PIRACY - These programs help fund/support it

[ElConquistador]

By allowing affiliates to promote them or in buying ad space, these programs are absolutely 100% supporting forums and sites that are literally FILLED with stolen/pirated content. (just starting a list, plz link me if there is already another list going)


PROGRAM - OFFENDING SITE/URL
AmateurMatch - http://www.pornbb.org
ULUST- http://www.pornbb.org
MOFOs - http://www.pornbb.org
PUSSYCASH - http://redtube.com
Sexinyourcity - http://redtube.com

[Ozarkz]

Lots more than that ...

[pornguy]

Well you just gave them links back. Nice move.

[Barefootsies]

Lots more than that ...

Exactly right.

Welcome to the online adult business champ.

[jmcb420]

Well you just gave them links back. Nice move.

[Klen]

Huh i bet mofos have ratio 1:1000000 on pornbb

[marketsmart]

Huh i bet mofos have ratio 1:1000000 on pornbb

you'd be wrong...

[ElConquistador]

links back in one forum post, big deal. those links aren't doing near the damage the programs are by supporting them... I know it's tough, but try to stay on topic here.

[marketsmart]

here's what i dont get... try to submit a watermarked video to the bigger tube sites and they will shit can it unless you are an advertiser or doing pay per upload..

a friend of mine submitted a watermarked video to one larger tube site and they even had the balls to email him and say they rejected his video because it was watermarked and he wasnt an advertiser..

so, if they can look for watermarks, then why cant they look for theft...

finally, what content owner is going to upload his content to a tubesite with no watermark or any means of monetizing his content?

the answer is NONE..

so, by default, any video that is uploaded by an end user is almost 100% probability stolen or used without copyright holder permission..

i keep wondering if this practice doesnt somehow violate the safe harbor act..

[ElConquistador]

[QUOTE=marketsmart;15413514]

so, by default, any video that is uploaded by an end user is almost 100% probability stolen or used without copyright holder permission.. [QUOTE]


oh without a doubt.
but knowing it is one thing - PRVOING it, in a court of law is something else.

[Barefootsies]

here's what i dont get... try to submit a watermarked video to the bigger tube sites and they will shit can it unless you are an advertiser or doing pay per upload..

a friend of mine submitted a watermarked video to one larger tube site and they even had the balls to email him and say they rejected his video because it was watermarked and he wasnt an advertiser..

so, if they can look for watermarks, then why cant they look for theft...

finally, what content owner is going to upload his content to a tubesite with no watermark or any means of monetizing his content?

the answer is NONE..

so, by default, any video that is uploaded by an end user is almost 100% probability stolen or used without copyright holder permission..

i keep wondering if this practice doesnt somehow violate the safe harbor act..

[mynameisjim]

here's what i dont get... try to submit a watermarked video to the bigger tube sites and they will shit can it unless you are an advertiser or doing pay per upload..

a friend of mine submitted a watermarked video to one larger tube site and they even had the balls to email him and say they rejected his video because it was watermarked and he wasnt an advertiser..

so, if they can look for watermarks, then why cant they look for theft...

finally, what content owner is going to upload his content to a tubesite with no watermark or any means of monetizing his content?

the answer is NONE..

so, by default, any video that is uploaded by an end user is almost 100% probability stolen or used without copyright holder permission..

i keep wondering if this practice doesnt somehow violate the safe harbor act..

That totally removes their safe harbor protection. It means they are visually inspecting each video upload.

[marketsmart]

That totally removes their safe harbor protection. It means they are visually inspecting each video upload.

thats what i keep thinking...

and by notifying advertisers of this wouldnt that make them liable as well..

[gideongallery]

here's what i dont get... try to submit a watermarked video to the bigger tube sites and they will shit can it unless you are an advertiser or doing pay per upload..

a friend of mine submitted a watermarked video to one larger tube site and they even had the balls to email him and say they rejected his video because it was watermarked and he wasnt an advertiser..

so, if they can look for watermarks, then why cant they look for theft...

finally, what content owner is going to upload his content to a tubesite with no watermark or any means of monetizing his content?

the answer is NONE..

so, by default, any video that is uploaded by an end user is almost 100% probability stolen or used without copyright holder permission..

i keep wondering if this practice doesnt somehow violate the safe harbor act..

That totally removes their safe harbor protection. It means they are visually inspecting each video upload.

you two really need to hire better lawyers because this is probably the stupidest statement ever.

the tube site knows the advertiser is supporting the uploads so they can let it go with watermarking.

However everything else could be a program, trying to leach traffic without paying or someone who stole the video and replace the watermark with their own (to leach traffic) or (this is the protected one) a "fair use" use of the content.

the only one who would not care about having to remove the watermark would be the last one.

[CMBurns]

fuck pornbb

[d-null]

interesting list and I am glad to say I don't promote any of those

[mynameisjim]

you two really need to hire better lawyers because this is probably the stupidest statement ever.

the tube site knows the advertiser is supporting the uploads so they can let it go with watermarking.

However everything else could be a program, trying to leach traffic without paying or someone who stole the video and replace the watermark with their own (to leach traffic) or (this is the protected one) a "fair use" use of the content.

the only one who would not care about having to remove the watermark would be the last one.

Gideon, have you spoken to a tube owner about advertising?

It's not a program blocking certian uploads. It's a person.

[gideongallery]

Gideon, have you spoken to a tube owner about advertising?

It's not a program blocking certian uploads. It's a person.

and i am telling you that it doesn't matter
do you really think that youtube blocking nudity is done with a program
it done by a person
blocking kiddie porn would fall in the same catagory.
Neither invalidate the safe harbor provision (see the veoh case)
they can set a rule (no watermarks unless you are a sponsor)
and as long as the rule has a bases in protecting fair use (see my example) they are protected by the safe harbor provision.
they don't have to be a promotional vehicle for non paying content providers to be protected by the DMCA
that would violate the very premise of the DMCA safe harbor provision.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Has anyone explored the idea of using RICO against the illegal tube sites?

[boneprone]

Has anyone explored the idea of using RICO against the illegal tube sites?

Rico?




Rico Suave? How could he help?

[Klen]

you'd be wrong...

Ok 0:1000000000