What do you think about AVS systems making $$$ through copyright violation/theft? - GoFuckYourself.com

AmeliaG · 02-04-2005, 02:58 PM

I admit that one of the things which first got me into producing pay sites was all of the AVS sites which were scanning my photography out of magazines or snarfing it from my free site. I finally figured if so many people were trying to sell my content online there must be a market for it.

When I find a violation these days, generally because someone emails the offending URL to me, I just politely ask the webmaster to remove it using DMCA language. Most webmasters comply pretty quickly. I'd certainly prefer that they not steal my work in the first place, but I don't usually really get worked up about it when infringements are removed quickly. I don't even have my attorneys send the notices normally as a simple email from me usually suffices.

I just had a weird situation where I notified an AVS through totally proper channels with proper format about a violation. The webmaster of the infringing AVS site removed the infringing content quickly, but the supposed general counsel for the AVS system was totally rude and claimed there was a format problem in the notice I sent but refused to tell me what the format issue was. Then he told me he was only going to accept snail mail notifications from my company in the future. It looks like the guy is not even admitted to the bar to practice law in California.

This is an AVS system which has violated my copyrights over and over for years. I think the least they could do is be polite when busted, but instead it seems like they are looking for any excuse to keep stolen content on their client sites. What do you think about an AVS system making $$$ through copyright violation/theft? Do you think it is part of their business model to steal or is this one representative a bad apple?

Fake Nick · 02-04-2005, 03:00 PM

see sig for quality traffic and advertising

Persius · 02-04-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fake Nick

see sig for quality traffic and advertising

baaaaaaaaaah baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Pornwolf · 02-04-2005, 03:15 PM

I don't think they really pay that much attention. They can't possibly know whose content is being used unless your url's are on the images.

Is that the case?

AmeliaG · 02-04-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

I don't think they really pay that much attention. They can't possibly know whose content is being used unless your url's are on the images.

Is that the case?

Yup. I don't put my membership site stuff out there unless my URL and my copyright notice are embedded visibly in the image.

I'm feeling extra concern right now because, even if they do not normally pay attention, I think it would be appropriate for them to respond politely to a polite request to stop violating a specific copyright. Then again, I would never hire a general counsel who was not allowed to practice law in California.

SmokeyTheBear · 02-04-2005, 03:33 PM

Its sort of like the "search engine sponsors" who buy hits from spyware/trojans and say "were just a broker".

Its the individual affiliates who are legally responsible. Thats not to say you cant be pissed about it though..

Pornwolf · 02-04-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Its sort of like the "search engine sponsors" who buy hits from spyware/trojans and say "were just a broker".

Who does this?

AmeliaG · 02-04-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Its sort of like the "search engine sponsors" who buy hits from spyware/trojans and say "were just a broker".

Its the individual affiliates who are legally responsible. Thats not to say you cant be pissed about it though..

I'm not an expert in DMCA stuff, but, once made aware that they are billing for infringing material, aren't they legally obligated to respond properly or become legally responsible?

I think if anyone pressed the point through the legal process with the "search engine sponsors" you are talking about, they would be held responsible. I mean, a fence is held responsible if he helps sell goods he has reason to believe are not legit. Seems like there would be something there.

Not that I want more legislation. Would be nice if people would just be a bit more human to one another.

Mutt · 02-04-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I'm not an expert in DMCA stuff, but, once made aware that they are billing for infringing material, aren't they legally obligated to respond properly or become legally responsible?

I think if anyone pressed the point through the legal process with the "search engine sponsors" you are talking about, they would be held responsible. I mean, a fence is held responsible if he helps sell goods he has reason to believe are not legit. Seems like there would be something there.

Not that I want more legislation. Would be nice if people would just be a bit more human to one another.

do a google search on AgeCheck and Perfect 10 - AVS's are indeed legally liable for copyright infringements on sites withing their system. AgeCheck settled out of court - judge was going to rule against them.

like free hosts, AVS systems have made millions of dollars off copyright infringement. nice racket AVS is - or was.

AmeliaG · 02-04-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

do a google search on AgeCheck and Perfect 10 - AVS's are indeed legally liable for copyright infringements on sites withing their system. AgeCheck settled out of court - judge was going to rule against them.

like free hosts, AVS systems have made millions of dollars off copyright infringement. nice racket AVS is - or was.

I vaguely remember reading that AgeCheck changed their name after this or something like that. I might be thinking of another case though. Are they still around? If so, any idea what name are they using?

Jayo · 02-04-2005, 06:20 PM

Thats sucks.. shame on them!

02-04-2005, 02:58 PM	#1
AmeliaG Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 10,572	What do you think about AVS systems making $$$ through copyright violation/theft? I admit that one of the things which first got me into producing pay sites was all of the AVS sites which were scanning my photography out of magazines or snarfing it from my free site. I finally figured if so many people were trying to sell my content online there must be a market for it. When I find a violation these days, generally because someone emails the offending URL to me, I just politely ask the webmaster to remove it using DMCA language. Most webmasters comply pretty quickly. I'd certainly prefer that they not steal my work in the first place, but I don't usually really get worked up about it when infringements are removed quickly. I don't even have my attorneys send the notices normally as a simple email from me usually suffices. I just had a weird situation where I notified an AVS through totally proper channels with proper format about a violation. The webmaster of the infringing AVS site removed the infringing content quickly, but the supposed general counsel for the AVS system was totally rude and claimed there was a format problem in the notice I sent but refused to tell me what the format issue was. Then he told me he was only going to accept snail mail notifications from my company in the future. It looks like the guy is not even admitted to the bar to practice law in California. This is an AVS system which has violated my copyrights over and over for years. I think the least they could do is be polite when busted, but instead it seems like they are looking for any excuse to keep stolen content on their client sites. What do you think about an AVS system making $$$ through copyright violation/theft? Do you think it is part of their business model to steal or is this one representative a bad apple? __________________ GFY Hall of Famer AltStar Hall of Famer Blue Blood's SpookyCash.com Babe photography portfolio

02-04-2005, 03:15 PM	#4
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	I don't think they really pay that much attention. They can't possibly know whose content is being used unless your url's are on the images. Is that the case? __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

02-04-2005, 03:33 PM	#6
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	Its sort of like the "search engine sponsors" who buy hits from spyware/trojans and say "were just a broker". Its the individual affiliates who are legally responsible. Thats not to say you cant be pissed about it though.. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

02-04-2005, 06:20 PM	#11
Jayo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 854	Thats sucks.. shame on them! __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.

02-04-2005, 03:00 PM	#2
Fake Nick So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: go troll goo! Posts: 7,708	see sig for quality traffic and advertising