Again Paul, you're not reading and comprehending. He said what they buy Tube sites for.

Tube sites.

Twistys was not a Tube.

Paul,what you seem to not understand is that in my example, the licence never got sold. An entity, in this case a business, not a business owner or a person bought the licence. Its none of your business to know who owns the business and if new share holders buys shares.


Please, re-read my post. I never said i knew how much Shap sold for.

However I know on how many months of profit manwin base their price and how much gaytube makes monthly. You can quote me on this.

ypu looking for work??

auto pilot means 1 new sale a month and 10 rebills?

So selling the shares isn't selling the business. Got you.

Will need to rewrite this part to make the spirit of the license clearer to people who are looking for ways to ignore it.

Great then all we do is quote you what Manwin paid for the Tube site alone. This idea would include Tube sites. 3 years profit on a Tube site seems a very good deal, more people should open them. :thumbsup

This idea was to give those without the option of having someone like Manwin offer them 3 years profit on any site, another option. Is that so bad?

4 years after stopping really working on Paul Markham Teens we made 4556 Euros in sign ups, yes I have a screen grab, but you'll shout Photoshop so won't bother to post it. Sorry wrong on that, it was only CCbill so add a few for Epoch. So selling out for 3-6 months turnover isn't worth the bother.

gaytube makes 750k for a month?? haha funny

I made more than what the sites would have made at their peak over 4 years. So i'm pretty sure that's more than they would have made on autopilot over 4 or even over 10 years. :thumbsup:thumbsup

Shame on you Shap. Shame. You can't give Paul facts, how the hell can he be expected to pull crap advice and fantasy scenarios from his ass now?

I thought you were better than this Shap. :)

Well then you're not the norm from the offers we see every day here.

Good for you and you got a great deal then. It will need some awesome work by Manwin to return the profits needed.

Who knows where this business will be in 4 years.

I'm pleased for you and glad you could correct me.

the one thing you have to expect on GFY is loads of illogical facts being thrown around.

Obviously isteve is one of the elite who knows all the facts.

And from this you can clearly see why he has this information to hand.

Being a programmer Shap was sharing the value of the site and traffic info and Fabian told him what it was Manwin valued it at. Me I'm just a delusional fool who looks at things thinking logically. What has logic got to do with it. :1orglaugh

isteve will be here any minute to explain why he is so well informed. And TisMe will tell me I'm a fool.

Personally if Manwin paid what they did. Good luck to Shap and lets hope the decline doesn't roll onto the big guys.

Fitty Ideas:pimp

I am so well informed because I worked there, idiot. I personally know the head of business in the tubes department and still chat with their lead product manager.

Shap : your old front end developer, Marco, is a great guy - one of the best front end dev Manwin has in the tubes division.

Seems the staff no all the inside info. Not a good way to run a company. As people can just spread that info around like this guy is doing.

If you were ever part of a company, the reason why you weren't in the know isn't because you weren't supposed to know, it's just that no one wanted to talk to you..
If not, stfu because I knew a shit ton about Apple when I worked there and a lot of it is info that I probably shouldn't know but has helped a lot while on the job. Seems like they're running that company pretty well... :upsidedow

Et voila! I was wondering if I was alone coming from a corporate life!

And yes. ... the business guys at manwin are brilliant people.

We all know what happened with some of your staff and what you tried to do to them Paul...

QFT :2 cents: This happens in just about every company, from the smallest businesses to the big corporations. Employees AND managers talk and it gets around. Just being friendly with employees and higher ups, you can learn a lot of information...it's common sense and it's how the real world works.

Also buy lots of bottled water and canned food because the sky is falling!

Jesus christ...

:upsidedow

I'm sure they are, Manwin is killing it.
And no Paul, it's not because they can handle a camera better than everyone else... :Oh crap

Just because someone is looking for work doesnt mean they are a noob :winkwink:

I have 6-8 hours a day I could put into updating sites etc. Email in sig :)

I've recently seen a lot of experienced people looking for work, so obviously mike is still talking out of his ass.

Don't be put off by the negative idiots. When you see a site being offered for sale, approach the owner and see if you can offer an alternative to selling.

To the idiots who think some believe their Why sign a confidentiality clause if plebs like you are going to spread the news?

The problem with some of these clowns who seem to know so much, is they're actually clueless of what really happens when selling content licenses and they get transferred.

As for them knowing what Shap sold to Manwin for. Why keep it a secret if the plebs in the office know and will post it on GFY.

Common sense isn't their strong point.

Paul,

why the bitterness? :helpme

I understand that some people around here are less than gentlemanly towards you, but if you read my original post I was purely asking a rather technical question, that I was genuinely interested in, and I made sure to put plenty of caveats about my lack of experience on content-license transfer (while hopefully knowing a thing or two about shares, having been through a couple of IPOs).

Your answers seem to be constantly trying to start a bar brawl - I am not interested in that.

When people in a bar try to pick a fight with me, I usually try to offer them a beer. If they refuse, I just pay and leave :-)

I respect your personal history, and (while often in disagreement) I occasionally find your posts on this board thought-provoking.
I don't consider you a dick or a clown, I have no reason to. If some people consider you a dick, why not proving them wrong with grace, instead of putting random shit in the fan?

Maybe I am naif and you have your own motives - in any case my offer for a beer when you are around here is always valid.

good luck!

Let me tell you then how it works more often than not.

The new buyer or old owner contacts me to ask about re-licensing the content. I tell him that it's not a problem, ask him if he's got the paperwork on the content and here it sometimes starts to fall apart. If he has everything, we issue a new licence charge an admin fee to make the license legal and everything moves on.

Or he has a list of content providers and no paperwork, no 2257, no license and no idea who shot what. This is very common, few even bother to send the license back for our signature. We have to go searching for the original buyer, find the orders and sort everything out. This can take hours of work, sometimes days.

We sort it all out and issue new licenses and 2257 info and charge accordingly.

Often the new buyer has been sold content the original buyer does not own. Part of the price included the content and no word of a license is mentioned. He's looking to buy new content and doesn't want to buy the same scenes again.

We get an email from some one we have never sold to asking for 2257 documents. This happened a lot a few years ago when the law was being amended. So we have to again go through the site to determine who the original buyer was and sort it all out. When we tell the new owner he will get charged for this he gets annoyed as he thinks he already bought the content.

Or we find out from a 3rd party that the site has been sold with the content. The new and old owner haven't told us and the new owner hasn't a clue who show what. Again he thinks he bought the content. Last time we discovered our content being sold like this was via a lawyer defending someone for downloading child porn. The charge was dismissed due to stupidity of the prosecution in thinking a girl clearly over 18 was under 18.

Often 2257 details comes down to a page with a list of content providers with no indication who show what content. Often the content providers listed have gone out of business. So the new buyer doesn't have a hope in hell of sorting it out.

Very often in the above cases we find content being used against the terms of the license. Most commonly by site owners with content not licensed for affiliates distribution, distributing it to affiliates. This revokes the license. You would be surprised the number of people we find doing this over and over again.

The license is quite clear, in the case of of the company or site being sold the transfer of the license is to handled by us. Breaking that term of the license, revokes the license. Therefore the new owner is in fact buying unlicensed content, it's being pirated.

The license is a set of terms two people or companies agree to. For one to ignore them and just carry on as he wishes, because it suits him. Doesn't work.

People are free to contact me when buying content to ask for things that are not included in the license. We will negotiate a fee or rewrite the license.

When you start telling me how it should be and keep on going after me, because of the idiots here who do that. I take it as I did. If a sponsor treated affiliates as some treat content providers. There would be a 3-5 page thread with everyone screaming down the sponsor.

I hope this clears it up for you.

I'm genuinely curious, do other content providers have such Draconian licenses?

we handle things a bit differently and many problems Paul mentiones we never had - or very rarely.

but indeed people rarely read the license and some do ignore important parts - if accidentally or on purpose i cant say

and out of 1000 purchases i receive maybe 1 signed license back

Everyone can handle their businesses as they please. so you don't bother if licensed content is sold to a new owner as content they own?

I would say people simply don't care about licenses until someone takes their members area and uploads it to a piracy site.

True about the signed ones, which leads me to think they simply don't care.

Maybe someone should start a thread with all the content licenses and see how they differ.

Most of the time we resolve it the situation and fix what ever needs fixing. It's in the new buys interest to get if fixed. In case he needs documentation.

usually the company gets bought, not the content. and usually the company is the entity the content is licensed to, not the particular shareholder.

and i am not in the business of burning bridges over 2 dollar fifty. unlike you i am not retired :winkwink:

Thanks for clearing that up, i thought it sounded mentally retarded to try and fuck people over like that.

I wonder how many repeat sales Paul got from fisting people like that?

I bet you a three grand not a single one...

We have a clause that says even if the company gets bought, we need to write a now license.

True unlike you I don't need to earn a living any more.

No wonder you're a fan of the blackmail letter scam if you used to try and fuck over your customers like this.

Show me one person you've fucked like this that has bought more content from you. Just one.

/me shakes his head.

So if you licensed to Playboy - at that time a public company - and Hugh bought all his shares back - he has to re-license the content that Playboy bought?

Magazines often understood this better than the online guys. So the answer is yes and he wouldn't have a problem with it.

It's a license and licenses often have clauses in them which both parties are expected to abide by.

You seem to be of the POV that the license clauses can be ignored. At the moment Adultking is fighting a huge battle with people who are ignoring the license the content was first issued under. Is he wrong in that fight or should a license be ignored?

When people come to me and ask about a new license. I'm very easy to deal with. I just issue one and if it's an easy job let it go. If it requires me to put in work, I do so. If on the other hand I find someone who has bought a site full of non exclusive content and done nothing to inform the owners of the content I take a dim view. Especially when it's someone who seems to be against other people not sticking to the license they viewed the content under.

When that guy hasn't got a clue which scene was from which content provider and needs me to go through everything to verify what he has or doesn't of mine. His 2257 page was a page of content providers, some in the US some in the EU and Russia, some in business some gone out of business and probably some false addresses.

Clearly not bothering what other peoples content he has and whether it was license or not. Or if the original purchase was by a company or a person. And the notice I got that the site had changed hands, comes from a lawyer defending someone for supposedly downloading child porn. I take an even more dim view.

Still we reached an agreement and issued a new license for a sum we agreed on.

Ask Shap to verify this. :thumbsup

Yes even the best don't bother with little things like licenses or even finding out what they're buying.

No one is suggesting otherwise Paul.

I think what people are saying is the clause that you added is so Draconian it would guarantee no one would ever do repeat business with you again.

I could add a clause to my contracts saying "you must let me shit on your wife". Legally binding? Yes. A good idea? Certainly not.

No, he is saying the clause is ridiculous, will hugely piss people off and make sure you get no work from the people you fuck over in this manner.

so you change the licensee from Playboy to Playboy?

i rather concentrate on the important things - like when someone uses the content for FHGs or tubes without buying the extra license for that.

and actually i also rather concentrate on the even more important things: like doing more business with existing clients, making them happy, shooting exclusive content and all that stuff. :winkwink:

so who want,s to develop my un used domains you get 100% profit and free hosting

Yes because the owner has changed.

If you find a person ignoring one part of the license, you shouldn't be surprised if they ignore all of it.

Same as we did. That's why we lasted so long, seen all those go down in the last 4-5 years?

Except never shot much exclusive, it was below our price level. :winkwink:

i am happy to work for $50 a day - all over the last 10 years - it adds up :winkwink: