So we are suing Match.com

[newB]

100 Billions

[Emma]

[brassmonkey]

billion? you've lost your fucking mind!

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Has Match.com finally met it's Match?



Epic lawsuit thread!



ADG

[Mutt]

Shoot for the moon, even if you miss you'll land among the stars.

[iwantchixx]

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it. That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

fucking two-faced people in here.. ridiculous.

[Naughty-Pages]

Originally Posted by Midwest Shane

I sent it to all the affiliates that ever signed up for Melissa's program over the years. This is a big problem in the adult world and I would think people on GFY would be concerned about it. Maybe I was wrong but it effects 1,000's of models in OUR business. It took years to find a real law firm to go after these billion dollar companies...

ya i got an email too...


if you no longer have a program, then none of us are interested in unsolicited mailings....


be careful.. someone might sue you for spamming.. lol

[TheDA]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it. That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

fucking two-faced people in here.. ridiculous.

You sound fucking clueless.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

or do you support what's right?

If he was suing for say 20 million then the thread would be serious and more attention paid to it's merits. 4.5 billion makes the thread a joke. But your point is well taken.

[k0nr4d]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it. That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

fucking two-faced people in here.. ridiculous.

No one's giving anyone a hard time for standing up for intellectual property rights. It's all about the aol email account, the ridiculous website, and the absurd amount they are sueing for... It all seems like a publicity stunt for the lawyer to get his name out.

[money biz]

lol what a jerk off. Look at the terms they dont do backround checks on profiles that are created. Even if they uploaded fake profiles themselfs you have to provide proof.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it. That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

fucking two-faced people in here.. ridiculous.

I hear you. While I can't speak for anyone else who has posted in this thread, I can say my comments are based on 2 things:

1. class action is a serious suit, more serious than a typical lawsuit, which is serious enough. After reading much of the actual finding, the class in this suit is 2 people- the original model and mm. The suit mentions and includes many other models such as raven riley, but they are not members of the class, the profiles that use their pictures are included as evidence, that's not going to work in court, IMO.

With just the first model, the suit was filed claiming $1.5 billion in damages, after mm was added it was amended to $4.5 billion.

That distorts and perverts the case to make it virtually unmeritorious, if not frivolous.

And to have an attorney who doesn't even have a legitimate email address file such a case only adds to that.

2. The press release is a serious, no shit risk to everyone involved. If I were legal for match.com and this suit got real, I would move to have the entire thing thrown out due to that press release alone. The fact that the OP was even allowed to write and submit that also shows that the attorney is in over his head on this.

[iSpyCams]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

Almost all of the money in adult is in Dating and almost all the profiles in dating are fake, so, not the smartest question to ask around here if you want an honest answer.

Personally I am not in dating on any level but I am pretty sure that of the many HUGE issues with dating, stolen content does not rank very high. There are a lot more and bigger issues with Dating. Also on the stolen content front, I don't think dating profiles are are the biggest problem out there either, I think its minor, and positively insignificant compared to tubes, file lockers, torrents, usenet, scraped exgf sites, etc.

[JSWENSON]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it. That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

fucking two-faced people in here.. ridiculous.

I always support content creators. I think it's completely foolish to assume this costs money and in fact probably did the exact opposite so I see the lawsuit as a money grab. We all know full well that if nobody were stealing models content to put on profiles that content owners would still be putting them there to generate sales. Do we wish for webmasters that made fake profiles on Yahoo, MySpace, Facebook, dating sites and everywhere else up and down the Internet to be sued for trying to make a buck?

[Seth Manson]

How much does Melissa get?

I hope you guys win so your 'attorney' can buy a razor, get a suit that fits, get a real office space, and then maybe get a google apps account for $5 and have a real email address.

[Bryan G]

Shane try a little harder next time when you try to drum up publicity. Jesus lol.

[Penny24Seven]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it. That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

fucking two-faced people in here.. ridiculous.

Just like when the one guy got 4 years in prison and half were happy. You know they start some place and if Max would have beat that it would have stopped there.
So many fucking haters. Who gives a fuck if it has errors or if the lawyer would work for a bag of peanuts and a large pizza with extra cheese. It is a start to something. At least it is a shot.
I think it is funny what most have pointed out but I would still support the cause.

[DBS.US]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it. That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

fucking two-faced people in here.. ridiculous.

I'm going to win the race in the Daytona !

[adultchatpay]

This thread is destroying the OP more than getting sympathy.

So your next move is to sue facebook? There are millions of fake profiles. And i saw Midwest pictures there like hundred of times with different names and locations.
Sue them for like 5 billion this time.

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it.

I think the issue is the BILLION request, if it was million the tone would have been different.

By the way about intellectual rights, I would care to sue first Microsoft for hosting previews, for ex. of trikepatrol stolen content, for ex:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?fi...ong&FORM=R5VR3

As someone noted in other threads, bing it finds porn better than google lately - and got a very useful video preview feature - google it was sued by an Perfect 10 for the hosted thumbnails before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect..._v._Google_Inc.

By the way perfect10 blamed Google for $50 million or so, no billion's.

[ErectMedia]

Have Luck

[DBS.US]

Good law info on copyrights
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html

[Matyko]

This thread delivers FUN in Fukkin' Big Quantities!

[NEW XTC]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it. That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

fucking two-faced people in here.. ridiculous.

Have you ever heard the word PRECEDENT?

You have totally failed to understand that this sham of a lawsuit WILL ONLY HELP assholes like match.com continue their shady shit...the JOKE of asking for 4.5 billion is so fucking ludacris that it reeks of shakedown - ANY Judge is going to laugh it out of court and the Plaintiffs will be lucky to go away without serious penalties against THEM.

Personally I would LOVE to see Match taken down for fake profiles but this "suit" is tailor made to HELP Match and other dating scammers never have to worry again...

[1215]

match is going to laugh at this just like everyone else is.

and if they even give you the time of day, it will be gfy.

[Lykos]

Wow, crazy numbers...

[DavinsDen]

Hi Everybody,

Thanks for having me in your forum.

I host a radio show called Davin's Den. The original named plaintiff in this lawsuit was Yuliana Avalos. She was a former model and published her own nude pictures on her website. Problem is she was not what the lawyer Evan Spencer portrayed her as. She was not some innocent victim of identity theft. We outed her and after threatening me Spencer buried her in the lawsuit and reached out to Melissa Midwest. All the shows where we have covered Avalos since 2012 are online for free. Here is the page we put up on my website explaining it all.

davinsden.com/busted/

My question is this for Midwest Shane or anybody actually. If you are worried about the models' pictures being stolen and used for nefarious things why not watermark the pictures? Professional photographers do that. Then if somebody edits it out you have a real case. Especially if you know your pictures are being used to hurt people and you are genuinely concerned and not just going for the money.

The lawsuit has some valid points but there are plenty of holes as well. Here is perhaps a no-brainer in my mind. If you are truly trying to end this practice by Match and others why would you make a porn star the face of your lawsuit? No disrespect but we all know the adult entertainment industry is controversial for many and taboo for others. It is polarizing. There are soldiers who have had their identity stolen. I deal with this all the time on my show. Our military is the one thing this country can all rally around. If this wasn't about headlines and glitz why wouldn't you try and use a soldier who are allegedly included in this lawsuit? Certainly would be better for public opinion than an admitted scammer like Avalos and an arrested porn star like Melissa Midwest.

Thanks for your time.

Davin

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by DavinsDen

Hi Everybody,

Thanks for having me in your forum.

I host a radio show called Davin's Den. The original named plaintiff in this lawsuit was Yuliana Avalos. She was a former model and published her own nude pictures on her website. Problem is she was not what the lawyer Evan Spencer portrayed her as. She was not some innocent victim of identity theft. We outed her and after threatening me Spencer buried her in the lawsuit and reached out to Melissa Midwest. All the shows where we have covered Avalos since 2012 are online for free. Here is the page we put up on my website explaining it all.

davinsden.com/busted/

My question is this for Midwest Shane or anybody actually. If you are worried about the models' pictures being stolen and used for nefarious things why not watermark the pictures? Professional photographers do that. Then if somebody edits it out you have a real case. Especially if you know your pictures are being used to hurt people and you are genuinely concerned and not just going for the money.

The lawsuit has some valid points but there are plenty of holes as well. Here is perhaps a no-brainer in my mind. If you are truly trying to end this practice by Match and others why would you make a porn star the face of your lawsuit? No disrespect but we all know the adult entertainment industry is controversial for many and taboo for others. It is polarizing. There are soldiers who have had their identity stolen. I deal with this all the time on my show. Our military is the one thing this country can all rally around. If this wasn't about headlines and glitz why wouldn't you try and use a soldier who are allegedly included in this lawsuit? Certainly would be better for public opinion than an admitted scammer like Avalos and an arrested porn star like Melissa Midwest.

Thanks for your time.

Davin

Oh god... Someone just failed hard at the Internet.



To answer your question... Anyone can crop a watermark out and then use the photos for whatever.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by iwantchixx

Someone is trying to protect their intellectual rights, which is a huge issue in this industry and when someone finally stands up to those using others property to bolster their own bottom line and misrepresenting the content, all you idiots give the guy a hard time and try calling him out on it. That's fucking ridiculous.. do you support stolen content and fake profiles or do you support what's right?

fucking two-faced people in here.. ridiculous.

He isn't trying to protect his intellectual rights. If he was, he would be going after the people that committed the crime. The problem is the person committing the crime is a young African that is impossible to trace and doesn't have a dime to his name, and there are thousands of them.

[iSpyCams]

Originally Posted by Rochard

To answer your question... Anyone can crop a watermark out and then use the photos for whatever.

I think the point of that "question" was that if you can show that the watermark was edited out it strengthens you case. I don't know about Mellisa Midwest, but I am aware of others such as Raven Riley and Anne Angel, both catfisher favorites who have a lot of watermark free materials circulating that, if they were intended to be used by catfishers, could not possible be more appropriate for THAT task.

[Jel]

Originally Posted by DavinsDen

Hi Everybody,

Huge fail,

Davin

[DavinsDen]

Of course anybody can crop watermarks out but when you originally release them on the site you own when they are still under your control why wouldn't have watermarks on them? Sure would make it at least seem like you were trying to protect yourself instead of just putting out pictures with your children and other people's children so scammers can use it to build a story to make a victim fall for it.

[DavinsDen]

Except if the scammer is not a young African but instead an American model who is selling her pictures to the African's like Avalos' boyfriend has repeatedly admitted to doing. Avalos was the original named plaintiff.

[Jel]

Originally Posted by Rochard

He isn't trying to protect his intellectual rights. If he was, he would be going after the people that committed the crime. The problem is the person committing the crime is a young African that is impossible to trace and doesn't have a dime to his name, and there are thousands of them.

Thing is, and this is just devil's advocate, why should anyone be able to hide behind loopholes that transfer any and all blame? 'user generated' has gotten out of control, let's face it. It's a cop-out to knowingly benefit from a loophole, by hiding behind the 'user generated' line, plain and simple. Let's not pretend it isn't

And yes of course I'm aware it's the law currently, and many have made millions, and continue to do so while the current laws are in place, and good luck to them - I'm all for exploiting loopholes. If anyone thinks it'll last though, well, I wouldn't like to bet on it

[DannyA]

Maybe I'm just being a conspiracy theorist here because I'm right now wasting my time getting deposed in a drawn out lawsuit that has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with spite, but you don't have to win a lawsuit to win a lawsuit. To win a lawsuit you'd have to prove that Match.com either didn't honor DMCA requests, or that their business model itself is built around copyright infringement.

To get your judgement you have to prove that you've got damages. Damages doesn't mean some poor guy thought he was talking to someone, it means you were unable to sell your bitches to men for masturbatory purposes because said men knew that finding those pictures on match.com was a free alternative. In what fucking universe?

To be honest, Match.com loses money from catfishing, the models and producers lose absolutely nothing. Catfishing hurts the consumer trust in match.com, why would they be somehow involved in making it happen? And why wouldn't they just use pictures of regular bitches? Those work better anyway.

Now class action lawsuits happen all the time. The lawyer usually gets half while the other half is distributed as chump change among a ton of people. What will also happen is one person kind of acts as the main defendant and it's 1/3 them, 1/3 the lawyer and 1/3 distributed to the other 100 "victims". (Fair right?). They're easy for a lawyer to take a gamble on because it's easy to round up people to get involved and that provides a lot of leverage.

Now I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but I think any reasonable person can see that Match.com is squeaky clean here. I think they could also see that Match.com has a financial stake in not having anything in the news that will highlight the small portion of their users who have fake profiles. They're not at all in the wrong, but it may very well be in their best interest to settle quietly ASAP.

I'm not saying I have any proof that this particular case is a form of extortion, or that the people involved are cunts, but it's really easy to do. Some lawyers just kick back and wait for innocents to shake down.

[DavinsDen]

Nothing is fool proof but if my livelihood depended on my image and I had a website like Midwest and these other girls and I knew I was a target for theft why wouldn't I try these?

Pretty basic stuff for somebody that was really concerned about their images being used to break hearts and fleece marks. Unless of course these are just crocodile tears and dare I say a money grab and publicity stunt.

.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/protect-online-photos

[TheDA]

Originally Posted by DavinsDen

Nothing is fool proof but if my livelihood depended on my image and I had a website like Midwest and these other girls and I knew I was a target for theft why wouldn't I try these?

Pretty basic stuff for somebody that was really concerned about their images being used to break hearts and fleece marks. Unless of course these are just crocodile tears and dare I say a money grab and publicity stunt.

.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/protect-online-photos

I think you are correct with what you say in your last sentence but the more you talk the more you make yourself sound like you don't really have a clue.

[DavinsDen]

I do not know about the pornography industry. I know plenty about identity theft and this particular case.

Fact of the matter is scammers are looking for easy pictures to steal. They are not going to waste time with an image that is difficult.

[TheDA]

Originally Posted by DavinsDen

I do not know about the pornography industry. I know plenty about identity theft and this particular case.

Fact of the matter is scammers are looking for easy pictures to steal. They are not going to waste time with an image that is difficult.

So what do you suggest is done to stop someone stealing an image? The things in that link from cambridgeincolour? The only thing in that link that might slow someone down is the dirty big watermark across the centre of the image - whilst somewhat effective, it is completely impractical for this or any industry where they are selling the content of the image - use your brain.

[money biz]

are those tables rofl http://www.melissamidwest.com/

[DavinsDen]

I agree the dirty watermark is ineffective for your industry. If somebody really wants to steal an image then there is no fool proof way at this point to stop them. That is a real problem. The models are public figures and they do need a visible online presence. That can't be argued.

My point is this, the lawsuit removes all personal responsibility from the plaintiffs. We all have a duty to protect ourselves from people stealing our intellectual property if we care about it. I know for a fact Avalos puts all of her pictures out on the internet for the whole world to see. Including pictures of her children and other people's children. That is why I initially contacted her in 2012.

The pictures that have already been released are gone. They will be circulated again and again. I see it with porn stars and I see it with soldiers.

For the new girls coming into the industry I think the suggestions made by the site in regards to protecting your image are valid. A scammer is not going to want to waste time playing with settings and editing pictures when they can get images of somebody who takes no precautions.

Same reasoning goes behind locking down our Facebook settings so strangers can't see our pictures.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by DavinsDen

I agree the dirty watermark is ineffective for your industry. If somebody really wants to steal an image then there is no fool proof way at this point to stop them. That is a real problem. The models are public figures and they do need a visible online presence. That can't be argued.about it. I know for a fact Avalos puts all of her pictures out on the internet for the whole world to see. Including pictures of her children and other people's children. That is why I

My point is this, the lawsuit removes all personal responsibility from the plaintiffs. We all have a duty to protect ourselves from people stealing our intellectual property if we care initially contacted her in 2012.

The pictures that have already been released are gone. They will be circulated again and again. I see it with porn stars and I see it with soldiers.

For the new girls coming into the industry I think the suggestions made by the site in regards to protecting your image are valid. A scammer is not going to want to waste time playing with settings and editing pictures when they can get images of somebody who takes no precautions.

Same reasoning goes behind locking down our Facebook settings so strangers can't see our pictures.

It's odd that you came in here asking questions of the industry and in a few short posts, are now giving business advice to an industry.

[TheDA]

Originally Posted by DavinsDen

I agree the dirty watermark is ineffective for your industry. If somebody really wants to steal an image then there is no fool proof way at this point to stop them. That is a real problem. The models are public figures and they do need a visible online presence. That can't be argued.

My point is this, the lawsuit removes all personal responsibility from the plaintiffs. We all have a duty to protect ourselves from people stealing our intellectual property if we care about it. I know for a fact Avalos puts all of her pictures out on the internet for the whole world to see. Including pictures of her children and other people's children. That is why I initially contacted her in 2012.

The pictures that have already been released are gone. They will be circulated again and again. I see it with porn stars and I see it with soldiers.

For the new girls coming into the industry I think the suggestions made by the site in regards to protecting your image are valid. A scammer is not going to want to waste time playing with settings and editing pictures when they can get images of somebody who takes no precautions.

Same reasoning goes behind locking down our Facebook settings so strangers can't see our pictures.

All of their suggestions can easily be defeated in a matter of 2-3 seconds. It won't stop anyone from taking them if they want them.

[DavinsDen]

Of course it can be defeated BUT these scammers are not looking to have a hassle because there are plenty of people who will do nothing to protect themselves.

I think the public will be more sympathetic to a plaintiff who comes in and says I took the precautions available to me and still they were stolen vs I put all my stuff on the internet and did nothing to slow the criminals down and surprise, surprise my pictures were stolen.

Really the key is diplomatic relations with the countries where the criminals reside. If we have that then we can provide incentives for the governments to crack down on the crime. These countries have 30% unemployment and the government has no answers. So they look the other way or actually help facilitate the crimes.

[iSpyCams]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

It's odd that you came in here asking questions of the industry and in a few short posts, are now giving business advice to an industry.

He's a journalist/blogger interested in online fraud, not the adult industry specifically. He came here because hes looking for insight on that angle and offering his own, not because he knows how to run a business, as far as I can tell he doesn't claim to.

[DavinsDen]

Thank you Pompous John. I wish I would have done a better job of explaining that myself but yes you are exactly right on my intentions.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by pompousjohn

He's a journalist/blogger interested in online fraud, not the adult industry specifically. He came here because hes looking for insight on that angle and offering his own, not because he knows how to run a business, as far as I can tell he doesn't claim to.

This is the same guy who just suggested treaties with other countries is the solution.

[dyna mo]

pardon me, not even treaties, simply a good convo would do it.

lolz.

[DavinsDen]

There are conversations but they have no incentive to cooperate with western officials as it stands now. Money is what they need and money is what the West has to offer.

Unfortunately I see quite a bit of throw up our hands and do nothing on this site. If that is your answer then fine. Nothing will change your mind and I do not intend to try. Fortunately, I have the privilege of working with people who do want to try and help victims of identity theft and those who get scammed. People who are making a difference.

If we could work with folks in your industry then perhaps we could get even more accomplished. If not so be it.

[dyna mo]

I'm the last person to characterize as a "throw up your hands/do nothing" business person.