutely no way they can know with any certainty that the downloaders are closeted gay teens.”

      And there’s no way for CF to know that NONE of them are closeted gay teens, either. *If* CF ever were to say that no teens ever watch it just because only adults are supposed to, it would be disingenuous. My guess is they know a percentage probably are, but believe it is small enough to justify as collateral damage in the quest for the big payoff. I fervently hope the “outed gay teen” speculation is complete wrong, because as much as I hate CF for putting them at risk, I don’t want any kids to die to make that point.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      GKS… there’s also no way to know The Pope doesn’t watch it… no way to know aliens don’t watch it… So… what you’re asking is for a company to base vital, core business decisions that play a fundamental role in whether or not they guarantee and protect a revenue stream on the hypothetical possibility someone who may not legally view the material in the first place is getting it, and deserves anonymity and protection while illegally acquiring and distributing your product through a 3rd party…

      This post by Queerty assumes, without any genuine foundation, the conditions that make for a worst case scenario and throw it out there like it’s indisputable fact.

      We’re assuming some big pay off comes from this, beyond just protecting the revenue stream a company has every right to protect. A quick and easy glance through past RIAA and MPAA settlements (as well as some of Corbin Fisher’s own settlements with eBay thieves and torrent thieves) makes it pretty clear the likelihood of a big financial pay off from any of this is slim to none. Usually it’s just a big, fancy settlement number they’re left with, and the hopes enough have been dissuaded from stealing from them.

      An underage gay teen who is illegally downloading gay porn on mom and dad’s internet connection is putting themselves at risk. Not CF.

      The argument that teenagers are not the least bit responsible for the content they go out of their way to acquire online is the very same argument pro-censorship, right-wing nuts are using out there to try and make porn illegal for everyone. Maybe we should just ban porn completely, because impressionable young teenagers are clearly (through no fault of their own) getting their hands on the stuff.

      Some studies have shown higher rates of alcoholism and substance abuse among homosexuals than heterosexuals… so maybe we should demonize the gay pride organizers who accept alcoholic beverage company sponsor dollars, not to mention the fact that underage drinkers are surely getting their hands on the stuff also. They must be dooming all these young people to lives of addiction. A bit of a stretch… a bit of a worst case scenario… but hell, as long as we’re at it!

      Oh and maybe gay clubs shouldn’t confiscate IDs of underage people when they try and get in or drink because if the police get involved, surely their parents will find out and they might not be out of the closet.

      If you owned an actual brick and mortar adult bookstore and, every night, someone broke in to your store to steal gay porn videos, would you just let them be? Just deal with it? Because they might be a closeted, underage teenager (who else would steal porn?!), it’s not really their fault, and if you were to call the cops they might get outed?

      Let’s just demonize porn on the whole, because surely impressionable young teenagers watching it will take away unhealthy views on promiscuity, safe sex, and good ole fashioned monogamous relationships.

      And I’m aware that’s a bit of a straw man argument but that’s the entire point.

      If Queerty and many of those commenting want to demonize someone, perhaps they should demonize the pirate and torrent sites that illegally distribute porn – with no checks in place, no age verification, and no legal permission to do so in a way that prevents teenagers from getting access to the content? Maybe they should demonize the torrent sites that are illegally distributing material in such an unchecked, unregulated and unmonitored fashion that they’ve become havens for underage teenagers (as this Queerty post assumes)!

      Feb 13, 2011 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GKS
      GKS

      Well, BJ, it seems you will have no problem sleeping at night if gay teens take their lives over this. Yay for you. I, on the other hand, agonize for anyone who feels so terrified of their own families that they might end their lives over getting caught at this. It just seems to be too high a cost to pay for curiosity or questioning, that anyone’s death become just part of doing business. “An underage gay teen who is illegally downloading gay porn on mom and dad’s internet connection is putting themselves at risk. Not CF.” Yes, but that’s what kids do. They do risky things without thinking through the consequences, which is why they need adults to help them, not say sorry your so scared you want to die, but you should have thought about that possibility ahead of time.

      “If Queerty and many of those commenting want to demonize someone, perhaps they should demonize the pirate and torrent sites that illegally distribute porn” – can’t we do both? I’m not saying CF and other sites shouldn’t try to protect their property, but yes, go after the host sites and uploaders first, hard and often and see what that does. These huge porn lawsuits are pretty new – kids may have gotten used to being able to download with abandon and might be turned around with some educating that hey, porn producers are really going to start cracking down on piracy – you are on notice that if we don’t see a big drop in it we’ll start going after downloaders, too.

      What frustrates me the most is that Corbin Fisher offered amnesty for this crime, but there is no way for teens to take the studio up on it on their own, even if they wanted to. As minors they’d have to tell their parents if they wanted to work out an arrangement with CF, but their parents finding out is the whole problem. So, adults who have autonomy and money and stability in their lives could cut an amnesty deal with CF, but the ones who need most desperately to make this go away cannot. CF made an overture of forgiveness, great, but since only adults can receive it, it leaves the most vulnerable out in the cold.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 7:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KC
      KC [Different person #1 using similar name]

      “the likelihood of a big financial pay off from any of this is slim to none.”

      Well that makes it even worse! Corbin Fisher could be terrorizing gay teens and gaining very little for it.

      Corbin Fisher likes those big, splashy headlines – “huge $250,000 settlement – biggest ever for Bittorrent piracy!!”, “$1.75 millon in ebay piracy case!!”, “CF sues porn star for over a million dollars!!”

      Fisher better hope his name is never in a big, splashy headline about a teenager blowing his brains out.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      Again you’re asking CF to base their decisions on not only a complete and total hypothetical, but also the most extreme, worst case scenario version of that hypothetical. I think it’s entirely unrealistic, and entirely unfair to them.

      They should not be expected to sit back and let the very real existence of content thieves costing them tons of money carry on, because of some extreme hypothetical.

      I have no problem sleeping at night because I don’t accept the premise of this Queerty piece. I have no problem sleeping at night because:

      A. I don’t accept as given fact there are underage people among those targeted by these legal actions.
      B. I don’t accept as given fact that, if there are underage people among those targeted, they are also closeted.
      C. I don’t accept as given fact that, if there are underage people among those targeted, *and* they are closeted, they would also choose suicide as the one outlet here.

      The premise of this piece assumes not only the existence of extreme circumstances, but also assumes the most extreme possible outcomes of and reactions to those circumstances. Awfully convenient for the author of the piece to drum up some controversy and get themselves some attention, but all without regard for authenticity, fact, or anything that is genuinely known.

      It’s claiming that these tube sites and bittorrents are havens for underage closet cases (if so, all the more reason they should be shut down).

      http://www.quantcast.com/bittorrent.com

      would disagree. Are those stats perfect? Certainly not, I’m sure. But they would definitely cut down on the likelihood of Queerty’s proposed, extreme, hypothetical worst case scenario.

      Firstly it’s suggesting about 2/5 of bittorrents traffic is female. So let’s take them out of the “closeted gay teenager” equation. A closeted lesbian busted with gay male porn isn’t who were talking about, I’m sure. It further suggests less than 1/5 of bittorrents visitors are under the age of 18. And now we have to further whittle down the odds… that 1/5th underage is also downloading porn… that they downloaded CF videos to find themselves in this suit… on mom and dad’s internet at home… and were identified by the investigation CF did… and they are in the closet… and they are gay… and they would either be prone to, consider, have reason to choose suicide if and when caught (believe it or not… some closeted teens who get outed end up not committing suicide and things actually turn out quite well for them. Sure, that’s not always the case unfortunately. But it’s the case often enough that it’d impact the likelihood of Queerty’s worst case scenario being a given).

      Wow… all the variables that need be in place for this Queerty post to have any meaning…

      GAY + CLOSETED + UNDERAGE AT HOME + WILLING TO CONSIDER SUICIDE + ON CF’S LIST + HAVING DOWNLOADED PORN ILLEGALLY FROM BITTORRENT = QUEERTY PIECE ISN’T JUST SHAMELESS, ATTENTION GRABBING SENSATIONALISM

      And every single one of those variables need be in place, or the whole thing falls apart. And there are countless other variables we could probably add to that as well, and that’d likewise be essential for the outcome Queerty predicts.

      Accepting as a given these extreme, worst case scenario hypothetical is precisely the tactic used to attempt to outlaw porn in it’s entirety, force all porn to use condoms, keep GLBT support groups out of schools, make gay marriage illegal, make gay adoption illegal, etc etc.

      So, GKS, I don’t in the least fault your concern. It’s an issue that certainly is worthy of compassion and understanding. Gay teen suicide (and suicide in general) is a tragedy and a horrible, horrible thing.

      But my ability to sleep at night comes from my unwillingness to accept as inevitable or fact the extreme scenario the author of this Queerty piece pulled out of their ass. Nor do I expect a company to sacrifice revenue in favor of some extreme, worst case scenario and hypothetical some random blog owner tossed out of nowhere.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 8:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      @KC:

      lol. Yes… “terrorizing gay teens”. I’m sure that’s what they’re doing.

      Plus, the comment about it not involving huge pay-off was in reference to allegations made prior by those suggesting it was using settlements as some big new revenue stream. The value of those settlements is not in the actual money (which they probably never get… Joe Schmoe downloader or eBay pirate guy probably doesn’t have $2,000,000 to hand over) but in getting word out about the possible consequences and discouraging others from stealing.

      GKS… you advocated getting the word out. I’d say they’ve done that. They have posted numerous items on their own site about pursuing pirates, there were stories out about them going after eBay pirates, illegal tube sites, hosting providers, etc etc etc. In the little yellow section at the top right of their site there’s been the almost constant presence of an article about going after pirates. So I guess there’s another variable to consider… an underage, closeted user who is aware of corbin fisher enough to seek out their content online and yet either unaware of their aggressive pursuit of infringers, or so willing to disregard it they put themselves at risk anyways. Perhaps I’m just more aware of CF and what they’re up to because I’m a member and subscribe to their twitter feed and FB, but I’d have to assume someone downloading their stuff on a torrent is also more aware of the company than the average American.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 8:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      Further, I wonder how many gay teen suicides Queerty might already be responsible for, given how easily someone who happens upon an easily found Queerty article about coming out, gay celebrities and pop culture, porn stars, etc might forget to clear out their internet history before mom and dad spot it. Oy.

      Feb 13, 2011 at 8:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Greenlee Gazette
      Greenlee Gazette

      @Chad: I’m not sure that watching a YouTube (or even an XTube) video is the same as downloading a movie. When a person watches YouTube, they are not expected to seek out and authenticate the copyright. They’re visiting a site that already exists, posted by somebody else. I’m sure you could argue that the YouTube member wo POSTED it could be liable.

      There’s no (fair) way they could hold the viewer liable. But if you’ve gone to the effort of downloading a bit torrent (sorry if my terminology is wrong, I’ve never done it), you had to go out of your way to do it. You can’t passively view it. Right?

      Feb 13, 2011 at 11:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      @Greenlee Gazette:

      You are correct. Often, downloading from a bittorrent not only involves going out of one’s way to download special software for it, but also searching for a particular video (by title, producer, etc) and then going through the mechanisms of downloading it.

      More often than not, downloading also leads to uploading and further perpetuating the theft (many torrents, by default, enable the sharing of any and all files in the folder in to which your downloads are saved). They often encourage participants to upload, in order to make for the most content being available.

      Quite frankly, you’d have a more difficult time downloading legal content from bittorrents. The technology is specifically designed to make for quick and easy transfer of files that many people would have (thus the “bit” in it… when you select a file to download, the program finds as many other users as it can that have that file, and starts to transfer little bits of the file from all of them. Getting little bits from tons of different people is how it works).

      So, unlike direct file transfers or programs designed to let 1 user transfer files from 1 other user, what on earth else is there on bittorrents besides stolen intellectual property?! You’re not downloading grandma’s vacation video from dozens of different, anonymous strangers in little bits. You’re not download a video from little Jimmy’s school play from countless anonymous strangers around the world. The utility of a bittorrent is completely lost if it’s an unpopular and obscure file, because there would then be no huge crop of anonymous uploaders for you to download little bits from. Bittorrents are only good when tons of other people have the file (thus it’s popular and widespread and more than likely professionally produced, distributed, and owned by someone) and are making it available to you.

      What’s more, and again worth mentioning, the downloader needs to search for and specify it’s a particular file they want. So they really did go out of their way to illegally download something.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 1:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JM
      JM

      @BJ: “…what on earth else is there on bittorrents besides stolen intellectual property?!”

      Linux LiveCD iso’s, like the Ubuntu installation CD, for one thing. Free, and primarily distributed via bittorrent. I download them all the time. Don’t vilify the distribution channel when you are trying to vilify what people do with it.

      And speaking of vilification…

      What’s all this about file-sharers “getting what they deserve”? That’s bullshit, as you would know if you saw the penalties people are facing. The DMCA allows for damages of up to $150,000 per infringement to be awarded to any group claiming their copyrights were infringed. I have a hard time feeling the pain of any industry that would (and many do!) demand those kind of damages from anyone for downloading a few mp3’s or a fuck-flick. There is no way some porno is worth $150,000 – or even the $1000 that this company is asking – in damages.

      Wake up people. The feeling of “entitlement” in this situation is obviously all on the side of these greedy businesses. Artists don’t see any of that money anyway!

      Now, if there were a service like iTunes, that sold music without DRM, and passed on profits directly to artists (minus a comission), then we would be in business. Oh wait… And one more.

      Feb 14, 2011 at 9:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ
      BJ

      I do see the penalties they’re facing, and think it’s more than just. People creating intellectual property have every right it be protected. People willfully going out of their way to steal copyrighted works should face stiff penalties.

      And it’s not just the DMCA that allows for those statutory damages. It’s copyright law itself. That $150,000 has been around long before the DMCA ever came around.

      If you steal the stuff, you take it upon yourself to assume that risk and take upon yourself the possibility a judge or jury will hit you with stiff statutory damages. If you don’t feel the stuff is worth $150,000 per infringement, then perhaps you should not put yourself at risk of having to pay that much every time you violate a copyright. No consumer ever has to pay that much… unless and until they steal it.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 12:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • UserQQQQ
      UserQQQQ

      @Mathew: noone is targeting the XTube users.. that’s just bad writing. The author was trying to say imply that kids start off looking at Xtube videos..and then graduate to downloading off the P2P networks and such and THEN they become a target.

      As far as I know even the big companies never target people who download. It’s the people who upload that they go after. The problem is the gnutella stuff like Limewire typically default to ‘share’ your entire download folder so if you’re downloading gigs of porn you in turn upload gigs of porn without your knowledge because presumably you’ve never used a computer before (ranty)

      Bitorrent is different in that you can’t download unless you allow uploads (well technically you can but you become a bad seed and the bitorrent protocol is designed so that anyone who is a bad seed gets cut out and thus if you don’t upload you end up downloading at very very very slow speeds if at all) so that’s even more dangerous if you don’t know what you’re doing.

      Feb 15, 2011 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spirk
      Spirk

      Well, I used to watch CF vids but now I find them rather unpleasing so he can keep his policy and fees and I’ll continue on with Sean Cody and other interesting male sex vids

      Feb 16, 2011 at 9:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cato the little guy
      Cato the little guy

      You know what seems really funny to me about all this? Queerty has had two articles in two days about how “Corbin Fisher is trying to kill gay teens.” But, the underlying problem is that (aside from how stupid that theme is) Queerty is not doing a thing to help the problem.

      Why doesn’t Queerty issue a post that says “Warning, if you STEAL you might get OUTED when you get SUED for STEALING” and then try and inform people that when they commit a crime, they put themselves in danger? Why don’t they do that?

      I will tell you why. Queerty is HOPING that someone does die. If that happens, Queerty will be jumping up and down with joy.

      I can promise you, I will NEVER buy ANYTHING from ANY company that advertises on Queerty ever again. SHAME on Queerty.

      Feb 16, 2011 at 8:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Whatevs
      Whatevs

      you know what? I never thought of it that way before, Cato.

      I was taken in by this a little bit, but you make a really good point. What kind of drama queen asshole runs this site anyhow? Why didn’t they just do something positive? Instead its all “Blame corbin fisher.” Do you blame the police if they arrest someone for shoplifting?

      Queerty sucks. I’m boycotting their advertisers too.

      Feb 16, 2011 at 8:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Burglekut
      Burglekut

      @BJ:

      I’m sure many of the bright posters have figured this out, you protest far too much for someone that does not have an intimate/monetary stake in this. You post the same drivel on many sites.

      Feb 16, 2011 at 11:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • FU
      FU

      OK, they want to expose gay teens, then someone should expose the neighborhood to the gay porn being filmed in their area.

      Legally, people can boycott whatever they want. I personally would love a site that calls for a boycott of CF. 250,000 for downloading a vid, GTFO.

      Feb 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JM
      JM

      @BJ: So you think the law should be able to impose disproportionately huge consequences for what amounts to a very small crime. By that logic, the death penalty could be instituted as a punishment for downloading copyrighted gay porn, and if anyone got killed it would be their fault.

      I am not excusing piracy. My point is thus: the punishment does not fit the crime. Call it “theft” as much as you like, but be reasonable about the consequences… you don’t need to sue for thousands of dollars every time someone downloads your latest album, just like you don’t need to sue someone who steals a physical CD. Copyright law has almost no sense of proportionality, and businesses use and abuse that fact for profit.

      Feb 19, 2011 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JD
      JD

      Thing is, Corbin Fisher is abusing the situation. Taking advantage by scaring people into thousand dollar lumps of cash to avoid being “in trouble” is nothing more than extortion.

      At this point I have to say FUCK YOU to Corbin Fisher.

      He sucks. And he’s pathetic. Old guy who uses young dudes to get his jollies watching them fuck each other in front of his cam. Sad.

      So just like all those record company assholes, I will now NEVER spend a penny to be so “privileged” to look at C Fisher’s website porn.

      All he’s doing is cutting off his nose to spite his face. There are plenty of people who are keeping him in business by throwing their good money at his pretty lame videos …way enough to make up for the few who are getting it from torrent and blog sites.

      You fucked up Corbin, I hope your sales plummet and your business goes belly up.

      It’s 2011…you can get whatever you want online- it’s an internet world and we live in it. Just accept it. You’ll never change or stop it. And it’s just going to get easier to do it.

      Feb 20, 2011 at 8:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • geri
      geri

      @JD: Corbin Fisher has a business to run and employees, models and performers to pay. He’s trying to protect his business from people who steal his company’s product.

      Do you really expect to be able to get whatever you want online for free? Do you really think that is remotely reasonable or sustainable?

      Feb 22, 2011 at 8:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TJ Parker
      TJ Parker

      Porn is “intellectual property”! Funny! Why would anyone pay money to subscribe to any site which just keeps remaking the same thing over and over again? If I just wanted to watch sex, I’d go to cam4. (Tho to be frank, its much easier to call my hubby over and ask nicely.)

      Feb 22, 2011 at 8:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dayton
      Dayton

      @geri:

      Then Corbin Fisher should fucking protect their own damn material and stop expecting everyone else to do it for them.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Duhhh
      Duhhh

      @NG: Well, let’s see. Is it robbery if you hold up a store that you drove to in a car you’re making payments on ??

      Of course it is dumb ass.

      Anything you take, no matter how you got it, without paying for it, is Stealing.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 6:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Duhhh
      Duhhh

      And one more thought from my voluminous mind. CF no doubt makes millions from his perversity. The fact that he wants double-millions, and wants to recover his “potential” lost revenue from bitTorrent downloaders,, simply makes him GREEDY and therefore worthy of sucking my banana.
      People who download stuff illegally typically cannot legally access (i.e. gay teens) or afford (i.e. broke dicks) the stuff they are downloading, and therefore WOULD NOT BE BUYING THE STUFF ANYWAY. All those arguments about “lost revenue” are absolute B.S.
      CF knows this, and is just out to terrorize people. May his business burn in hell.

      Feb 22, 2011 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Creatin
      Creatin

      What a bunch of crybabies! I agree that Corbin Fisher is a little heavy-handed, but what do you expect them to do? Just say “who cares?” Lets do the math:

      They pay their models. They pay for their camera equipment. They pay for their supplies and their employees. They pay their taxes. They pay all the other money that business have to pay to stay afloat.

      And they sell their porn to pay for all that, and to make a profit – JUST LIKE ANY BUSINESS DOES. They are not a charity. There is no government grant to porn companies to make the porn that we all love!

      So when someone takes it without paying for it, the business either has to raise prices (making less people able to afford it), close the business, or try and stop people from stealing it. I dont know, maybe I’m just this funny thing called HONEST. But, if Corbin Fisher had no username and password screen, and just gave it all away on the honor system with a paypal link on the side, I would still pay for what I watched. I don’t take the newspapers out of the rack for free. I don’t shoplift, even when nobody is looking, and I feel pretty good about that.

      You alls seem to be a bunch of whiners screaming about the fact that Corbin just wants to get paid for doing his job. You are making up lies about this ‘gayteen epedemic’ and trying to create drama. Save the drama for your mama. This is a SIMPLE story. If you steal, you might have to suffer consequences. Don’t steal, then no consequences.

      I persoinally think that Corbin was awfully nice to offer this “amnesty” (even though that’s a dumb word to use for it, since “amnesty” means forgiveness without penalty). The RIAA did not do that. The MPAA did not do that. No company I ever heard of did that. And if only 10 people took them up on it, that is 10 people who got a chance to be HONEST and come clean and do the RIGHT thing.

      Which is better than most of you crybaby apologists for STEALING will ever do.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 12:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JM
      JM

      @Creatin: Amnesty = extortion, in this case. Corbin Fisher is abusing copyright law to make more profit than he would otherwise be able to make.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 1:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GeriHew
      GeriHew

      @Dayton: Do you even have a clue what you’re talking about?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 5:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Creatin
      Creatin [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @JM:

      With all respect, JM, that’s not what “extortion” means either. Can people please consult a dictionary before they use big words that they don’t understand?

      Corbin has a RIGHT to sue for copyright infringement. That isn’t “abusing” (another word you should look up) copyright law. Copyright law gives them the RIGHT to sue for up to $150,000 for each infringement. Look it up.

      Is he making “more profit than he would otherwise be able to make”? Well, in a sense, yes. And, when your local clothing store puts loss prevention tags on the clothes, it does the same thing. It isn’t “abuse” it is exactly what the law is there for.

      Say what you want about the mis-use of the word “amnesty,” if I stole something, I would be pretty darn grateful if the person I stole from could sue me, but they gave me a chance to come clean and pay a slap on the wrist.

      You know if Corbin sues someone for copyright infringement, the judge CAN NOT give them LESS than $750. Plus, they get their lawyer fees, and I bet those are at least $2000 per case. So, if you stole Corbin movies, and you KNOW that if you get caught, it is going to be AT LEAST $2750 (but probably more). Looky at this, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/jammie-thomas-rasset/

      All in all, I don’t see why anyone is upset about this. Don’t steal and you won’t be punished for being a thief. Maybe I’m just old, but I remember when being honest meant something.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dayton
      Dayton

      @GeriHew: @GeriHew: Thank You for asking. Yes I do.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Flava Works
      Flava Works

      The bottom line is you have thousands of people stealing content that does not belong to them. THEFT IS THEFT. More studios are coming forward and going directly after these pirates! We have new technology which helps us identify the origin of the stolen content and where it originated from in addition to who is unlawfully accessing it. You can expect more of these type of lawsuits in the near future.

      Oh and all the gay (and straight) studios try very hard to keep minors out of our sites.

      Minors need to stay away from 18+ porn.

      Why not go after the people (like we are) who are stealing this content and putting it in the hands of minors?

      Feb 23, 2011 at 10:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dayton
      Dayton

      @Flava Works: Can’t you say something original here? You’ve copy and pasted this same comment all over the place.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 1:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GeriHew
      GeriHew

      @GeriHew: Ok. So what do you mean by – “Then Corbin Fisher should fucking protect their own damn material and stop expecting everyone else to do it for them.” then?

      Feb 24, 2011 at 9:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      What a load of rubbish. I love how self-righteous some of those commenting are about how torrent users are so wrong. I’ll bet money that very few (if any) of those commenting on this article have never downloaded a song at any point in their lives or broken the law.

      Feb 25, 2011 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lefty
      Lefty

      @JD: So true.

      Feb 25, 2011 at 3:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      A prediction:

      If Corbin Fisher’s actions results in the death of even ONE gay kid then…

      http://pastehtml.com/view/1diters.html + http://www.joebaptista.com/attack-tool/index.html X the number of LGBT’ers who are OUTRAGED that a gay pornographer has proven to be more toxic to young queers than the Westboro Baptist Church ever was = Corbin Fisher conducting its future dwindling business via mail order.

      Mar 9, 2011 at 6:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ronnie
      Ronnie

      @Dan: Ditto. I won’t even look at another CF movie for fear of being sued. And after hearing this, you can be sure I’ll never buy one of their products. If their business dies, they deserved it. I think this is going to blow up in their faces.

      While I am against piracy of any kind and don’t envy their situation, I believe these guys are flirting with disaster. I guess the words of the day are AVOID CF. I hope the word gets out to anyone watching gay porn on the Net.

      Apr 29, 2011 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.