Will owning/trading Purevidz tokens make you liable to MPAA lawsuits?

[Thenoticer]

Purevidz claims to be some type of censor resistant platform using torrents and a few other buzzword technologies to create a streaming content site similar to hulu or netflix but with pirated content.

Lets ignore the technology aspect of this scheme. Lets ignore that you already can get this content for free from a number of reliable sources including the censor resistant sites on zeronet (zeroplay, zerotv, zerotorrent.bit) Maybe you can't stream them yet, but again lets ignore all technology aspects, similar to their threads where they only focus on the money.

The center and most heavily promoted part of this scheme is the bounty system. Bounty is paid in vidz tokens. Bounty is used to request content and pay moderators off and pay for development. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that the moderators and developers are generating money from illegal content, ie making money from pirated content. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that owners of this token are propping up the value of their token through illegal content.

It seems to me that once you include money (the vidz tokens) with pirated content you have just opened yourself up to a whole new legal level of MPAA lawsuits. So the purpose of this thread is to discuss who will be liable and how will the MPAA take this?

I foresee the MPAA going after, very heavily,

any exchange that trades a token (who's sole purpose is linked to pirated content trading)
users who purchase the token
hosting companies who are paid via this token
legit businesses who wish to use this service but get paid bounties via this token
moderators who receive this token as form of payment.

[PikachuYou]

Purevidz claims to be some type of censor resistant platform using torrents and a few other buzzword technologies to create a streaming content site similar to hulu or netflix but with pirated content.

Lets ignore the technology aspect of this scheme. Lets ignore that you already can get this content for free from a number of reliable sources including the censor resistant sites on zeronet (zeroplay, zerotv, zerotorrent.bit) Maybe you can't stream them yet, but again lets ignore all technology aspects, similar to their threads where they only focus on the money.

The center and most heavily promoted part of this scheme is the bounty system. Bounty is paid in vidz tokens. Bounty is used to request content and pay moderators off and pay for development. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that the moderators and developers are generating money from illegal content, ie making money from pirated content. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that owners of this token are propping up the value of their token through illegal content.

It seems to me that once you include money (the vidz tokens) with pirated content you have just opened yourself up to a whole new legal level of MPAA lawsuits. So the purpose of this thread is to discuss who will be liable and how will the MPAA take this?

I foresee the MPAA going after, very heavily,

any exchange that trades a token (who's sole purpose is linked to pirated content trading)
users who purchase the token
hosting companies who are paid via this token
legit businesses who wish to use this service but get paid bounties via this token
moderators who receive this token as form of payment.

someone is butthurt their zeronet project got fraped by PureVidz.....

 

[Thenoticer]

You see folks. The only retort anyone from the purevidz side can make is 2nd grade insults..

Do you have any comments besides, you're stupid, dumb, idiot, butthurt, sour grapes, etc?


(I've never claimed that zeronet was my project. I point to it as an existence of censor resistant technology.)

I'm asking about the legal ramifications for users of this token. What kind of law suits are you being opened up to by using vidz?

I'm thinking that Vidz might be DOA due to highly probable legal repercussions from MPAA.

[Spoetnik]

I agree, i think you are right the MPAA will be all over it.
I also support File Sharing but i do not support crooked / rigged greedy coin schemes.
I have offered ideas for coins before over the years many times..
and one of my ideas was similar to this but this crap is sure as hell not what i had in mind.

[Thenoticer]

oh, and I forgot to mention.

The authors of this scheme know there is legal ramifications for this as per their explanation of why they remain anonymous.

So they then open themselves up to legal issues with the SEC or similar authority with an ICO.

And also issue tokens to people who are buying into a scheme with a stated purpose of distributing illegally pirated content.

We all know just how anonymous crypto currencies are. IE: Not very.

It seems to me that Purevidz just setup their token owners.

[Spoetnik]

Ya.. if you buy into the ICO etc and it gets abruptly shut down then your coins are worthless.
Sounds mighty risky to me and contingent on how well they can hide basically.

Let me remind everyone i am not fan of Github.
They have a PROVEN track record of being extremely compliant with anti-piracy and US govt requests.
For example.. Popcorn Time.
It violates no existing code base yet has been taken down by Github lots before with them citing copyright infringement.

They also like most Exchanges will hand your ass over to the FBI etc in a heart beat.
Not only are they willing to do it but they are obligated to by US Law.

So..
What can happen is this coin is reported to the US authorities and the MPAA etc.
Then we could see an FBI investigation where they ask for account info from theymos and he WILL most likely hand it over (he has done that type of thing before) then.. the FBI will request Github hand over any user info and close the project and ban any related forks etc.

THAT is the reality here.
THAT actually could happen.. i know i seen shit like that go down for years.

Bottom Line:
I am NOT against File Sharing.
I am against perpetuating a false sense of security to noobs for profits / exploitation.
Essentially i DO support Piracy but i sure as hell do not support ICO scheme coins.


EDIT:

This was from 2 days ago on my RSS feed.
https://torrentfreak.com/netflix-downloader-trademark-complaint-170110
Check out that site if you guys never seen it.

[ClamCoin]

Purevidz claims to be some type of censor resistant platform using torrents and a few other buzzword technologies to create a streaming content site similar to hulu or netflix but with pirated content.

Lets ignore the technology aspect of this scheme. Lets ignore that you already can get this content for free from a number of reliable sources including the censor resistant sites on zeronet (zeroplay, zerotv, zerotorrent.bit) Maybe you can't stream them yet, but again lets ignore all technology aspects, similar to their threads where they only focus on the money.

The center and most heavily promoted part of this scheme is the bounty system. Bounty is paid in vidz tokens. Bounty is used to request content and pay moderators off and pay for development. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that the moderators and developers are generating money from illegal content, ie making money from pirated content. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that owners of this token are propping up the value of their token through illegal content.

It seems to me that once you include money (the vidz tokens) with pirated content you have just opened yourself up to a whole new legal level of MPAA lawsuits. So the purpose of this thread is to discuss who will be liable and how will the MPAA take this?

I foresee the MPAA going after, very heavily,

any exchange that trades a token (who's sole purpose is linked to pirated content trading)
users who purchase the token
hosting companies who are paid via this token
legit businesses who wish to use this service but get paid bounties via this token
moderators who receive this token as form of payment.

Good luck going after purevidz. Its decentralized, and uses a crypto. Cant be stopped, wont be stopped. If they cant shutdown putlocker then how are they going to shut down purevidz?

[Spoetnik]

@ClamCoin
I just provided a possible way "How" right before you commented.
Did you read it ?

[ClamCoin]

@ClamCoin
I just provided a possible way "How" right before you commented.
Did you read it ?

Sorry I dont read your posts. I Have in the past but reading them has affirmed that you never like to look at other views and only stick to you own so instead of getting into a shouting battle with you id prefer to just ignore you because even when things are brought to your attention that are positive you still stick to your negative guns.

With ico's for example.

[Thenoticer]

See again. There is no logical argument here. Just childish bullshit.

I'd love to see a strong legal rebuke to the claims in the OP

[ClamCoin]

See again. There is no logical argument here. Just childish bullshit.

I'd love to see a strong legal rebuke to the claims in the OP

What kind of argument are you looking for? There are 100's illegal streaming sites and most of which work all the time. This is a market that made itself with or without the ok from anyone. Torrents will never stop, piracy will never stop. If you're worried about it then dont use them but for the millions of people around the globe that dont care we'll still continue to break the law and watch our movies on the illegal stream site we choose.

If you want here is a list

www.putlockers.ch/
www.Putlockers2.com
www.ozoomic.com
www.watchmoviestream.com/
www.primewire.ag/

of other stream sites I use on the regular and most have been around for over 18 months. Why dont you go to their forums and other forums and start complaining about how all the users will end up in jail for using the site.

Anyway. To finish this off obviously one can argue that this opens the doors to some legal issues but its not like the devs dont have that covered. If you read their whitepaper they mention many times about how they intend to stay one step ahead of the game.

Im done here. Bye.

[dukeneptun]

Purevidz claims to be some type of censor resistant platform using torrents and a few other buzzword technologies to create a streaming content site similar to hulu or netflix but with pirated content.

Lets ignore the technology aspect of this scheme. Lets ignore that you already can get this content for free from a number of reliable sources including the censor resistant sites on zeronet (zeroplay, zerotv, zerotorrent.bit) Maybe you can't stream them yet, but again lets ignore all technology aspects, similar to their threads where they only focus on the money.

The center and most heavily promoted part of this scheme is the bounty system. Bounty is paid in vidz tokens. Bounty is used to request content and pay moderators off and pay for development. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that the moderators and developers are generating money from illegal content, ie making money from pirated content. Because of the bounty aspect, it could be argued that owners of this token are propping up the value of their token through illegal content.

It seems to me that once you include money (the vidz tokens) with pirated content you have just opened yourself up to a whole new legal level of MPAA lawsuits. So the purpose of this thread is to discuss who will be liable and how will the MPAA take this?

I foresee the MPAA going after, very heavily,

any exchange that trades a token (who's sole purpose is linked to pirated content trading)
users who purchase the token
hosting companies who are paid via this token
legit businesses who wish to use this service but get paid bounties via this token
moderators who receive this token as form of payment.

why would holding vidz make holders liable as well? where do they explicitly say their service is for pirated content because i recall seeing it said early on that the platform would be scaled for all types a videos so long as the video/torrent has users seeding it.

if their platform decided to buy up a ton of doge (or insert w/e your favorite coin is here) before and they did their exact same model of coin burning, etc. etc. does this some now implicate doge holders. why or why not? is it because there are holders of doge who hold it for other purposes then purevidz? how does the law differentiate and determine what type of holder you are and then determine who to turn a blind eye to?

in that case how does the law differentiate between vidz? if vidz is listed on an exchange an investor/buyer might be oblivious to what it is and simply be looking to make trades by analyzing the market. they see it as simply another crypto asset since the exchange listed it. is the fault with them? the exchange? who?

i'm not going to call your questions/statements outright fud but because of the grey area of so much of this stuff "only time will tell"

[Spoetnik]

@ClamCoin
I just provided a possible way "How" right before you commented.
Did you read it ?

Sorry I dont read your posts. I Have in the past but reading them has affirmed that you never like to look at other views and only stick to you own so instead of getting into a shouting battle with you id prefer to just ignore you because even when things are brought to your attention that are positive you still stick to your negative guns.

With ico's for example.

Good luck being smart with your ears plugged and your eyes closed.. how "Smart" of you.

..your defense of this coin ?

They can't catch the dev.
And maybe not but they can shut down Github etc.
Maybe you SHOULD read what i posted you may learn something LOL

Ironic you act opinionated and arrogant then accuse me of it.
I am not the "smart guy" plugging his ears.  

PS:
You ignored me because you CAN'T refute what i said and my "FUD" is utterly diabolical  

[Spoetnik]

@dukeneptun
Your ideology means little to the MPAA.

The infamous web site / tracker "The Pirate Bay" was convicted of Piracy in a Swedish court of law because of ?
Ad-Revenue !

It was alleged (and never proven) that they earned many millions of dollars from the torrent site advertisements.

What the prosecution did was Google search the current rates for a pay-per-impression Ad-Campaign then they calculated the current payment rate times the amount of estimated page hits..
Then they entered that as "evidence" in a court of law.. then they were found guilty.
No financial proof was needed.. nor was any ever provided in the court case.

Funny enough the judge simply went with it and threw the book at them with such pitiful evidence.
Not surprising though because the judge was asked on camera if him previously being on an MPAA copyright board with the lead prosecutor representing the MPAA in the court case was a conflict of interest..
He smiled and said yes and wandered off..
Want to see it yourself ? download and watch "TPB-AFK The Movie" about the TPB trial.

Reality is what it is guys.

[Thenoticer]

PureVidz(VIDZ) is now live on Cryptopia, Welcome to the family

Finally. An exchange to trade on but sadly its not one of the more trusted exchanges.

Now the MPAA has something to go after. And a way to get user info. (People who are profiting on streaming torrents)

Though I'm starting to suspect this project is just a cash grab, and nothing will ever be delivered anyway due to forseen legal issues

[coins101]

So I've been pointing this issue out for a while,

..Governments around the world are seriously targeting websites like PureVidz.

But, let's say it manages to avoid take downs for a year or two. Fuck it, lets say it sticks around for 5 years.

If I invest in PureVidz, there is always the risk that the web site will be taken down and the market cap would obviously go to zero.

So where is the long-term investment opportunity? Seems like the risk is mostly in the hands of investors. With a 20% premine, the devs would obviously want to cash out ASAP.
..

Add to that, vidz business model is based around people spending money to place ads on the site but that's an additional line of attack:

Advertisers Promise to Boycott Pirate Sites After Police Visit

https://torrentfreak.com/advertisers-promise-boycott-pirate-sites-police-visit-170113/

So a website divorced from it's crypto client, where:

a) investors are solely relying on the trust of self-confessed criminals to share ad revenues (stealing and streaming is the business model);
b) investors and promoters are at complicit risk
c) exchanges with a licence will themselves become a target
d) Advertisers are themselves targeted - a bit of an issue when the business model is based around ad revenue
e) the MPAA will be all over it if it does what investors want - starts to get noticed

vs.

vTorrent

Which has been in active development to include the BitTorrent client into its crypto workflow (BitTorrent + Blockchain), has no ICO, has no self-moderated thread and being based on BitTorrent - it is legal.

...
* BitTorrent client (with paid bandwidth option)
* Crypto client
* Stealth addresses
* Tor and I2P options to hide location
* Riot chat for Slack like interaction with others in a safe untraceable way
* HD wallet for backing up
* Possible introduction of a classifieds market (people paying the network to place ads?)
* CheckLockTimeVerify for smart escrow (both parties lose coins if there is a problem)
* 2FA to protect funds from viruses and Trojans
* Trading API
* Client has it's own explorer
* Mobile options
..

If vTorrent is used to help small producers distribute their content and get paid, such as Bolloywood films or Indie tracks, it will be seen as a good thing. Even if people choose not to charge for their content, it will help them get noticed throughout the BitTorrent world and perhaps the next time people will be prepared to tip or pay.

[Thenoticer]

https://torrentfreak.com/french-police-shut-down-pirate-streaming-site-arrest-operator-170123/

“The administrator of Films-regarder.co acknowledged that he had acted alone in the administration of the site and admitted having received about 200,000 euros during the last 18 months. Money from foreign advertising agencies was cashed on foreign accounts,” ALPA informs TorrentFreak."

See, they really don't like money involved in pirate streaming sites.

[coins101]

I expect this might be deleted off the purevidz website, so x-posting here:

This was a brilliantly executed exit pump.

For those that believed this was a real project and have lost money, I am truly sorry for your losses. Get over to vTorrent and get in while it's still cheap. You'll probably recover most of your losses.

For those traders that knew this was a mega pump, but still lost out, you know the risks. Tough luck, but you know there is always someone (the hand behind the thrown) manipulating the project, the price and the exit.

For those involved in organising the pump: this will go down in history as a blueprint on how to do it. I never had a single penny in it, but you skirted the very edges of pump territory by pushing an illegal website. Fuck me you've got big balls of steel.

What was the profit: 20%-40% of $2.5m?

[Thenoticer]

What is even happening with that?

The original dev was 2 devs?  after having the BTC released to them by the escrows  one (if there really are 2 devs and not just 1) of the devs wants to do things differently and announces that causing a price collapse after a huge pump.

He then now decides to create his own new ICO for this variant and the same 2 escrows are in on this too?

The first dev ( PV) has vanished and the first project looks more and more like a pump and dump scam. However the second dev (maybe the same person) is now crowd funding again? the same escrows are in on this one too?

Complete mess or huge scam about to go down?

Looks like a total mess rather than outright scam because why would this dev not have dumped his 7M at ath? and why accept these now crashing tokens as part of the new ICO?

Any of the real scam busters looked into this?

The escrows need to be careful here because if they release another bunch of BTC and nothing but scam is released then it could damage their reputation of being rolled over 2x by the same scammer.

I'm not blaming the escrows they are there to enforce the terms and only that. However going into another ico with a person that possibly just created an ico and took money to develop something that is possibly no longer going to be developed may not be wise really.


Perhaps these devs are not scammers but this time there needs to be no release at all of funds before something solid and usable is released which looks to be the plan.

Still it looks bad the first PV just vanished leaving it to crash and now turning off withdrawals of the tokens from his site.

Trouble in paradise?

[Sadlife]

Currently the purevidz staffs are running a signature campaign in bitcointalk community and now that its all gone wrong and people started calling it a scam. I dont know if i will get paid anymore lol, i think the escrows and OP running the sig campaign should be careful cause this could potentially damage their reputation if this goes on.
Where did it go wrong it started with many positive feedbacks and the price seems to pump for the start. Let's, just wait and see maybe they're planning some great comeback just positive vibes guys