Topic: Will owning/trading Purevidz tokens make you liable to MPAA lawsuits? (Read 1497 times)

i know
just a another shit coin PnD

BUT
it had something to offer and a cool website (that once did serve actual Movies).
It was Netflix, for near free!

streaming content, and rewarding uploaders.

STOP.  I know your next bone to pick.
But.
Really.
This a thing that needs to happen.  

A network that rewards open nodes that host the various content that is on demand.

VIDZ is a scam.
Gone. Puff!

Yet, the shadow of this project will return.

http://purevidz.net/  --off line  
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/vidz/  --poorBeachz
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/purevidznet-decentralized-streaming-webtorrents-vidz-trading-now-1696889  ---LOlZ

Or it was a scam from day 1. Where are all you mouthy fuckers now?

I assume by prospectus you are not referring to a doc filed with the SEC (which would have been rather comical) but the original vidz "whitepaper" that served as business plan extrodinaire. This plan described a system to stream illegal copy righted material and generate revenue from advertising.

I understand your comments to mean that since they claim to have found a jurisdiction that allows copy righted material to be streamed and revenue generated from ads on this site that it is ok hunky dory and profits go in the pocket no problem.

Guess problem solved right, MPAA won't go after them. Nor will they go after the people who are profiting from this.

My argument is that once you involve revenue and illegal streaming they go after you. There are countless examples to back this up. And the op was to question whether or not owning and participating with these tokens makes you liable as the only reason to have one of these tokens is to facilitate revenue from illegal streaming.

The OP is completely uninformed.

The project in question was, explicitly and in detail, promoted as being legal in the domiciled jurisdiction.

Investors in junior, speculative securities such as gold or medical or tech or crypto promotions...
Have no independent information on what is really being done by the Principals... and can only rely on the Prospectus.

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"

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.

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?

“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."

..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.
..

...
* 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
..

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

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.

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.

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

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.