Guba - just a few thoughts from Kastle Archives

Are we really still discussing this?

Smart people in our industry shouldn't stop talking about it. Content providers who have been stolen from shouldn't stop talking about it. Payment processors that handle the payments for these guys should be shamed into not stopping talking about it.

It is important.

Alex

I agree but its getting repetitive

i wont stop talking about it. i'm pooling a list of these "Interface" sites to send filter letters to. i will publish this list for others.

Thats a good thign A1R3K. I think that a lot of people can put it to good use.

There should be MORE people talking about it IMHO and alot of people are not. People need to be educated and informed, they also need to start being more proactive, this affects our livelihood in this industry, whether you own the content or are an affiliate, or a web designer etc.

It's not just something that should be taken with a grain of salt in hopes that it will just go away, like some folks believe is going to happen, DO something about it! This is your business, no matter how big or small your part is in it, you need to defend it.

Is the theft still going on?

If so, we're still discussing it.

bro you shoot content. you are pretty vocal about how you feel about stuff. how about if in one year there are 100 guba's and no one joins princess camerons site anymore but instead have all the content readliy available with everyone elses because its legal?


are you coming to costa rica?

Right on

As long as people keep joining our other 11 sites I won't care

I know what Guba is doing is wrong, just sick of all these threads. Lets see some threads about the ACTION people HAVE taken.

I will not be in Costa Rica.. Winter Music Conference + Phoenix Forum = enough for me

Guba and the OLD Napster are VERY much alike... Only, the OLD Napster didn't charge a fee for the service.

The content is on GUBA's servers... OLD Napster stored the user file lists on their servers...

The content being 'traded' is STOLEN in both cases...

In both cases if the users quit going to paid outlets authorized to dispurse the content in question then the content producer will go out of business...

There are NO differences. The ONLY way newsgroups can be a viable content distribution medium is if the sponsors can decide on the terms. The only profitable terms are to include watermarks in pics and to only allow content already released as affiliate promotional material to be used. ie, FHG content or released set zips.

In this case the users type in or in some cases click a link in the post (though you cannot do this at GUBA (put a link in a post)) and then buy the website in question.

Here is the probable answer, at least for US entities. Guba LLC is incorporated in Delaware; accordingly, any US citizen wanting to sue them for copyright infringment has to show that they have registered their copyright before the US Copyright Office as a prerequisite to bring an infringement suit against another US citizen. However, if this has not been done within three months of first publication of the work and infringement has already occurred, then the infringer does not have to face the prospect of statutory damages. That means the copyright holder will have to show and prove actual damages - a very expensive task. Not to mention, if the registration is not timely, the infinger is not responsible for any of the copyright holder's attorney fees.

In short, because people will spend thousands to make a video or web site but won't spend $150 to $200 bucks to pay a lawyer to fill out a $30 registration application with the Copyright Office (which often can be done without the use of a lawyer, to be fair), they are told that the cost of the suit will be somewhere between, say, 30k to 100k out of pocket, at the least, for litigation costs - experts to show the value of the infringed content, etc. - and attorneys fees before they might see a penny from the suit. Having to pay the attorney fees out of pocket, instead of making the infringer pay them, is the main reason why you see so few suits in the US from adult content being stolen, and why the infingers are so confident they will get away with it. They are counting on the content makers not properly protecting their intellectual property. Playboy is a perfect example of someone doing it right; they register their content and have won several lawsuits against people infinging both their copyrights and trademarks.

There is also the mechanism provided by the DMCA. Contact the hosting company and complain that your copyrighted works are being used improperly. At the least, the infinger should be made to take down the materials, even if they don't face an infringement suit.