Originally Posted by ilnjscb (Post 20725517)

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.

Originally Posted by Biggy (Post 20725716)

^^- I don't want people to get the wrong idea. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. You go get sued and try pulling that shit against a capable lawyer and watch what happens. The federal judges I have received decisions from, don't appear to be born yesterday.

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.

Originally Posted by Biggy (Post 20725716)

^^- I don't want people to get the wrong idea. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. You go get sued and try pulling that shit against a capable lawyer and watch what happens. The federal judges I have received decisions from, don't appear to be born yesterday.

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.

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 20728117)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/bu...html?ref=enron
He got off by dying ...

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell (Post 20725642)

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

Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 20728204)

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?

Originally Posted by mikesouth (Post 20728184)

its been brought up many times but the consensus is that they are paying "upload monkeys" to do it as Independent Contractors, I believe many were in the Philippines and I have in fact had people claiming that MindGeek paid the to do exactly that over the years, the problem is no way to verify it, no checks, nothing with manwins name on it was ever produced, do I believe that it was true, yes, but contrary to popular belief I need a bit more than that

I do believe that this guys info was worth millions, literally, to Hush.

Originally Posted by mikesouth (Post 20722361)

The guys at Hush just got handed a HUGE present. whether the reader comes forward or not this time they named names....The reader has expressed to me that he will help Hush (and anyone else) if done through me.

The full story on MikeSouth.Com

I'll bet they are preparing subpoenas as I write this


MindGeek Employee Speaks â?? Reader Mail
By MikeSouth
February 5th, 2016

I have written extensively about this but this time I think the email speaks for itself, None of what you will read here is new, but this is the first time that a Manwin/MindGeek Employee has come forward on the recordâ?¦read onâ?¦.This info will be very valuable for HushHush.

I have worked for Mindgeek for many years.

I knew the company had been breaking DMCA laws since my first day on the job as a â??redacted job titleâ?�. My role quickly evolved into screening videos like the rest of the Department did and still does.
Every single video posted on any Mindgeek tubesite is screened by a person from start to finish and the employee who doesnâ??t actually view the whole thing can get in trouble! Soâ?¦ trust me when I say they are 100% aware of every-single-video that goes up on their siteâ?¦ I used to work on another website that was a DMCA takedowns magnet, so I feel like I know a thing or two about the DMCA and how a website can claim safe harbor. Not only that, but they also have a compliance department whose job is to screen all the tubesites in hopes that they find little slip-ups (by Slip-ups I mean.. human error is still a factor here, a â??gatekeeperâ?� might let a bad video through once in a while) before anyone else in order to avoid fines.

I know that Mindgeek wants people to believe they are protected under Safe Harbor but they have a whole department of around 30 employees that pretty much directly denies them of safe harbor AND a separate compliance department to make sure they donâ??t mess up. The reason for this is that they make a LOT of money through VISA but Visa has very strict rules on the kind of content they will allow to be associated with! They donâ??t mind copyright infringing material BUT they do mind other common illegal content such as child porn etc .. I donâ??t think I need to tell you what I mean by â??common illegal contentâ?�.

Why not just make money off of ads and let any type of content through and let the community flag the bad stuff and actually be stress free since all you have to do is comply with DMCA and take videos down as the requests come and thatâ??s it? Well, as it turns out, Pornhub makes over 175,000$ a month off of their deal with Visa but can get fined up to 200,000$ for every non-compliant video by Visa, which has happened in the past. And that is how â??Gatekeepersâ?� or something like that started being a thingâ?¦Mindgeek can be creative with how they hide the fact that people screen the videos but make no mistake, there is a full department of people whose full time jobs are to review AND queue the videos for release onto the front page.

But you know what other source of money is quite important? Well.. their videosâ?¦obviously haha.

I have been personally instructed, along with most employees of the tubes department, to let copyright infringing material hit front page on the site because â??By the time it gets taken down, weâ??ve made the moneyâ?� With the millions of views they get on videos every day, every video counts right? It could be the difference between making an extra few thousand dollars in a day, you knowâ?¦ Gotta keep the money coming in! Somebody has to come up with the money so Feras and his friends can keep buying those Porsches and Ferraris hahaha.

At the end of the day, they need to keep the copyright infringing contentâ??s generated revenue until takedown + the Visa money because actually following the law and only living off of millions made from infringing contentâ??s generated revenue until taken is not enough �� , Oh and I donâ??t think I need to specify that this applies to all their websites.. soâ?¦ Millions multiplied by Youporn/Redtubeâ?¦Iâ??d mention all the other sites of the network but we all know those other tubesites they own donâ??t generate anywhere near as much as those big 3 do.

I donâ??t know how helpful my email might be but since I read on your blog that Mindgeek is currently being sued by HushHushâ?¦ I assume that Mindgeek is claiming that they are in compliance with the DMCA and saying that they arenâ??t aware of the illegal material on their site and do their best to take it all down upon requested hahaâ?¦What a joke

Hereâ??s the question HushHush should be asking: Feras, you mean to tell me that you have two separate departments with two completely different sets of people who are smart enough to catch most of the (Iâ??d say 99.99% but who is gonna pull out that stat anyway?) illegal sex content such as Snuff and Children but not smart enough to recognize copyrighted content? Thatâ??s odd. You donâ??t recognize content your own company makes with actors your own company employs?

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell (Post 20725642)

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

Originally Posted by ilnjscb (Post 20725517)

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.

Originally Posted by Biggy (Post 20725716)

You go get sued and try pulling that shit against a capable lawyer and watch what happens. The federal judges I have received decisions from, don't appear to be born yesterday.

Originally Posted by ilnjscb (Post 20727778)

That is absolutely incorrect. In fact, frivolous lawsuits are the bane of the court system, and have been subject to new laws because they are a national problem. I don't know what your personal experience has been, but mine has been what I wrote. If you'd like we can dig up stats on prosecution or contempt resulting from behavior in a federal court, but I already know the facts.

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.

Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 20728204)

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?