Extrapolating out 1:12.

So for easy math, let's say Guba has 5 million images available (likely more, but for argument's sake...).

By your own admission, that translates to 416,000 cases of copyright infringement (in round terms).

Would this be correct?

If, as you claim...what's currently on the market is only a "tiny, tiny part" of the overall images on Guba - then why do they even bother stealing it?

I can tell you why.

Because current content is fresh content...that sells. Stale images from the 1950s don't sell worth shit compared to the new content.

And I'd be highly surprised if you were able to consistently come up with 12 royalty-free/public domain or otherwise copyright-expired images for every one that infringes someone's copyright. I've been in the game over a decade, and have not seen that magntitude of royalty-free imagery anywhere in my travels. In fact, there is a very miniscule amount of it out there...as nearly anyone will tell you.

Fact remains - by your own admission...the company you serve to promote - flagrantly violates copyright laws, causes loss of livelihood and income to content producers everywhere...and is undefendable at any level. You can dance around and say what you like, that's your choice. In the end, the judgement of the industry will tell the tale.

I'm going off memory.. but no, I don't believe I have ever received one about your stuff. I have always considered myself to have a great client base, I rarely ever see DMCA complaints (maybe every other month) and some of the time when I do they're a misunderstanding. Just be careful, even with text. I had a DMCA complaint once on a phone sex phrase that a client was using on his sites that was trademarked. "Phone Sex Personals" LOL

Brad

As I understand things, they are very clear. It's not "just" a thumb. It could be two pixels, but if it's copyrighted material, they can't host it. I'm curious enough where I'll probably re-read the language in the DMCA. I can't help but wonder what else might be in there, if there is anything in law that speaks to serial offenders and if at some point a service provider by knowingly and willfully doing business with someone puts themselves at risk.

Brad

Lies, eh?

You're truly as thick as a fucking stump. In one breath you openly admit Guba is guilty of copyright infringement. Then in the next post you admonish this as lies.

You sir are a moronic paradox.

Thinking out loud... I wonder if someone that doesn't hold the copyright but has reason to believe that the publisher definitely isn't the copyright holder could send a DMCA complaint, placing the burden on the offender and hosting company. If that were the case, someone could harvest GUBA and send off a DMCA email complaint about 90% of the images that are present in a nearly automated fashion.

Brad

What are you talking about here? I CLEARLY said it's what I "As in me personally" would find wrong. Where do you get that I'm saying it's what others should believe. Christ your just trying to draw drama to something that doesn't exsist, now grow up.

You've got me rather curious on this one.

Sometime this week I'll contact our attorney in Toronto and ask him about the thumbs. In my mind, taking snaps and creating thumbs would still fall under "redistribution in whole or in part". Its still the same image, just downsized. I should think it could also be considered tampering with copyrighted intellectual property.

Let ya' know if I learn anything further.

Nope, your reasoning is as flawed as your courtesy.

I haven't seen 416,000 posts to GFY of content that infringes the rights of GFY members. Remember I said "For every post to content that infringes a copyright owner here on GFY, I could post a dozen images that infringe nothing...." I doubt I've seen fifty such posts, and there are easily more than fifty-times-a-dozen non-infringing images in alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage alone. Don't try to overstate my argument, I use words with extreme precision. Try to follow along.

Still you argue as if your disputed premise had been proven. Have you ever had a course in logic? You have to establish they've stolen something before you can demand an explanation for the alleged theft. And I'm disputing the notion that GUBA steals anything.

You would be suprised.

And yet -- wondrous miracle -- here I stand defending it and disputing your unproven accusations. Perhaps it's not quite so undefendable as all that, eh?

DMCA would still require that you provide proof of personal claim to the copyright ownership, though. I doubt a third-party would/could have much sway in that regard.

Certainly wouldn't hurt to try, other than possibly waste a little time and a few stamps.

See great reponse, very professional, something I would expect from from you after reading other posts from you. :thumbsup I't just got me when I opened this thread and the first image link posted wos something that I create, not that picture in question mind you, and it was referred to as obscene.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I've made no such admission; indeed, I've been arguing the opposite proposition. Here's the quote to which you are referring:
[QUOTE=Forkbeard]
Content that's currently available in the market makes up just a tiny tiny part of the images that flood Usenet. For every post to content that infringes a copyright owner here on GFY, I could post a dozen images that infringe nothing.
[\quote]
Yes, I admit there are images "that flood usenet" that are infringing. That's hardly a controversial position; copyright infringement on Usenet is the phenomenon that animates this debate. It's GUBA's infringement that I dispute, and which you are now falsely claiming I admitted.

I've got to jet out of here and get some paying work done, so I'll allow you the final abusive and inaccurate word. Everybody else, please just assume that I disagree with whatever abuse SilentKnight chooses to heap on me in my temporary absence.

I TOTALLY agree here. If we had hard written rules I would follow them. I would sleep better at night and would generally feel a lot better. There are things in this industry that I don't agree with, other things I basically find foul. Do I like the fact that everytime someone goes to court over Obscenity it could very well be the end to my business? NO. I do what I do to make a living, and try to do so in a way that does not hurt others. Maybe even helps others. (Believe it or not I get quite a few emails from members asking me questions about toys and fisting and have a bunch from members thanking me for giving them something fun to do in thier marriage) Sure, I sell on shock value. I have found something that works for me. But, it still does not make me feel "better" thinking that someone is out to get me cause I'm the bad guy. We should instead be focusing on the real CRIMES in our industry.

I think I am figuring this all out. I'm taking the DMCA home and reading it, completely. I suspect GUBA believes itself to be a service provider. If that's the case, they have received a very bad bad legal opinion... in my opinion... which doesn't really mean anything.. except that I don't agree. lol

Brad

I'll let everyone reach their own conclusions from your lies, half-truths and half-baked nonsense above.

"There are hundreds of thousands of images on GUBA that don't infringe anyone's copyright (yes, there really are images that predate current copyright periods) and there are millions more images that do infringe somebody's copyright, but that rights-holder is long gone from the market. Scans from a magazine that went bankrupt in 1953 are indeed under copyright, but unless the magazine is Playboy, who could hope to find the current rights owner in most cases? Content that's currently available in the market makes up just a tiny tiny part of the images that flood Usenet. For every post to content that infringes a copyright owner here on GFY, I could post a dozen images that infringe nothing. I won't, because it's unpaid work, but I could."

Interesting... guess what.. Not only is my content there... it's NUMBER 1

http://www.guba.com/video/Erotica/Fe...0676483/sample
Now at least in this case the videos watermarked so people may find my site... But how much more of my stuff is on the site? So, now I'm spose to get this "free username and password" Which I have now asked for (And not heard anything back on) and start hunting and hope to find all the infingments related to me. Nice.

You must be among the small minority (what was that..."1 in 12"?) that have ever been copyright infringed upon, lol.

Quick, go buy a lottery ticket. Perhaps your luck will hold out. :winkwink:

No shit! LOL.

More of my stuff is taken and used without my permission that I can even deal with. Hell, in searching for a new Gallery designer, I was actually spammed by one designer that had used my images to create gallerys for for fistbang.. When I called him on it, he was like "Well I got the images off of the newgroups so they are open domain" Needless to say those gallerys are not being used now.

http://www.objectfreaks.com/

Another example of thieft. they are using my images to promote the site AS PART OF THE TOUR!... Going to take care of this one right now... God this pisses me off.

(All 4 pictures along the top of the tour are mine. labled "The most gigantic dildos deep in ass" "Extreme pussy and ass stretching" "Big bottles in tight and tiny holes" and Whole can deep in hahahaha" all mine.)

Alright... all I want to say is this. As I delve farther into usenet and understanding it, this requires a lot more research on my part to come to any conclusion... I'm not really looking for a personal conclusion, mine already is that this is bad and that will not change. What I'm looking for is some legal precedent that tells us exactly why what they are doing is bad. I have a feeling that with enough research I will come up with something that might not even be DMCA and might be more business practice related. Whether I come up zeros or not, I'll share whatever I learn.

Cheers

Brad

like what? These images are rare exception. Obviously you are not aware of copyright laws. Vast majority of usenet images are posted by people that do not hold their copyrights, therefore the infringement case.

Thanks for your responses. I'll rebutt here....

It still seems that no matter how it's spun, a site that charges a membership fee to view porn is IN FACT "a paysite". That is in fact the very definition of what a paysite is.

And bringing up Google at every turn isn't relevant at all, I'm sorry to say. Placing adwords near someone else's displayed content is nowhere near as impudent as brazenly charging a fee for people to view content you don't own. Last time I checked, Google does not charge a membership fee to view my content, and they provide a direct link to the originating site that the content comes from, commonly called a courtesy link, something that from what I understand, GUBA fails to do.

The google argument is out. Very few people have a beef with Google, most likely for the reasons I've stated. They DO however have a huge beef with GUBA and all sites like it.

Let's continue...


None of those other "services" had the audacity skin GFY yesterday.

And when the cops catch a thief and that thief cry's "But I'm not the only one, there are 12 other guys who do the same thing!", the cops don't say "Oh, okay... sorry, you're not the only one, we won't single you out, you're free to go." :D


But, there are lots that DO infringe on other's copyright, right?


One: I'm quite familiar with the whole "public domain" schtick, the laws in the USA and Canada are quite cut and dried on that. Again, I'm sensing the justification argument, that since everyone's doing it it should be okay for these guys to do it. The problem with that argument is that no everyone is gathering up content they don't own and charging a membership fee to view it. That's the difference. All of what you mentioned may be hypocritical, unfair, shady, underhanded, but in THIS particular example a certain line has been crossed with respect to webmasters. Last I checked it was virtual suicide for an affiliate program to alienate this many webmasters (aka "potential affiliates")


Again, I haven't seen anyone bitching lately about what Google does as far as archiving images etc, for the reasons I stated above.


This question is pointless because we both know that anything this contraversial is going to draw venom on GFY, it's a given. You've been around long enough to know this, and saying what you just said isn't going to change it one witt.

Actually, both are villains. The difference is that the paysite and content owners have ways of dealing with the usenet posters. It's not a great situation there, but at least they have ways of manipulating some benefit out of it, and rightly so they should see some benefit.

But GUBA and other's like it give little to no opportunity for benefit to the rightful copyright holders. Surfers who have already paid GUBA to view such content aren't likely inclined to pay for it again somewhere else, most surfers don't pay attention to who holds copyright.


I refer you to the post I made in another thread then, where I said that something can be legal within the boundaries of the law and still be morally wrong.


Every particle of my being as a webmaster says that it is fundamentally wrong to take content that doesn't belong to you, set up a pay site, and charge money to surfers to view content that I don't personally own or have rights to.

There are a few things in this business I am unwilling to do... sending out mass unsoliscited spam emails, fuck over anyone on business deals, and I do not steal content or designs of others, no exceptions. I will admit I made a few mistakes in that last area back my early days online, but learned quite quickly what the drill was and acted accordingly.


This one does, actually. It wasn't the law that got most of those sites to change their ways, it was other webmasters. If you ran such a site and wanted to trade traffic with one of the larger more repsonsible sites out there, you would quickly find that they wouldn't have anything to do with you until you removed the content that wasn't yours. I'm telling you, guys with babe and bikini free sites were all over, showing scans from playboy, penthouse, hustler, plus model's pics from individual photographers by the thousands. All were hiding or trying to hide behind the posted disclaimer of "we believe all content to be in the public domain" etc, all professed that they would "work with anyone to remove any copyrighted materials" etc.... just like GUBA. Granted they weren't charging a membership fee, but they were still making money off that stolen/unauthorized content nonetheless, just like GUBA.


In my mind the jury is still out on just how "legal" their position is. In the US anway, anyone can sue anyone. I'll wait and see if anyone steps up to the plate and takes a shot at them over this issue, because although I'm no lawyer either I can see where what GUBA does may very well violate certain aspects of existing copyright law.



It was. I suppose I will just have to see what transpires over this issue, if anything. It may be that this will all blow over and nothing comes of it. If that's the case, I still don't expect feelings to change much though. Those who are up on arms about this aren't going to forget, and I would imagine that companies like GUBA won't see near as much revenue from affiliates as they would like to.

Hey, it's something.

Their business model doesn't sit well with me, that much I can tell you. At this point I won't be promoting them on my own network. If something new comes to light that might change my view I will certainly keep the door open for consideration though.

Cheers.

OK interesting side note...

I just got off ICQ with Lesbodojo, Got a username and password to use and I have to say that there might be another way to look at this from a webmasters standpoint...

There search engine makes it very simple to see who the hell is posting your stuff in the first place, makes quick work of finding the original offenders. (I have found 3 new guys I didn't even know about in just a few minutes.)

I'm more apt to work with guba using this information to actually go after the source. So, since they are working with me to get these guys and let me use there information to do it, I'm going to look at it as a service and a time saver for me. Maybe become a once a month thing, just do a scan to see who's doing what with my stuff, and then go after them.

I'll restate one part of what I posted in the above book-like tirade of mine....

Every particle of my being as a webmaster says that it is fundamentally wrong to take or accept content that doesn't belong to you, set up a pay site or any type of pay interface, and then charge surfers money to view content that you don't personally own or have rights to.

On this point I am absolutely unwilling to bend.

In my mind it doesn't matter if it's set up in search engine style, indexed style, or doggy style, it is what it is. Theft.

I totally agree with you. BUT I also have to find ways to stop the wider spead of this thieft and if they are willing to give us free access to thier system in order to do that then why not start using it as a tool for our benifit? I have since my last post already sent out 2 C&D's due to content I have found buy using thier system. Not something I could have easily have done using a standard news group reader. Just some more food for thought.

I read what you posted above that. If it works for you then great, keep at it. I would be interested to read what you have to say on this in oh, say two or three months from now when you've been at it awhile, as to your success if any.

absolutely. Trust me, I'm interested myself. The infringments I have already found sites actually took my content and rebannered it to thier own site. Pretty cut and dry stupid. They are the C&D's I have already sent out, one of them also bills with Ibill...so he might not have any money anyways... (Sorry had to go there) But will be easy to C&D Host if I need to. I start out the easy way, send them a note with the attached infingment. Ask them to remove it. Usually that's enough. Else, I have my lawyer take care of it.

I'll post an update if it works out in this thead in a few months, I have it bookmarked.

Has Guba offered to pay you restitution and damages for their use of your copyrighted material and/or loss of potential income because of their use of it? Or is giving you access to their site and the use of this search feature what they consider to be a fully equitable trade?

Sorry, but as beneficial to you as the story sounds (which is great for you)...it still sounds like a singular and superficial bandaid to a much larger wound that can't be healed - until the day they remove ALL copyrighted images they don't own and switch to hiring their own models, photographers, photo editors, lighting staff, etc. and doing things the proper legal way like the rest of us.

Actually google has been sued for millions regarding copyright infringement.

Thanks for this update. I will hit up lesbodojo right now and start digging! :thumbsup

There alot of services like GUBA that ya can use to search easily.

That are free and do not charge customers for access.
There is indeed a clear difference between most other Newsgroup based scripts and companies.

Primary factor is in regarding transactions

Of course the answer to this question is no. But, I have to be realistic here. IF I can use them to get to the people actually posting my stuff then they do become the lesser of 2 evils. I shoot my own content. I have built my site up from nothing by myself and spent the last 5 years making it work. Unlike some of the other programs out there I'm 1 guy. 1 guy that has to take care of everything. I don't have the time nor the resources to fight every battle and this one actualy can help me economically fight a few. I'm trying to find a positive way to deal with the issue. Do I agree with what they do... NO but, I have to find the path thats going to help me out better in the long run. So I'm willing to work with it and use it as a tool to see if I can go after the actual posters of my content, the people that are making it availiable without my permission to not only GUBA but to all the hunderds of other systems like them out there. Going after guba, really in the long run does not change things for me, my stuff is still being posted and used by others. I have to goto the SOURCE of the problem to have a fighting chance. Simple as that.

UPDATE.. This one has been taken care of. The site owner is having the images removed from his design. gave me access to the site in order to see if anything else was on there that came from me.. problem solved. Now, this is an example of what I was talking about. I found this infringment using the database, quickly and easily and the problem was taken care of in less than 24 hours, no money out of my pocket, just a simple email to the offender.
Now, they all don't go that easy but you get the idea of 1 way to use the problem to our advantage.