Looking members for beta-test (New Cock Hero Series)

[book_guy]

We will launch commercial version of Cock Hero

And you'll be paying the inventors and innovators of the genre how much for their free and unsolicited and unremunerated input?

It's a public idea. If they want to earn money for this then they need to shoot the content, buy music, hire employees, make other invests and launch their own project.

OK, so, umm, the legal concept of a "public idea" is your term of art from ... The Chronicles of Narnia? Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone? It's got to be from some sort of fantasy world. It ain't in my Black's Law Dictionary.

Some suggestions to the spammer: 1. If you shoot your own content and then use non-original beat meters, stroke patterns, stroke instructions, or other "cock hero intrinsic content," then you should know, that the original creator owns copyright over those things which you did not shoot. 2. If you shoot your own content and also use your own attempt at an original beat meter, stroke pattern, or similar, then you should know, that the original concept of beat meters, stroke patterns, and the like, are probably under copyrights owned by their original creators. And even if they aren't, you'd have to litigate first to find out. 3. If you shoot your own content, and also create your own concept of something other than a beat meter, stroke pattern, or the like, then maybe you haven't violated copyrights owned by someone else, but you also haven't created a Cock Hero video, at least not according to the common definition here on the forum. Good on ya, if you create item 3 here, and maybe someone will actually pay for it. Doubt it, but that's up to you and your warped business model.

Some suggestions to the community of original cock-hero creators who participated and created before this particular spammer arrived: the mere act of creating your own artwork probably gives you copyright to it, and certainly gives you first "dibs" on preventing other people from using it or using concepts from within it without giving you due credit and remuneration. Your act of posting your artwork here on a public forum also is a very helpful piece of evidence for you, because it helps establish your creation date and your ownership beyond any reasonable dispute. The "when" and "who" are easily prove-able. I suggest that if someone tries to take your stuff, you let them know you don't like it, see what happens, and go from there.

All of the above is just general surmise. None of it is specific to anyone's specific case. I am sort-of knowledgeable in some laws, and I am sort-of not so bad at representing people sometimes, but in this particular case or these particular cases, I do not in any way claim either expertise or a lawyer-client relationship. Don't write to me, I won't represent you, and I probably can't represent you. But don't let the troll intimidate you, either. You have rights that he's trying to cash in on, in my opinion.

Thanks y'all. Please help keep the forums and all the internet friendly and open to all!

[Masturgame]

Yes but Battlefield is a property we know and respect, that's why I'll give DICE or EA my email address. You still haven't really explained what the project is. Please explain how you can do a fully legal CH. Are you writing and recording your own music? Are you shooting your own porn, or acquiring the rights to either? It's very expensive. I'm not trying to be combative but you have not provided enough details in my opinion. What has your company produced before?

I can't provide you this info. You can wait until open beta if you don't want send to us your email. Thanks

Unfortunately, to be fair, I can understand an established porn producer not wanting to give info, for sake of wanting to gain a competitive advantage.

But as people say, reputation is a factor, too, for people giving up an email address, and spam collectors pull all kinds of stunts.

I'll take the plunge and see.

Thank you!

[servufon]

...2. If you shoot your own content and also use your own attempt at an original beat meter, stroke pattern, or similar, then you should know, that the original concept of beat meters, stroke patterns, and the like, are probably under copyrights owned by their original creators. And even if they aren't, you'd have to litigate first to find out. ...

No, he or she doesn't have to "litigate first;" the claimant of the copyright has to approach the alleged infringing party and first attempt to exert their rights.

If such a copyright can even be claimed, which is highly questionable regarding the concept (as opposed to prior artists' Cock Hero materials), unfortunately, the claimant has probably already surrendered any right to copyright because they have distributed the material and concept freely, encouraged reuse, and not enforced any claim versus the many others here who have copied and freely distributed the idea already (of whom they almost certainly have been aware).

The concept might more easily be patented, maybe (and somewhat less likely owing to a recent case), but again the fact no claimant has moved to protect said rights while in parallel encouraging or allowing others almost certainly renders void any claim.

Note also game mechanics CANNOT be protected. This I know well, believe me. Game CONTENT absolutely can be protected. As to the instantiation via software, now, that's a whole other matter, and I am not making specific claims about the beat meter or other specific components.

[slutboytoy88]

In short, there IS NO INFRINGEMENT and masturgame is doing nothing wrong,
I fully support the idea.

[book_guy]

Yadda yadda yadda. Glad to see that people have other opinions about the legal status of this matter. Whoever said I was right? I certainly didn't.

Further suggestion: when ripping other people off, try not to make a huge public outcry about the fact, for then, the victims of the loss may indeed notice that the loss is taking place. Instead, keep the rip-off act as secret as possible, because then, the victims of the loss might not notice, object, or otherwise interfere.

Congrats, all, on making as much noise as you have done so far. I suggest more! :)

[Nipps]

Dont you think it is slightly hypocritical to jump on him about copyrights? Im mean all of the content in CH is just taken from some other porn!

[servufon]

Dont you think it is slightly hypocritical to jump on him about copyrights? Im mean all of the content in CH is just taken from some other porn!

I wondered when someone would point the obvious out. :)

Actually I think a few of the creators got rights to the video excerpts, but I seriously doubt anyone has secured the music rights. I've thought about doing original music for Cock Heros but w/o the recognition factor and given anyway people have different tastes, I can't see it as worth the effort.

[Sisyphuster]

In short, there IS NO INFRINGEMENT and masturgame is doing nothing wrong,
I fully support the idea.

What idea? That's all I'm asking...

[book_guy]

Dont you think it is slightly hypocritical to jump on him about copyrights? Im mean all of the content in CH is just taken from some other porn!

I wondered when someone would point the obvious out. :)

Agreed. I am highly hypocritical, because I jump on him about copyrights without jumping on earlier CH creators about copyrights. I do this because I approve of the behavior of previous CH creators and I disapprove of his behavior. Seriously, I am not joking here (though my tone may be taken as perhaps sarcastic, I don't intend it to be sarcastic, really). I hate the idea of piggy-backing on someone else's creativity if that someone else is an individual CH creator, but I don't mind the idea if that "someone else" is actually a big corporate porn-peddler with loads of shoots and girls in their lockers. Call my a hypocrite? OK then, I'm a hypocrite. I agree. But that doesn't make the present suggestion (making paid-for CH-style vids) any more decent, IMO. It's equivalently bad (or good) as before I ever mentioned anything. My own hypocrisy has no bearing on their validity. :)

[jstwolf]

Kind of moot at this point, but book guy pretty much pointed it out, but some people seem to be insisting that there is nothing wrong with what masturgame is doing.

#1: There is about a 99% chance that this was nothing more than a scam to elicit email addresses for spam mails.

#2: Every CH video is made using copyrighted material, which is fine, until you commercialize it like masturgame claimed to be doing. In this case, it would be completely illegal. Unless they have the production capabilities of making CH style videos from scratch (a topic they avoided answering, which is highly dubious), then they are going to be stealing copyrighted material for resale, which is against the law. The porn industry is currently setting their sites on tube sights and torrent sites because of the declining sales of dvds due to the internet. Not only would masturgame illicit a lawsuit, but would draw the porn industries legal eyes even more to the tube/torrent sites that we (obviously) enjoy so much. It already looks like they are in danger, and this group wants to accelerate the process?! Their project, if legit, is doomed from the start, because they would be sued for every penny they made, along with punitive damages, and I pity the fool that associated themselves with such a project when it goes to court.

#3: Had to restate this one. Its a fucking scam. Anyone in the industry would have been able to point out the flaws in masturgames plan. Every time someone has asked for any evidence of legitimacy, masturgame artfully dodged the issue. Claimed to be from poland? Pure bullshit. Just a ploy to make us think that they are somehow beyond certain laws. Thankfully, his original post with the scam link has been deleted, so big props to the moderators for cutting this ass clown off.

[servufon]

Unfortunately, it's not "fine until you commercialize it," re that statement. i wish it were.

The most realistic way i see this of being legit is that this is already a fairly major porn producer, which could be but prob not from Poland as that's just sensible misdirection if legit Then it's easy as they already have materials - even a "crappy" low-end eastern European porn producer has enough of their own legal material to do cok heros, though of course they'll be using that particular content so lower/cheaper end.

[Sisyphuster]

What evidence has he given that would make anyone think he might represent a legit porn producer?

[servufon]

i didn't say he did, nor did i say he was

[book_guy]

I hope everyone understands, that I'm not unhappy at all, with the fact that some people responded to my legalistic statements with some intelligent legalisms of their own. Presently, I do think that a few of the criticisms of my legalisms were mildly wrong, but I also recognize that many of them were right or at least partly right. Further, an important one of them was entirely correct and merits further discussion. It's great that people are sharing ideas here, about copyright law, pornography, the status of CH-type videos and their imitators, for-pay or for-free, and related ideas. As a thread progresses, generally, we should all welcome modifications to our points of view from other people.

In that spirit, I offer one point on which a respondent has very rightly corrected me. I'm wrong, he's right. Here's the exchange in which "servufon" cites me and then corrects me.

...2. If you shoot your own content and also use your own attempt at an original beat meter, stroke pattern, or similar, then you should know, that the original concept of beat meters, stroke patterns, and the like, are probably under copyrights owned by their original creators. And even if they aren't, you'd have to litigate first to find out. ...

No, he or she doesn't have to "litigate first;" the claimant of the copyright has to approach the alleged infringing party and first attempt to exert their rights.

On this matter I utterly agree with "servufon." To rewrite my sentence, I think I should instead have said something more along the lines of "And even if they aren't (under someone else's copyright), nevertheless you might find yourself confronted with cease-and-desist letters and court challenges which tend to limit your viability as a business, before you even get off the ground." I was, at the time I initially wrote my bad sentence, thinking more in terms of business viability, than in terms of legal requirements under the copyright regimes of any given jurisdiction. I conflated the two (business viability, versus copyright regimes), much to the confusion of several related issues.

The proper legal correction, as raised by "servufon" (you don't have to litigate first) is totally correct, and belongs in the discussion. Nobody "has to" litigate first. Litigation (which in this context means, basically, "going to court to fight for your rights against someone else who is trying to sue you, or whom you are trying to sue") comes up when there are otherwise irreconcilable disputes. The disputes which I imagine coming up, would certainly be the sorts of disputes that first wend their way through a lot of other venues before taking last resort to a court of law. Lawyers send letters, bills, nastier letters; copyright police, copyright trolls, etc. etc., all have different methods. Litigation is never first recourse. Often it isn't even last recourse.

So why did I leave out the idea, that litigation would be only a last resort? And why did I also leave out the more technically legal idea, that it's up to the party who perceives infringement, to police their ownership by seeking out infringers, rather than vice-versa? Doh! My bad. It's partly what I did know about, but failed to express accurately, so that much is just my sloppiness. Whatever, I rewrote, done done. But, it's also a concept that I managed to "accidentally on purpose" forget to include. I left it out because it made me look good. That much is my ego or arrogance. My bad! Great job to "servufon" for correcting me (but, uh, silly name dude ...). You properly corrected the ideas, to the benefit of the board as a whole.

I probably wouldn't be so charitable if the Dutch had lost that penalty shoot-out ...

Generally, I think we all need to keep clear in our heads, just how muddy and complicated the CH world can be, for copyright issues. There's a lot of "yes you can!" versus "no you can't!" going on. I don't know about "pornography law" and I am not really sure I'd want to practice it (if such a thing even exists), but I do follow things like developments in the United States' First Amendment Law (the part about the freedom of the press and expression, is the part that is germane here).

Corrected. Me wrong, "servufon" right. My bad.

[servufon]

servufon is a fairly ridiculous name, you're right; one of those things that it just ended up sticking, and anyway I only use it for the nefarious underworld of sexual depths :)

very funny re the Dutch penalty shot and your mood (and ongoing good luck!)

i hope i didn't come across douche-y (perhaps that won't translate; as an ass, jerk) or pedantic

in any case, i also harbor no ill will or even the slightest of concerns re anyone's contributions in this thread; in fact, it was great, in my opinion and saying this to be clear, that people posted re the risk and also in protection of the fine work and intellectual property of the cock hero creators

ps - especially your expression of their rights, @book_guy