|
Fiddy thieves.
|
don't worry in a few short years the majority of the population will be locked away in their rooms with their vr goggles enjoying incredible endless virtual porn orgies while laying on a bed of cum socks and fast food containers and the all mighty porn tubes will look as quaint as myspace and yahoo groups do today.
adapt or die. |
Robbie I can break it down for you easily with one single legal word that is the basis for everything in this thread:
Liability. IF Pornhub (or any other tube) took down even ONE "illegally pirated video" (as in the naughty America example you posted) the tube would then ACKNOWLEDGE they have the ability to discern pirated videos, thus opening up the floodgates. It's called liability and it's the #1 issue large companies care about. If someone sends a DMCA they respond but barring an actual, official, 100% "legal" DMCA request, the videos MUST stay up even if the tube owners know 100% the video is pirated. Taking it down without a DMCA opens up the tubesite to all kinds of legal messes. The LAW says this so that's what the tubes follow. As has been said MANY times here on GFY: If we don't like it, change the DMCA law. This is why I always call for lobbyists in Washington. Nothing else will change jack shit. Sorry. :( |
Quote:
|
this discussion is about 7 years late, nowadays the few paysites that are left happily supply 12-15 min videos for free in exchange for traffic
and since there are just a few paysites left, tube owners started doing their own |
Quote:
This is my understanding but I do not run a tube site (yet). LOL |
Quote:
This is true. Messed up... But true. . |
Quote:
what is trump's stance on dmca laws anyways? |
Quote:
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck -- it is a fucking duck ... |
Quote:
"Knowledge" is a debatable thing. |
Quote:
|
There has been no established crime being committed by the courts of law in this case, yet. How does that affect the whistle blower if he sends information to a blogger, and the blogger in turn posts the information in its entirety on his own blog and also on message boards for hundreds to read?
Providing the information directly to legal council or authorities seems safer if you ask me.. |
Quote:
It was a good play on Fabians part too...whatever the man may be he wasnt that dumb...you were having promising success so he shields himself and his companies and pays you to help eliminate his biggest competition. I will give you this...once bought and paid for you stay bought.... Fabian isnt a liar...ya right i seem to recall that he denied owning tube sites untill it was proven here that he did you are a piece of shit...most of us here know it.... |
Quote:
Copy Control (the stop file lockers project) was supported by several people and companies in the industry. I volunteered 2 years of my time to the project and never saw one cent. Let me repeat that for your doltish, thick headed, half-witted brain of yours. I did not receive one cent from anyone, in fact at the end of the project I was out of pocket thousands of dollars. Nobody can buy me, or my opinions. I have my own mind and will say things as I see them, like it or not. The fact is that screening content uploaded to a user submitted content site to weed out content that is illegal does not invalidate DMCA. They are two completely different issues. One is related to the matter of the content, the other is related to the owner of the content. The matter of the content is easily determined, therefore clearly illegal content can be put in the bin and it won't have any effect on the safe harbour afforded the service provider under the DMCA. If you don't like the DMCA, and I don't, then change the law. |
Quote:
Spin it any way you like, you sold out making you just another POS. |
I still don't understand why you people fail to read ALL of the language of safe harbor??
"This safe-harbor provision is found in section 512(c), and it states that, as the administrator of a website or other service, you will not be held liable for money damages for infringing content posted "at the direction of a user," as long as you do not have actual knowledge that there is infringing content on your servers, or know any surrounding facts that would make the infringing use apparent; do not receive any financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity if you have the ability to control such activity; and act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the infringing material upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that the material is infringing or upon receiving a properly drafted notice of infringement (more below)." What is enlarged above could be easily argued by any attorney. How can you people keep talking about being protected when it clearly shows you aren't if you monitor every single video. Ignorance can be argued as defense but judges aren't stupid, jurors aren't stupid. |
You're all fucking stupid [/thread]
Seriously, read the fucking legislation and understand the concept of safe harbour. Screening out subject matter is different from making a determination about copyright or ownership. I don't understand why some of you are so fucking thick that you can't wrap your heads around that concept. |
Quote:
|
Until a takedown notice is receive, site owners don't know who uploaded what? As far as they are concerned the copyright owner uploaded it themselves. Reviewing content doesn't change that.
|
....and yet, there are still sooooo many on this board who are going to protect all the other bogus shit going on in the industry. Mindgeek is just the poster child.
The real enabler is rooted much deeper, and lives in the majority of the individuals and people who choose to look the other way in this industry, because they know it means potential empty pockets. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
he is wrong about his stance on the DMCA as I am sure his buddies at Manwin would tell him off the record of course....seems they had LOTS of meetings today on my post...they know that names and titles got out and that scares them....and it mat be that the trump card is gonna get played....my understanding is that MindGeek is very worried that VISA is gonna get involved....one way or the other... |
Quote:
I have the utmost sympathy for rights-holders but it's not individuals to blame in this scenario, it's the law. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is flawed and companies are legally exploiting those flaws, just as companies legally exploit loopholes in other laws. If you want to fix this problem once and for all then change the law, because until that happens everyone is just blowing smoke. |
Quote:
The only place this will be decided is in a court of law. |
But Hush has an active lawsuit. Are they stupid and their attorney's ak? Is it your professional recommendation for them to withdraw lawsuit because they don't understand...
THE LAW? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have no idea what the litigants are thinking in this case. |
Quote:
I have been in this industry since 1996. From the start I owned arguably one of the largest trafficked adult sites in its day, and the number one site in its niche for several years. Whenever I see someone rip someone on here for having a low post count, or not flying a sig and calling them nobodies, I only see them grasping at whatever they can, because they are getting called out for being a fuckwad. Probably a big reason I don't fly a sig is because of the state of this industry. I have watched this industry erode itself from the inside out for 20 years. I have always done honest business and refused to work with every shady fuck, even if I could have made a few extra bucks. I have called many of them out on this board at times, and unsurprisingly watched industry "leaders" defend and bro up with these shady fucks at every twist and turn. I could go on, but then again, who is going to listen to a "nobody" who has a low post count and doesn't fly a sig or flash my bro pass. |
Quote:
Quote:
If, as a plaintiff, you can produce proof that the defendant had the ability to police content proactively, and yet did not in all cases, you demonstrate to the judge that the defendant has no credibility when it says it can't police content. By never acknowledging in any form or fashion that it has that ability, the defendant protects itself from being condemned by its own behavior. You can see this sort of silliness all the time in court, with defendants failing to produce bank records and then claiming they have no access to them, or lost them. You or I would say, "can't you log on and ..." but the judge can't say that, and people are rarely penalized. By simply stating blankly that they can't do something, they create a burden that can't be passed without concrete evidence, even in a civil case. |
Quote:
rocket science, chemistry, quantum pyhsics, astronomy, alien languages https://33.media.tumblr.com/b4449960...szxb0t_500.gif |
The "smokiest" gun would be employees uploading videos. I have never heard anyone come forward with that, though it must be the case for some other company tube sites.
Brad |
So tubes are stealing content? Uhm, this is news? Niqqa please.
|
Quote:
News flash. People get sued when they knowingly are doing hurtful or illegal acts. It really does take a lot for someone to want to sue you, think about it. And when those people committing the acts get sued, they think they can pull some sort of bullshit like you wrote above. They think they can get squirelly, and play stupid, and somehow its all going to work out in the end. Most times, it blows up in their face, especially when they act transparently stupid. Federal law suits are not a cake walk, especially when the facts are against you. |
Quote:
Frivolous suits are lodged all the time, and litigants frequently fail to meet required filing and response dates with no penalty whatsoever. Federal courts are over worked (by their own admission) and seldom pursue penalties. |
Quote:
Think Enron and Ken Lay, or any number of powerful brilliant CEOs who, when caught, turn into complete idiots. If they have the $ they will walk. |
Quote:
He got off by dying ... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I do believe that this guys info was worth millions, literally, to Hush. |
Oddly enough when a DMCA is complied with and the content is removed, nothing happens to the so-called "User" who uploaded the video.
Is a thief allowed back into the store after they get caught shop lifting? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'll never understand how Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube went nowhere, the court saw many emails between the founders of YT discussing uploading copyright infringing material, admitting it was wrong but it was important to their success that they take that risk because the infringing stuff was what was bringing in the traffic. Compared to the rest of the world's copyright laws the DMCA is a bulwark against piracy - Canada's copyright law is an absolute joke as are those of European countries. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123