the website does not appear to be online
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:45:18 GMT, "localhost"
<hostyourown@localhost.net> wrote:
>Since I don't visit websites like yours, I have no way of knowing if it is a
>current site or not. I'm thinking it is a current one since these images
>were crossposted like spam in this and another group, and emblazoned with
>the youngboyzz.com logo.
>
>We have all seen many instances of the unscrupulous stealing images from
>other websites or from the usenet and other places and placing their logo on
>these images and selling them as their own either through website
>memberships or as cd's on ebay. These unscrupulous types incur none of the
>costs of producing the images, nor share any of the profits with the models,
>nor even have any respect for the fact they are copyrighted images. They are
>fast buck operators without conscience.
>
>Some of the images posted in here are very old and have been around 15-20
>years and have been seen in the public domain so often from so many sources
>that any copyright infringement would seem to be a moot issue. However, some
>of these images show a flagrant disregard for any measure of truth and
>goodness and in fact exposes the operator of youngboyzz.com to have the
>moral turpitude of a scumbag.
>
>For example, there are images like boylinks.jpg and young.jpg that are
>readily available, free of charge from the .ru photo sharing websites. Those
>sites feature non-nude collections of boys posted by their photographers for
>no other reason than to unselfishly share their work with others who may
>share their interests.
>
>There is a picture, Ron44.jpg by a renowned photographer Ron, who has graced
>us all with his marvelous images of many things, not just boys and not any
>nudes that I am aware of.
>
>Also you have a Johnie scan, Image089.jpg that I seriously doubt you were
>given permission to use for profit by Johnie.
>
>Then there is images such as boys.jpg and 2ocnd109.jpg and lorzvac_102.jpg
>which were copyrighted images sold via CD by their creators
>Riversideboys.com and m2mfrance aka Videoweb Productions. You have no right
>stealing these images and selling them for your own profit.
>
>I also see some images stolen from places like Boys-Art et al, that in the
>old days would have prompted a knock on your door in the middle of the night
>by the Russian mafia debt collectors.
>
>Perhaps the most dangerous image you have, at least in terms of you getting
>caught and being held accountable is the image 2(2).jpg. You probably didn't
>even know it is a copyrighted image of Billy Gilman, a youthful country
>music singer and musician who recorded under the Sony Music label. I mean,
>everyone knows that the motion picture and music industry have the ways and
>means to come after you. I could understand why they would, what with you
>mixing his wholesome image together with images they would consider
>unwholesome. Yes, they have the tenacity of the Mossad going after the Black
>September bad men.
>
>I think the worst transgression you made was to mix an image like
>post-6-1110376835.jpg, one of the many wonderful images of happy boys doing
>fun things from the Czech boy scout website with illegal images like
>ka007.jpg showing a boy with an erection or any of the b images like b13.jpg
>which shows boys masturbating each other while kissing. It is extremely
>unfortunate you mix these because you may make a few bucks off your scam for
>now, but in the long run you may accomplish causing these websites that show
>happy boys in non sexual ways to shut down and go away, or go password only.
>I mean, what happy boy scout wants to be shown on some scumbags website
>along with masturbating boys and kids with boners being photographed for
>lewd and lascivious purposes???
>
>So, Mr. youngboyzz.com website operator. If you are going to steal images
>for the purpose of making a fast buck, please, please, please...either steal
>all porno images or all non-porno images but for the sake of us all, quit
>mixing images, created for their prurient value, with images of boy singers,
>boy clothing models, and boy scouts.
>
>BTW, I am not delusional. I realize that this may not be a current site, or
>if it is, that this message may never reach the operator, or if it does that
>the operator gives a shit about anything I said.
|
|