Don't Let Nathan Be Right...

[kristin]

Quote from Nathan's post last week on a different thread:

Just a week or so ago PinkVisual released info on how to fingerprint content with Vobile FOR FREE (which btw, with the FSC directly, was always free too, you just had to be a member to the FSC). Guess what will happen in 1 month? Nothing. I can virtually guarantee to you that the people complaining will still not have fingerprinted their content. At what point should I really care?

We've received good responses from some, but far too many are not acting. This could be for multiple reasons, including that some content owners are giving up. By not doing this, in some ways your are contributing to the piracy problem if you know the major tubes do have your content. Contribute to the solution.

A few common misconceptions that seem to be holding some back:

1. YOU DO NOT GIVE YOUR CONTENT TO THE TUBES! This is just flat out wrong. We (Pink Visual) get access to your content to do the fingerprinting and then we remove it from our side. No tube gets all your content.

2. YOU HAVE THE TIME! Since it doesn't really take any of your time. We do 99.9% of the work. You need to sign a contract to give us the right to fingerprint and you have to give our SysAdmin access to the content.

3. YOU WILL MAKE MONEY! And even if you don't - the tubes won't either with your content.

Hit me up if you are interested or want more info.

kristin @ dmcaforce.com
ICQ #: 147-945-440

First thread re: DMCA Force with more info:
http://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1070...ght=dmca+force

[Tijuana_Tom]

The problem here is a lack of info.

Vobile? Free Fingerprinting? Why is it free?

Do I really need to contact you and blah blah blah for these simple questions to be answered?

I don't like your tone young lady.

[Makaveli]

What is the time line of getting it done? Say if a program like dogfart or bangbros wants it done. That's like 10 years of updates.

[Freaky_Akula]

Take the time to explain what it is you are offering.

[JFK]

Take the time to explain what it is you are offering.

YES, sloooooooooooooooooooowly............. so everyone can understand. No such thing as a free lunch, why are you good enough to do this for nothing ?

[MrCain]

What if Bill and Steve bought the same nonexclusive content and Bill has uploaded promo clips to the tubes, but Steve uses your program? Will Bill's videos get removed or plastered with ads for Steve's site?

[Barefootsies]

First I have heard of it.

Do a better marketing campaign, GFY stickie, XBIZ, etc..

[CaptainHowdy]

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

YES, sloooooooooooooooooooowly............. so everyone can understand. No such thing as a free lunch, why are you good enough to do this for nothing ?

ADG

[kristin]

What is the time line of getting it done? Say if a program like dogfart or bangbros wants it done. That's like 10 years of updates.

15,000 videos would take a week.

[kristin]

What if Bill and Steve bought the same nonexclusive content and Bill has uploaded promo clips to the tubes, but Steve uses your program? Will Bill's videos get removed or plastered with ads for Steve's site?

Steve can't use the services as its non-exclusive content. The original owner of the content can and then if Bill uploads that content to a tube site that is out of the parameters of the owners set rules, Bill's video would be truncated or removed.

When creating the rules, if you know in licensing contracts you have allowed for five minute clips or have large WMs using four minute, then you'd set the rules so it doesn't catch those clips.

[BIGTYMER]

ADG

[adendreams]

ADG

[Chris]

YES, sloooooooooooooooooooowly............. so everyone can understand. No such thing as a free lunch, why are you good enough to do this for nothing ?

Good question quoted for an answer.

I have zero skin in the content game but I agree that there is no such thing as truely free

[uno]

Is this going to be like tgp2?

[JFK]

Is this going to be like tgp2?

Hey I remember those

[baddog]

Kristin: Every person that has talked to me about it has said the reason they don't want to get involved is the FSC connection. Perhaps you can discuss why this is not a concern . . . or why it should not be.

[kristin]

Kristin: Every person that has talked to me about it has said the reason they don't want to get involved is the FSC connection. Perhaps you can discuss why this is not a concern . . . or why it should not be.

The FSC's involvement was crucial for this technology to be used within our industry. Mainstream companies normally pay $10-30k a month for this software. The FSC worked with Vobile to come up with a cost-effective solution.

Our service is not connected to the FSC, there are no FSC workers touching the content or anything. Where they were instrumental and we should applaud them for is that they fought for the industry to have a reasonable technology available for content producers.

[Quentin]

YES, sloooooooooooooooooooowly............. so everyone can understand. No such thing as a free lunch, why are you good enough to do this for nothing ?

The short answer is that we're not doing it "for nothing;" we're doing it to help reestablish some value to the product we all sell. It's also true that not all of DMCAForce's services are free, so we're counting on some percentage of clients who come to us for the free fingerprinting seeing some value in our paid services, and retaining us for those services, as well.

To answer some other questions about the DMCAForce services:

- You do not have to be a member of the FSC in order to make use of DMCAForce's services, or to receive the fingerprinting for free.

- If you choose to use the monetization option, the revenue generated by that option is divided between you, DMCAForce, vobile, any ad brokers that might be involved in the equation, and the site(s) where the content that replaces your filtered-out content is displayed. The content that gets swapped in might be an ad, or just a shorter promotional clip of yours, or what have you; as the content owner, that is your decision to make.

- If you choose to use the monetization option (and there's no requirement to do so), then as the content owner, you get 30% of that revenue, DMCAForce gets 5%, and the rest is divided between Vobile, the FSC, and the site where the swapped-in content is displayed.

- If you do not choose to implement the monetization aspect, DMCAForce will still fingerprint your content for free.

As to why we're willing to do the fingerprinting for free, even if the client never chooses to implement the monetization option, we look at all the content that is currently readily available to pirates as a market, and we see digital fingerprint filtering as a means of denying the pirates market share. So perhaps the real question is: Why would any of us NOT want to deny pirates market share?

We don't mind competing with other pornographers who have to face the same sorts of risks, costs and market fluctuations that we do; that's just business, and how it is done.

We do mind, quite a bit, competing with pirates who get all the benefits of distributing porn for profit, but who don't have to deal with the same costs that we do.

The way we see it, if we remain one of a small handful of companies actively fingerprinting content, then we'll have a minimal impact on pirates via fingerprint filtering. On the other hand, if lots of studios and producers join in with us, we can further limit the pirates' content options, and force them to rely on a smaller and smaller content pool to draw from. Gradually, surfers will tire of seeing the same content, over and over again, everywhere they turn in terms of pirated sources, and they will (again, gradually) go back to obtaining content from legitimate sources in greater numbers.

In other words, we're hoping to "do well by doing good" as the saying goes.

The benefit of doing the free fingerprinting is not going to come to us overnight, it's not going to come easily, and it is not guaranteed to come at all -- but we think the risk is worth it, and we think that making the fingerprinting free will bring about the eventual benefit to us more assuredly than charging for that component of the service would.

Yes, the old cliche is correct: There really is no such thing as a free lunch. On occasion, however, the guy buying lunch has his eye on the long term, and as such isn't particularly bothered by picking up your BLT, fries and iced tea on his tab, if doing so gets you on board with a plan that benefits both of you in the long run.

I hope this helps to clarify things a bit. If you have any additional questions, I'll be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

[CaptainHowdy]

Nathan being wrong it's just a "negative moment" of he being absolutely right ...

[baddog]

The short answer is that we're not doing it "for nothing;" we're doing it to help reestablish some value to the product we all sell. It's also true that not all of DMCAForce's services are free, so we're counting on some percentage of clients who come to us for the free fingerprinting seeing some value in our paid services, and retaining us for those services, as well.

To answer some other questions about the DMCAForce services:

- You do not have to be a member of the FSC in order to make use of DMCAForce's services, or to receive the fingerprinting for free.

- If you choose to use the monetization option, the revenue generated by that option is divided between you, DMCAForce, vobile, any ad brokers that might be involved in the equation, and the site(s) where the content that replaces your filtered-out content is displayed. The content that gets swapped in might be an ad, or just a shorter promotional clip of yours, or what have you; as the content owner, that is your decision to make.

- If you choose to use the monetization option (and there's no requirement to do so), then as the content owner, you get 30% of that revenue, DMCAForce gets 5%, and the rest is divided between Vobile, the FSC, and the site where the swapped-in content is displayed.

- If you do not choose to implement the monetization aspect, DMCAForce will still fingerprint your content for free.

As to why we're willing to do the fingerprinting for free, even if the client never chooses to implement the monetization option, we look at all the content that is currently readily available to pirates as a market, and we see digital fingerprint filtering as a means of denying the pirates market share. So perhaps the real question is: Why would any of us NOT want to deny pirates market share?

We don't mind competing with other pornographers who have to face the same sorts of risks, costs and market fluctuations that we do; that's just business, and how it is done.

We do mind, quite a bit, competing with pirates who get all the benefits of distributing porn for profit, but who don't have to deal with the same costs that we do.

The way we see it, if we remain one of a small handful of companies actively fingerprinting content, then we'll have a minimal impact on pirates via fingerprint filtering. On the other hand, if lots of studios and producers join in with us, we can further limit the pirates' content options, and force them to rely on a smaller and smaller content pool to draw from. Gradually, surfers will tire of seeing the same content, over and over again, everywhere they turn in terms of pirated sources, and they will (again, gradually) go back to obtaining content from legitimate sources in greater numbers.

In other words, we're hoping to "do well by doing good" as the saying goes.

The benefit of doing the free fingerprinting is not going to come to us overnight, it's not going to come easily, and it is not guaranteed to come at all -- but we think the risk is worth it, and we think that making the fingerprinting free will bring about the eventual benefit to us more assuredly than charging for that component of the service would.

Yes, the old cliche is correct: There really is no such thing as a free lunch. On occasion, however, the guy buying lunch has his eye on the long term, and as such isn't particularly bothered by picking up your BLT, fries and iced tea on his tab, if doing so gets you on board with a plan that benefits both of you in the long run.

I hope this helps to clarify things a bit. If you have any additional questions, I'll be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

This is probably the best explanation to date. Mind if I quote you at times?

[Quentin]

This is probably the best explanation to date. Mind if I quote you at times?

Not at all -- if it helps clear things up for people, please do.

[DamianJ]

Q, you so rock, I wish you were my Uncle or something.

[sandman!]

i dont see why content owners would not use the free service makes no sence.

[JFK]

Not at all -- if it helps clear things up for people, please do.

Thanks for doing that Q

[Quentin]

Q, you so rock, I wish you were my Uncle or something.

Well, it is possible that we are more distantly related; the lion's share of my family line ties back to your neck of the woods, and I have all sorts of several-times-removed cousins over in England/Scotland/Wales who I've never heard the names of, let alone know anything about.

[Quentin]

Well, shit.... I just noticed that in my earlier post, I accidentally omitted the FSC from the list of entities that share in the revenue generated by the monetization program. The first sentence of that paragraph should have read:

If you choose to use the monetization option, the revenue generated by that option is divided between you, DMCAForce, vobile, FSC, any ad brokers that might be involved in the equation, and the site(s) where the content that replaces your filtered-out content is displayed.

Sorry about that, everyone. I wasn't trying snub the FSC there, or somehow conceal their involvement in the mix; just a simple flub on my part.

baddog, if/when you quote that part of the paragraph elsewhere, please insert the FSC accordingly.

[RycEric]

The FSC's involvement was crucial for this technology to be used within our industry. Mainstream companies normally pay $10-30k a month for this software. The FSC worked with Vobile to come up with a cost-effective solution.

Our service is not connected to the FSC, there are no FSC workers touching the content or anything. Where they were instrumental and we should applaud them for is that they fought for the industry to have a reasonable technology available for content producers.

I was told, by Manny at Vobile, the FSC had an exclusive arrangement which essentially locked out other folks, like ourselves, from using their software. Is this not the case now?

[geedub]

The short answer is that we're not doing it "for nothing;" we're doing it to help reestablish some value to the product we all sell.

If Pink Visual wanted to reestablish some value to the product they sell, they would work on their websites. You guys are playing the wrong cards.

[kronic]

If Pink Visual wanted to reestablish some value to the product they sell, they would work on their websites. You guys are playing the wrong cards.

Yeah right.

A hamburger place is rocking it until a new place opens up right next door. The new business keeps walking in the back door and stealing the burgers the first place makes. The new place doesn't make burgers, they're just giving away the burgers the first place is making for nothing.

Who in their right mind would pay for the exact same burger that is being given away for free, especially if it's right next door?

Should the first place change their recipe that was clearly so successful or try to put the thieves out of business by locking their own back door?

That's a no-brainer.

[kristin]

I was told, by Manny at Vobile, the FSC had an exclusive arrangement which essentially locked out other folks, like ourselves, from using their software. Is this not the case now?

I can't comment on that but let me clarify what I meant by "not connected." If a company wants to have their content fingerprinted, they don't have to work directly with the guys at the FSC to do so. Company signs a contract with DMCA Force, not the FSC. Our employees fingerprint the content, not the FSCs.

It's not like DMCA Force has gone direct to Vobile. One reason why the FSC receives a percentage of the ad revenue earned once the monetization part begins.

[signupdamnit]

It's worth a bump for consideration at least...

[baddog]

Kids these days would rather complain than do something to help themselves; even if someone else is willing to do all the work.

I guess complaining is easier.

[Klen]

Question:is it possible to auto integrate this technology to tube script ?

[pornguy]

Can you tell us WHO is using it already other than yourselves?

[baddog]

Can you tell us WHO is using it already other than yourselves?

1. What difference does that make?
2. Have you ever heard of a Privacy Policy? You think those are just for show?

[Quentin]

Question:is it possible to auto integrate this technology to tube script ?

I'm not sure I understand the question, so I'll answer based on a couple of different things I think you might be asking. ;-)

If what you mean is "Can the software be integrated into a tube site so that the tube is then filtering digitally fingerprinted videos?" then yes -- that's an important piece of the puzzle for how all this works. In order for the fingerprint filtering to work on any particular site, that site has to integrate the technology so it can communicate with the central fingerprint database maintained by Vobile and match uploaded videos against the Vobile fingerprint database.

If what you mean is "Can the fingerprinting software be integrated into a tube script so that the tube site itself is doing the actual fingerprinting of the content and storing fingerprints directly?" then the answer is no. All fingerprints created under this system are stored centrally by Vobile for the sake of efficiency; a separate fingerprint database maintained by a tube site would not be synched with the Vobile database, and therefor the fingerprints made by that site would only be recognized by that site.

If neither of those responses addresses your question, please reword your question and I'll try again.

[baddog]

Am I correct in my understanding that only the original producer can have content fingerprinted and it must be exclusive content?

[Quentin]

Can you tell us WHO is using it already other than yourselves?

I can't/won't divulge any of our clients without their express permission to do so, but I can tell you that in the short time since we first beta launched DMCAForce, we have fingerprinted over 10,000 scenes, and that sum does not include Pink Visual's own content (which we began fingerprinting long before launching DMCAForce).

Whether through DMCAForce or otherwise, I strongly suspect more and more studios and sites are going to start employing digital fingerprint filtering in the months ahead. In some cases where UGC websites are concerned, it may not be a voluntary decision on their part; it's not unheard of for a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against a UGC site to include the implementation of digital fingerprint filtering as a condition of settling that lawsuit, or to petition the court to make that a part of the injunctive relief the court imposes, should the lawsuit go the distance.

[Quentin]

Am I correct in my understanding that only the original producer can have content fingerprinted and it must be exclusive content?

Depending on what you mean by "exclusive content," the answer is yes and no. ;-)

It is my understanding that only the rights-holder can have content fingerprinted (and make legitimate use of it, at any rate; I would not recommend falsely asserting copyright in order to fingerprint content owned by a third party, as doing so carries liability all its own) but it is not the case that the rights-holder can never have licensed that same content to another party.

Anyone the rights-holder licensed the content to cannot fingerprint the content, or make use of the system with respect to that content to effect take-downs or monetization, but their license to use the content will still stand, subject to any limitations on use that exist in the original licensing agreement, of course.

[pornguy]

1. What difference does that make?
2. Have you ever heard of a Privacy Policy? You think those are just for show?

the constitution was not for show either.

Laws and rules are written every day and broken ever hour. And not just by some dirty bearded scum back wearing torn clothes. Often and just as often by mega businesses and corporations.

My simple question was, what companies have started with this. forgive me for not just tossing them my keys to my business and saying go wild and Gee I still hope im in business tomorrow.

If you buy into something that is " Free " or "Paid" and you don't ask questions and read the labels then you are just an idiot.

[pornguy]

I can't/won't divulge any of our clients without their express permission to do so, but I can tell you that in the short time since we first beta launched DMCAForce, we have fingerprinted over 10,000 scenes, and that sum does not include Pink Visual's own content (which we began fingerprinting long before launching DMCAForce).

Whether through DMCAForce or otherwise, I strongly suspect more and more studios and sites are going to start employing digital fingerprint filtering in the months ahead. In some cases where UGC websites are concerned, it may not be a voluntary decision on their part; it's not unheard of for a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against a UGC site to include the implementation of digital fingerprint filtering as a condition of settling that lawsuit, or to petition the court to make that a part of the injunctive relief the court imposes, should the lawsuit go the distance.

Thanks for a valuable answer.

While that is not really a lot of scenes in the grand scheme it is a start.

It would be nice to know the names of some of the other companies that have started, how they feel about the work etc.

I honestly dont see any reason someone would hide it. ( I can't/won't divulge any of our clients without their express permission to do so, ) This aside of course. I understand that totally and 100%

[baddog]

the constitution was not for show either.

Laws and rules are written every day and broken ever hour

So they should violate their privacy clause because people do it all the time?

[pornguy]

So they should violate their privacy clause because people do it all the time?

Where do you get that I am asking them to do that?

I asked who is using it? gee if I decide to I sure as hell wont mind them telling people.

If they have not asked if they can tell then they simply state. Hey for now we dont have permission.

I did not point a gun at them and demand them to tell. I did not call them scammers for not telling, I simply asked.

[Klen]

I'm not sure I understand the question, so I'll answer based on a couple of different things I think you might be asking. ;-)

If what you mean is "Can the software be integrated into a tube site so that the tube is then filtering digitally fingerprinted videos?" then yes -- that's an important piece of the puzzle for how all this works. In order for the fingerprint filtering to work on any particular site, that site has to integrate the technology so it can communicate with the central fingerprint database maintained by Vobile and match uploaded videos against the Vobile fingerprint database.

If what you mean is "Can the fingerprinting software be integrated into a tube script so that the tube site itself is doing the actual fingerprinting of the content and storing fingerprints directly?" then the answer is no. All fingerprints created under this system are stored centrally by Vobile for the sake of efficiency; a separate fingerprint database maintained by a tube site would not be synched with the Vobile database, and therefor the fingerprints made by that site would only be recognized by that site.

If neither of those responses addresses your question, please reword your question and I'll try again.

I think your first answer answers my question Second one is useful info too.I suggest to contact popular tube script creators so they can automatically integrate it into script so the script users can automatically turn it on when script is installed.

[DWB]

Kids these days would rather complain than do something to help themselves; even if someone else is willing to do all the work.

I guess complaining is easier.

It's not that. It's that anyone with 1/2 a brain is skeptical of just about everything these days. All most the large companies do is fuck people over in one way or another, and the FSC's history isn't exactly beaming with success stories. It's very difficult to trust anyone these days, especially with your content, and especially for free.

I'm going to play out a scenario here, and I'm making it up as I go along so there will be holes in it. I do not think this is going to happen, I'm just running with one possible thing that comes to mind.

Random scenario: Once everyone has their videos fingerprinted, 5 years down the road and someone more or less is in control of most of the adult internet. It could be Stuart Lawley, it could be Manwin, or someone we've yet to come across. Suppose they use those fingerprints, obtained however they had to obtain them, to hold your content hostage or force you into something else, an internet ghetto perhaps. Or if you don't pay them, your content can not be played outside of your own sites. Anything is possible. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing some dirt bag organization would pull in this industry. I wouldn't even put such a move past the FSC. I don't trust them to walk my dog, let alone have possible access to my content library. And yea, sure, today they don't have anything to do with it, but how about next year, or in 4 years?

Anyway, that is just one thing that came to mine as quickly as I could write it. I'm sure with some thought, I could think of a lot more in great detail. So that is the sort of thing people fear. The future. Time and time again people have been fucked over and now it's difficult to trust anyone, especially when it comes to your original content.

What was wrong with the last fingerprinting run with the FSC, Manwin, and Pink Visual? Why did this new venture have to spin off? If the first one was so good, as it was claimed to be, why the need for DMCA Force? Just so many questions, and when the FSC is involved, all trust goes right out the window. Then to hear they may have blocked others from using Vobile's service, that just puts me off even more and says they are only in this for a quick buck and not for the better of the industry. If they wanted to better the industry, which should be their role, they would not try to keep other groups from using Vobile.

Like I said before, great technology, but laying down with the FSC in any capacity turns me off, and now more than ever if what Eric says is accurate about them blocking others form using this technology from Vobile.

[pornguy]

It's not that. It's that anyone with 1/2 a brain is skeptical of just about everything these days. All most the large companies do is fuck people over in one way or another, and the FSC's history isn't exactly beaming with success stories. It's very difficult to trust anyone these days, especially with your content, and especially for free.

I'm going to play out a scenario here, and I'm making it up as I go along so there will be holes in it. I do not think this is going to happen, I'm just running with one possible thing that comes to mind.

Random scenario: Once everyone has their videos fingerprinted, 5 years down the road and someone more or less is in control of most of the adult internet. It could be Stuart Lawley, it could be Manwin, or someone we've yet to come across. Suppose they use those fingerprints, obtained however they had to obtain them, to hold your content hostage or force you into something else, an internet ghetto perhaps. Or if you don't pay them, your content can not be played outside of your own sites. Anything is possible. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing some dirt bag organization would pull in this industry. I wouldn't even put such a move past the FSC. I don't trust them to walk my dog, let alone have possible access to my content library. And yea, sure, today they don't have anything to do with it, but how about next year, or in 4 years?

Anyway, that is just one thing that came to mine as quickly as I could write it. I'm sure with some thought, I could think of a lot more in great detail. So that is the sort of thing people fear. The future. Time and time again people have been fucked over and now it's difficult to trust anyone, especially when it comes to your original content.

What was wrong with the last fingerprinting run with the FSC, Manwin, and Pink Visual? Why did this new venture have to spin off? If the first one was so good, as it was claimed to be, why the need for DMCA Force? Just so many questions, and when the FSC is involved, all trust goes right out the window. Then to hear they may have blocked others from using Vobile's service, that just puts me off even more and says they are only in this for a quick buck and not for the better of the industry. If they wanted to better the industry, which should be their role, they would not try to keep other groups from using Vobile.

Like I said before, great technology, but laying down with the FSC in any capacity turns me off, and now more than ever if what Eric says is accurate about them blocking others form using this technology from Vobile.

Not just that. But Kristin said in the post

We (Pink Visual) get access to your content to do the fingerprinting and then we remove it from our side.

That tells me that they would need to download my content. Fingerprint it and then re-upload? and then they Delete it from their servers?

Kristen may be trustworthy, sorry hun I dont know you and some of the others in their company may be as well.( But I dont know them either ) but how many times have we seen here on this board about a " Rogue Employee" ( not from Pink Visual ) Not sure I want to risk that.

Right now I remove less than 10% of the videos that we have from tubes and file lockers etc. Just imagine a " Rogue " employee with his own copies of everything you own.

I think that fear gives me the right to ask questions like Who is using the system. ( Quentin you already gave me a good enough answer to this. thanks. This was just a Jab at the OLD guy for giving me shit about asking a very valid question. )

[DWB]

Not just that. But Kristin said in the post


That tells me that they would need to download my content. Fingerprint it and then re-upload? and then they Delete it from their servers?

Kristen may be trustworthy, sorry hun I dont know you and some of the others in their company may be as well.( But I dont know them either ) but how many times have we seen here on this board about a " Rogue Employee" ( not from Pink Visual ) Not sure I want to risk that.

Right now I remove less than 10% of the videos that we have from tubes and file lockers etc. Just imagine a " Rogue " employee with his own copies of everything you own.

I think that fear gives me the right to ask questions like Who is using the system. ( Quentin you already gave me a good enough answer to this. thanks. This was just a Jab at the OLD guy for giving me shit about asking a very valid question. )

More valid points. The "rogue employee" seems to be the cause of many issues. I just read a thread by Sherm at Duke Dollars about someone who used to work for them who took 50 ex member accounts at a time and is now spamming them. It happens, and it would be terrifying if it happened with ALL of our content. I don't know what all someone could do with a finger printed video, and I'm sure we'll find out in the future, but leave it to people in the porn industry to find a bad way to use it.

I also want to note this is not a dig on Pink Visual, as I have zero issues with them, but shit does happen.

[Matyko]

Go, Kristin, Go!
Congratulations on this, and a HUGE bump for you! ;)

[NemesisEnforcer]

Not just that. But Kristin said in the post


That tells me that they would need to download my content. Fingerprint it and then re-upload? and then they Delete it from their servers?

Kristen may be trustworthy, sorry hun I dont know you and some of the others in their company may be as well.( But I dont know them either ) but how many times have we seen here on this board about a " Rogue Employee" ( not from Pink Visual ) Not sure I want to risk that.

Right now I remove less than 10% of the videos that we have from tubes and file lockers etc. Just imagine a " Rogue " employee with his own copies of everything you own.

Good point(s). This is where I have concerns.