No, I just don't see how laws could be successfully applied here - and that's the only thing that actually matters.

The big tubes have been reviewing scenes since we started uloading - that's not secret. And I am sure it is legal as there is no proof they knowingly publish content which they know is illegal.

SpicyM, thanks for the opposing viewpoint.

As to how I KNOW it was a Naughty America video: It was one that Claudia Marie shot with them. I found it while searching for any of our stolen material.
So yeah...I KNOW it was a Naughty America vid. I was on set the day it was shot.

Also, there was NO link back to the paysite anywere to be seen. And the uploader was not Naughty America.

My whole point was that I showed it directly to Fabian. He claimed he was the "owner" back then (before the real owners kicked him to the curb).

He even admitted that yes it was a Naughty America vid.

The point I'm making is that he could have just taken it down and said: "Sorry about that, I do NOT condone STEALING"

But instead he made a big convoluted speech about how his team of attorneys told him that if he took that vid down he would lose safe harbor under the DMCA law, and that the ONLY way it could be taken down would be via a DMCA from Naughty America.

And THAT is the "proof" (as if it was some kind of secret) that they know they are stealing: I showed the "owner" himself and he refused to take it down.

EDIT: Here is another of the scenes that Claudia Marie shot for Naughty America. Again...this is stolen. Uploaded by: "NaomiGomez66"
No links anywhere for Naughty America.
That is pure theft and Traffic Junky selling ads all over the page.
Big Titty Claudia Marie Ass Fucked - Pornhub.com

In this very thread the language of safe harbor, was linked and pasted... by me.

Read it. Pay particular attention to the conditions. It is written to exactly address common sense when hiding behind dmca laws.

Not defending him, but from his point of view you telling him that video is stolen is just hear-say at that point. If naughtyamerica dmca's him, he then KNOWS for sure and it's not hear-say - So he does somewhat have a point.

Well, if Naughty America was the owner of the rights, it should be them asking the tube to take the content down. As I wrote above... one email and our video gets deleted.

I get what you're saying...but...the vid was watermarked, the vid had N.A.'s 2257 info at the beginning, the video starred my wife.

He KNEW it was what I said it was. He admitted it. But then said he COULDN'T take it down legally unless he got a DMCA notice.

Is that correct? A person can't remove a video from THEIR OWN WEBSITE?????

I don't believe that for a second. Fabian was just covering his ass as the company made money off the backs of the people who actually did the work and paid to have the content produced.

That's not the point I was making.

What I'm saying is that when the "owner" was shown a clearly stolen video...he told me that they could NOT remove it legally UNLESS they got a DMCA.

Nobody is arguing that you can send a DMCA and get your video removed (for a few minutes until it's re-uploaded).

What I am saying is that Fabian claimed that it is ILLEGAL for them to remove a video from their own website unless they get a DMCA.

And that is total bullshit double talk from thieves.

Yes, a person can remove a video from their own website of their own free will. In this case it was you basically requesting he take it down. I'm not saying it's right, i'm saying that most likely from a legal standpoint he's probably correct. The law in the states is diff then in Poland but there's all sorts of little 'gotchas' like that in our legal system too with certain actions that may seem the right thing to do might actually imply guilt in the eyes of a judge...

I wasn't really requesting him to take it down.

It was more like me calling his bluff. I basically just said: Hey, here's a vid that is stolen. What are you gonna do about it? You say you're not a thief, then prove it.

And that's when the double talk legal mumbo jumbo started. :(

I don't know. Probably this will be settled in 2025 or 2030, I would not hurry. In the meantime, business as usual.

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. :(

I think the bigger point is that reviewing every single video negates the safe harbor defense, which is the argument that you don't and can't review every single video. If there is no safe harbor, DMCAs aren't relevant. (i think?)

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

Well I think that's the sticking point here. It's a bit of a grey area. If a website is reviewing all videos can it have safe harbor? I think YES - as long as they are ONLY screening for "illegal" material (CP, blood, etc) and not "copyrighted" material (which as has been pointed out is difficult to 100% identify).

This is my understanding but I do not run a tube site (yet). LOL

This is true.


Messed up...


But true.








.

i think that nails it as youtube and vimeo and such would have been put out of business long ago.

what is trump's stance on dmca laws anyways?

Is there something you didn't understand?

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck -- it is a fucking duck ...

Maybe in Poland. LOL

"Knowledge" is a debatable thing.

Specially on GFY :Graucho

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..

out right lie huh....you gonna state here publicly that you never accepted money from fabian? or any MindGeek company? I seem to recall your price was 10k a month. If you state you didn't you are a lying mother fucker and we both, as well as others here know it.

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....

You're wrong.

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.

Dont try to spin it cocksucker you know damn well, just as I do that you and or whatever your little project was was on Fabians payroll...I supported you ate first but I supported The FSC at first as well you both sold out to Fabian.

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.

Safe "harbor" is how it is spelled in the states. And since Manwin operates out of the US, it is governed by US law, and subsequently, US spelling.

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.

What is really strange is how Adultking went on a 2 year binger to protect rights holders via fighting file lockers and is now calling same rights holders retarded because said rights holders feel like tubes are the problem, not file lockers.

I can answer that because Fabian bought him plain and simple. I suppose everyone has a price maybe even me though I cant imagine anyone waving what it might take at me.....I can say its a lot more than the 10K a month that AdultShitStain sold out for, and a lot more than the 40K a month that the FSC sold out for...

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...

I'm not calling rights holders anything, I'm calling the mostly nameless or useless idiots in this thread stupid.

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.

And a waste of time.

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?

And you don't think they screen out their own content? I think that would be where the flood gates open. This is a real question as I have not noticed if they do or not.

Lawsuits are sometimes a tactic. Running a case is expensive, so sometimes it's easier and lower cost to settle rather than defend a lawsuit.

I have no idea what the litigants are thinking in this case.

Well, I wasn't addressing you personally. I wasn't even aware of the allegations that were being thrown at you. I actually thought you were someone who was defending this industry with your stance on file lockers. But then again, why would Mindgeek like file lockers?

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.

Precisely. Understanding that court cases are decided by judges, and law is of less relevance(believe it) than case law. In fact there are examples where the Supreme Court has ruled something, but judges do the opposite because of established case law.

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.

But you list these Interests:
rocket science, chemistry, quantum pyhsics, astronomy, alien languages

https://33.media.tumblr.com/b4449960...szxb0t_500.gif