Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#961

Post by kergonath »

munk-a wrote: post #625
speeder wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am abandonware collector of sorts, and one thing I liked is how all major abandonware site happily link to GOG.com when the game is up there.

GOG has been earning a lot of my praise recently for not only hosting binaries - but actually putting labour into making sure their games run on modern systems. This is particularly important for games from the era of weird sound cards that can't render audio quite right without a vintage soundblaster - but also goes for games that were simply designed with DOS expectations in place. Back in the day I was a big fan o…

GOG is great and reasonably priced. I never pirate what I can find on GOG.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#962

Post by pbhjpbhj »

deepsun wrote: post #952
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #933

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It strikes me the best cure is to restrict copyright to force federation - if you sell to one company who retails to consumers in a geo locality then you're required to make available to any company at that price. Streaming services would be forced to compete in everything except content. Creators would still be paid. Copyright isn't a natural right, it should be continually adapted to serve the public. What are the…

On the other hand, I firmly believe that creators must be able to choose any distribution way they want (similar to "right to burn"). E.g creators may choose to sell unrestricted copyrights to the most evil companies they want, it's their ultimate right. Consumers have a right to consume or not consume, but they may not limit creator's freedom, nor by "restricting copyright to force delegation".

Why? How does that serve the demos?

Creators may choose who to sell to, with you there. But then we (the demos) may choose to not give copyright protection. We're not limiting creators freedom, we're limiting who we choose to protect from the open market.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#963

Post by kergonath »

kortilla wrote: post #918
hluska wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s interesting- this is the third time I’ve heard this about Ontario in less than a week. Do you have any idea what’s driving this? Another person in the same boat believes that a lot of people are fixing up homes to sell while the market is hot. Another person believes that it’s a supply problem - trades people left Ontario for Alberta, lost their jobs there and can’t afford to move back.

> lost their jobs there and can’t afford to move back. This isn’t 1800. Moving back for a job is trivial when the alternative is being unemployed.

Not if you need to buy a car, relocate, or find some child care, for example. There are important upfront costs when your situation changes, and if you’re unemployed (i.e. with not necessarily that much money available) they can be a significant hurdle.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#964

Post by moksly »

gambiting wrote: post #953
moksly wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What prevents abuse after posting a valid ID? Unless you’re paying for the images on Facebook the transfer isn’t being used to pay for illegal sex. This is the difference between the two in terms of liability.

>>What prevents abuse after posting a valid ID? Nothing, but it should shield them from liability. They can always say a valid ID that shows the user is over 18 was submitted, if there is any legal issue then it can and should be handled by the law enforcement. >>Unless you’re paying for the images on Facebook the transfer isn’t being used to pay for illegal sex. Payment processors dropped pornhub because there was s…

> They can always say a valid ID that shows the user is over 18 was submitted, if there is any legal issue then it can and should be handled by the law enforcement.

That wouldn’t make them less liable for any illegal content they fail to identify though.

It’s not like Facebook where they can hide behind being a platform because American politicians had no issue making platforms very responsible for the hosted content as soon as it was bundled into anti-trafficking legalisation.

I expecte that the EU will strike at “regular” SoMe in much the same manner when the legislation on anti-fake-news passes through the bureaucracy.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#965

Post by pbhjpbhj »

roenxi wrote: post #955
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #933

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It strikes me the best cure is to restrict copyright to force federation - if you sell to one company who retails to consumers in a geo locality then you're required to make available to any company at that price. Streaming services would be forced to compete in everything except content. Creators would still be paid. Copyright isn't a natural right, it should be continually adapted to serve the public. What are the…

> What are the problems with this? The fundamental trust of copyright is literally to make things worse for consumers to the benefit of producers. If you see consumers being inconvenienced in an expensive way as a problem then you haven't engaged with the problem copyright is here to solve.

[I fear you were being sarcastic, but in any case ...]

Copyright is to enrich the public domain. It's foundation in the West is Queen Anne's statute which followed on from printmakers making their own regulations. It shifted power from the printmakers to the creators, buy it served the public domain by having a limited period of protection and by preserving copies of works which could be referenced.

It made things better for the public because after 7 years (IIRC, I think it was later extendable to 14 years) the work was free to get printed anywhere vastly aiding the spread of culturally important works. The fundamental bargain also aided the demos (as opposed to the consumer, per se); that bargain being that a creator could exclusively - with the backing of the law - control reproduction during those 7 years and so profit sufficiently to continue creating further works without having to seek a patron.

Copyright is supposed to be, and was, about liberation of creators from control; and democratisation (making available to the people) of works.

The change I propose aids creators getting paid, and aids works benefiting the public. Moreover, it wrests some control from the "printmakers" in keeping with early copyright laws.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#966

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jon-wood wrote: post #950
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #933

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It strikes me the best cure is to restrict copyright to force federation - if you sell to one company who retails to consumers in a geo locality then you're required to make available to any company at that price. Streaming services would be forced to compete in everything except content. Creators would still be paid. Copyright isn't a natural right, it should be continually adapted to serve the public. What are the…

If copyright law said that the price a piece of content is available for is the highest amount any provider in a region is willing to pay then you're setting up for a monopoly, as Netflix or Amazon Prime with their near infinite content budgets set the price of everything they like higher than any new competitor can afford to pay.

Sorry, I don't think I expressed that well, I intended to say it was akin to a "most favoured nation" situation; if Netflix get a lower price per person, then you have to offer that price to others.

I can't see how Amazon and Netflix could push prices up without unlawful collusion? But if they did push prices up for all media how would they sell their service?

It's not unheard of for major players to have contracts that say 'if you're offering this to another company for less per unit than you are to us then you agree to reduce our price accordingly', the idea is just to make that lowest price universal so that.

I sell license for prints of my painting to Acme for £5 then ABC can print the same painting and pay me £5. As creator I can choose not to sell the work for £5, but that's no different to now; what I wouldn't be able to do is restrict who - in the wholesale market - could buy the work for that price.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#967

Post by deepsun »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #962
deepsun wrote: post #952

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that creators must be able to choose any distribution way they want (similar to "right to burn"). E.g creators may choose to sell unrestricted copyrights to the most evil companies they want, it's their ultimate right. Consumers have a right to consume or not consume, but they may not limit creator's freedom, nor by "restricting copyright to force delegation".

Why? How does that serve the demos ? Creators may choose who to sell to, with you there. But then we (the demos ) may choose to not give copyright protection. We're not limiting creators freedom, we're limiting who we choose to protect from the open market.

I mean this particular part I have a problem with: "may choose to not give copyright protection" -- we, consumers, don't have a say in creator's copyrights, because we don't have these copyrights, creators do. Creators may as well be with us and sell their content to a company that abides by these laws of restricted copyrights (e.g. GPL license is particular example). Or not.

It's our job, though, to make that available and easy for creators (e.g. kudos to RMS for making and popularising the GPL).

But no one should be able force anything on _all_ creators.

PS: Well, the outcome would be that creators would stop create at all, and in some cases that might be fair and just, but that's another topic completely. E.g. some societies regard as fair and just limits on drawings of humans and animals, so there's no such drawings. And they see it as fair and just.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#968

Post by matthewmcg »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #933
lawn wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also why piracy is increasing again as the movie/TV series space is becoming so fragmented.

It strikes me the best cure is to restrict copyright to force federation - if you sell to one company who retails to consumers in a geo locality then you're required to make available to any company at that price. Streaming services would be forced to compete in everything except content. Creators would still be paid. Copyright isn't a natural right, it should be continually adapted to serve the public. What are the…

There already are compulsory licensing schemes that work like this. For example, in the United States, there are “mechanical licenses” [1] available by statute for streaming and downloaded music recordings. In practice, most big platforms negotiate with a rights organization or with the artist directly[2], but the statutory rate operates as a price ceiling.

One big problem with compulsory licensing is that rights organizations that manage the payment of royalties often become very powerful themselves and are sometimes seen as copyright bullies. For example, ASCAP, which represents composers and licenses musical compositions rights, pursued the Girl Scouts for unlicensed singing of campfire songs. [3]

[1]: https://www.copyright.gov/licensing/m200a.pdf

[2] example: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/24/taylor-swif...

[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royal...

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#969

Post by koffiezet »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #549
koffiezet wrote: post #378

People here don't seem to realise all this was from pressure from fundamentalist christian groups like Exodus Cry, which managed to collect 2 million signatures pretending to want to protect sex workers and be anti-trafficking. Their end-goal however is a lot simpler: get rid of all porn.

Where is the source for this? What actual leverage do these groups have over the banking and processing systems that were actually forcing the changes to OnlyFans? Shouldn't there be some statements that it was 2 million signatures that had an effect somewhere? And if so, why retract? Did someone get 3 million reddit karma to keep it, and now someone else needs 4 million survey responses to ban porn again? I looked a…

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/onlyfans-banning-explicit-cont...

https://www.newsweek.com/content-creators-react-new-onlyfans...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/onlyfans-ban-porn-exodus-cry

And other stuff, more related to pornhub: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy4z/petition-shut-down-po...

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#970

Post by yakata »

asdff wrote: post #720
Johnny555 wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The licensing process helps make sure that the electrician that has 10 years of experience in El Salvador understands American wiring codes and practices before he does something that'll burn your house down. For sure there are common skills that all electricians share regardless of country, but there are still significant differences between countries, like in the UK ring circuits are common, but are against code in…

What is ironic about your examples is that you had all these problems with unlicensed work in a place where licensing is still required. So whats the point of the license even if so much work is done that isn't licensed? People who will cheap out will cheap out no matter what the laws say, and people who pay for good work will continue to pay for good work.

Good luck with the insurance claim after the house burns down.
Post reply on HN