Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE

50 tubes making dough...

smutnut

you'll probably be hearing from me on icq. 278-660-804 porn punk or something like that. (I have to step out now) don't delete me. It seems like it would be better if you made the submitters embed. This is what tgp and mgp's will always have over tube sites as far as profitability goes

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE

oK......

Libertine

Clueless

Sites like digg, slashdot and google are in no way comparable to tubes. User-generated and/or low-bandwidth content is relatively cheap, on a per-user basis. That's the big problem with the tube business model.

There is very little actual user-generated porn. Most "user-generated" porn is just user-uploaded porn, instead. If you don't want to base your business model on having users upload porn you don't own the rights to, you will have to pay for it instead. Of course, you can get tube-licensed content very cheaply these days, but the costs are still relatively high.

Moreover, bandwidth costs on video are much, much higher than they are on text. Bandwidth has gotten much cheaper in recent years, but with tube sites, the costs are still significant.

Together, these things greatly decrease your profit margin.

With economies of scale, legal tube sites can still make a handsome profit. The problem, though, is that everyone will start one just to be able to compete with the others. Of course, when that happens, a tube site won't have the pull of offering more content than other sites anymore, and average traffic will drop, killing the economies of scale for most tube sites.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE

draped up and dripped out... t

Hansm

He did not even get more than 1000 visitors in total on his site.

Just go to his site and check the views count, he is spoofing the alexa ranking.

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE

lmao...? Are you crazy..? Got proof?

Malicious Biz

Marketsmarts's illegal tube sites stole my baby.

But it's coo doe! i blamed it on dingos.

gideongallery

don't have a right to, i guess we are going back to ignoring fair use.
I suggest you reread the lenz vs universal case again



that the point safe harbor protected tube sites (what you call illegal tube sites) will have longer videos, which will keep a lion share of the traffic. Even if they do not new technology like swarm player technology (and the project to convert it to java/ c#) will shift the bandwidth around just like bit torrent do.

The bandwidth is not going to be as serious a problem as you expect it to be. Of course we will just have to wait and see, but i pretty sure i will be right about this one too.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Barefootsies

No. Maybe YOU need to reread that case toots.

Furthermore, posting full length stolen videos that are not licensed to you are not "fair use". Any more than posting a full length DVD, movie, or music album is. You need to understand what constitutes "fair use" in the legal realm before you keep dropping it like a footnote.

It's pretty obvious, you do not have a fucking clue.

__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

GatorB

You can only sell the eyeballs to others as long as those others believe those eyeballs have value. Once you get to the totally "free" economy then the value of those eyeballs is ZERO and thus you're ability to sell them is nil. So how do you make money then? The concept that everything should be free is not very capitalistic and very close to communism. the reason why the next Batman movie will get made is because the curent one has made $900 million worldwide. If the studio knew that nobody would see the next one unles it was FREE, guess what, it wouldn't get made. Movies cost money to make. Actors want to get paid, directors want to get paid. Camera guys, sound guys special effects guys, costume guys etc etc. No one is going to do it for FREE just to entertain a cheap ass public. The very notion of FREE is a farce as there is no such thing as a FREE lunch. never has been never will be.

marketsmart

it sounds pretty fair to me...

i choose what is fair use and what is not fair use...

if you dont like it, i will understand if you feel the need to steal my stolen content...

Barefootsies

I'm not going to take your GFY troll tube bait banter on this subject matter.

However, I'll keep you on my most searched sites for copyright infringement enforcement in the meantime American toots.

__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

marketsmart

in reality i own a lot of content... you can ask your b/f stinkypinky.... he will verify this since he encoded a lot of it for me...

mynameisjim

Your missing the point. Yes, giving away something for free can be a succesfull business tactic, but the company must control where, when, and what they give away for free for it to be sustainable. You deciding it should be free and stealing it is just a "free for all" and not any sort of new and exciting business model.

First of all, the TGP example is one where the owners decided to give it away for free. See above.

One of the examples you give is Digg, do you know how much they paid for content.....ZERO. They spent money on the development of the software, and I don't see them giving that away for free. Digg did produce content, the software that runs their site. When they give that away for free, give me a call.

Your examples don't support your pro-tubes argument because the free content on Digg cost nothing to produce and the part of the site they did spend money on, they would NEVER give away for free.

__________________

Barefootsies

I know this.

__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

Libertine

What I said was "content you don't own the rights to". And no, you don't own the rights to content unless you produce it, buy the rights to it, or are given the rights to it.

But actually, in the case of tube sites, you don't "have the right to" use the vids either. The DMCA essentially just says that if you're not pre-screening user-uploaded content, you're not responsible for copyright violations, as long as you immediately take action and remove the content as soon as you are made aware that the content owner has not made it available for that particular usage.

Lenz vs universal has little to do with this. It merely says that content owners need to check for fair use on individual pieces of content before sending in the lawyers.

Strictly speaking, some of those aren't illegal tube sites. Instead, they rely on users violating copyrights. But it is likely that either the law will be changed eventually (once it becomes clear that circumventing copyrights, by waiting for content owners to notice content is being used without their consent, has become an actual business model), or that content owners will start strictly policing content usage on all popular tube sites.

Either way, the current mass violations of copyright on high-traffic standard tube sites will not continue. Of course, simply buying extremely cheap video content is still an option.

Some truly illegal tube sites (ones not complying with the dmca) will continue to exist, of course, and will gain a large share of the market. But since there are virtually no countries that have laws allowing such usage, those sites will be relatively few.

Technology will move on and create new issues, yes. But let's focus on the current ones, first.

Higher bandwidth costs, lower conversion rates, and having to invest more in content in order to be able to compete. The bandwidth by itself isn't a huge problem. The combination of those factors, though, is a big problem.

Oh, and yes, I did just say "lower conversion rates". That's because the more you offer for free, the smaller the amount of people who are going to pay for more is.

A few years from now, nearly all porn will be free. Exceptions will be extremely high quality, and highly specialized niches. Income will come from upsells (higher quality, mainly), toys, cams, escort and dating. Dating will eventually turn free as well, at least in part. Toys, prostitutes and private cams shows probably won't.

The industry will hurt, financially. Just like the newspapers did when craigslist turned their hundreds of millions of dollars in classified ad revenue into tens of millions of dollars in classified ad revenue for itself.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

marketsmart

you are a really smart guy, so i am surprised by this post...

you really dont know much about tube sites... there's a 1000 different ways to monetize tube traffic and although pay for porn is not one of them (except dating & cams), you havent seen a glimpse of what people are starting to promote with tube sites...

content and b/w are very cheap right now and i see content getting even cheaper even though its rediculous..

i could go on forever and ever on ths subject, but the bottom line is that if you cant figure out how to make the new tube trend work for you, then you are going to see your revenues decline (with exception to super niche) and/or be out of this industry within a year or two...


i am marketsmart and i approved this message.....

Libertine

I actually know a decent bit about tube sites (been spending the past few months studying them, since they're the inevitable future for this industry), and I pretty much agree with everything you say in your post.

There is still a problem, though. While there are many ways to monetize tube sites (rather more than the ones I mentioned - old ones like male enhancement pills, but also new ones like camgirls and escorts promoting their services), the main money-making model of the entire industry is still going to shift from "paid content" to "upsell/ad supported content".

And that, almost invariably, leads to both lower profit margins and consolidation. A (large) number of companies will thrive, but an even larger number will see profit fall. I'm about 80% sure that profit for the industry as a whole will fall, at least relative to the expansion of the internet and the further integration of it into our daily lives.

On top of that, I think it's even likelier that the small guys are the ones who will get hit hardest. Smarter search engines will eventually lead more and more surfers to sites offering exactly what they're looking for. That content, in most cases, is bound to be on huge sites.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Theo The Theologian

Which is why anyone reading this thread needs to stop posting and get growing.

On a side note the Two for Jewsday parcheesi matches have been cancelled due to the storm.

__________________

I'm a hate-fuelled umbrella-wielding photographer with a winning smile, and a way with the ladies.

marketsmart

i agree with everything you just said.. i retract my statement about you not knowing about tubes...

however, i differ about about the monetizing model.. i dont think paid ads are the best ways to make money off tubes.. sure they are money in the bank and an easy way to know what your p&l is before you pay the bills, but what people are missing out on is CRM and the ability of CRM to generate 10x what paid ads can do on their best day..

the problem is most adult guys just want the easy money with no effort...

Barefootsies

I agreed with what you were saying up until this point...

The little guys are the one's who will cash in the best.

Profit margins are higher, production costs lower, and a better search engine results and networks mean more tailored solutions to those markets and niches.

Smaller guys can more easily offer more readily what surfers and customer want to buy. A guy e-mails me today telling me some 'idea' and I can work it into the shoot this week, next week he has his material. Porno monoliths do not tailor solutions in this fashion.

What you are going to see the end of is the greed of the porno monolith. People's jobs will be cut. More focus on technology. Thinning of the heads of sheep who require affiliate managers, but do not produce sales.

Also more production moved overseas where they can cut budgets, and try and keep fresh content cranking. The small fries are the most secure, and not going anywhere.

No matter what happens to he bigger industry, most niche, and smaller companies are unphased. This is what the 'bros' and 'big guys' fail to understand. We do not have the overhead. We offer more tailored solutions and interaction. We are not going anywhere.

You are.

__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

Libertine

I think you misunderstand what I mean by the "small" guys.

The small guys I'm talking about are the ones who, right now, are running a few blogs or splogs, maybe a few tgps, and submitting some galleries. A fair amount of small guys aren't full-timers, but part-timers who make some extra beer money in adult.

Specialists will continue to thrive. Both the ones creating (niche) content, as well as the ones vigorously listing the best (niche) content. Small, bland mainstreamers will mostly disappear, though. Although, of course, a few will continue to live in the cracks of the system.

Compare it to buying food. Big chains have mostly replaced smaller generic grocery stores, but specialists on cheese, meat, wine, pies, etc. continue to do well.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Barefootsies

Yep. I misunderstood you. My sincerest apologies friend.

Carry on.

__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

opulence

retard

__________________
icq: 2822543

klaze

[stoned] The affiliate platform is so strong because of the surfer's need for free porn.. Now that might just be because of the marketing strategies used by affiliates... it trained the surfer to realize they can get enough free porn if they hit enuff affiliate sites..

*shrug*

I love tube sites..

The ability to scan over thousands of clips from 20+ niches and 2000000000000 different sites..

It's the best marketing.. I have had my eyes opened to soo much content, sites that i would have never seen if it wasn't for the "tube" site platform..

It is really a lot like TGP/MGPs it's just a better organized layout.. Everything all on the same page..

The transition from TGP/MGP to Tube should be a no brainer for a lot of TGP/MGP webmasters..

I see programs running DVD Tube type sites where the surfer can buy dvd scenes or whole dvds.. What I don't see them doing is converting their 150 pay site program into a 1 tube site program.. for obvious reasons..

Tube sites will exist together with Paysites..

But because of the over abundance of free porn on the internet thanks to generous affiliates and outlaw tubes..

The average surfer today has the assumption porn can be had for free....

Soo just like HMV and Tower records are basically out of buisness thanks to Apple Music Store and Napster...

Some of you guys are going to be out of business too [/stoned]

opulence

I don't think Tube sites are nearly as threatening as they were when you could make a lot of money with bullshit advertising companies like AVNAds. Tube sites can no longer host free full videos and depend on making money by tricking surfers into clicking adware-prone advertisements. You now mainly see these 3 types of tubes:

1. Paysite tube - you can view a couple videos for free, or shorter clips, and must pay for high quality/full versions. (Not really a threat to traditional paysites or at least not really a threat to selling porn)

2. Clusterfuck TGP Tube - Since advertising revenue is low, and affiliate revenue (due to shitty traffic/low conversions) will also be low for these kind of tubes, they're basically the new TGP. People that don't want to get jerked around clicking on bullshit advertisments and what have you, would still rather pay for clean looking advertisement free straight forward porn sites. The people that will put up with it would be just like people that go to TGPs. I've also noticed a lot of these types of tubes shortening their clips and putting up more sponsor/affiliate style links (Still incentive for surfers to pay for porn due to these types of tubes being annoying)

3. Big sites like youporn that aren't spammy/clusterfuck that I have a hard time believing turn a profit after bandwidth costs, though they may get bandwidth exceptionally cheap. These types of tubes would really be the only/biggest threat. They're also the most 'illegal' and should have a more likely chance of being shut down.

If the really big sites like youporn that actually host user generated content of 10 minute or longer clips, with no popups, no particularly misleading links or circle jerking, get shut down, then there really won't be much of a problem with tubes at all.

__________________
icq: 2822543

gideongallery

your so right tv shows have gone down in volume, we have less stations giving away tv shows for free. We haven't grown from 3 hours of tv time to 24 hour a day all for free. We haven't grown from1 tv station to 5 basic cable stations.

Re read the article, it never said the entire economy has to go to free, it talking about the digital economy. People still need to eat, people need to sleep. People need hard drives to store all the free porn. They still want live interaction, they want to get laid. There will always be something to sell those eyeballs for the free canned digital content.

Granted you will not make the insane amount of money that you made before, but that money is a pipe dream anyway since if you choose not to make it someone else will "access shift" your content and make the money in your place.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Jim_Gunn

And if I ran a large porn studio with money for a legal department, that someone would get sued for illegally broadcasting content that they had no right to do so. Gideon you seem to take no small amount of glee in the fact that some hardworking porn people who take their own hard earned money out of their own pockets, plus their own labor, not to mention, crew, employees, overhead and taxes, to produce a porn scene or a porn movie are basically just going to have to share it with the world for free. How does that pass a fairness test in your mind? Or are you one of those nitwits who also thought that musicians are all rich rock stars who ought to let their music be 'shared' for free as well and tough shit for the pornographers too?

gideongallery

fair use is a responsiblity you must meet in exchange for the monopoly that government gives you

for example if people had lifetime access to download the videos they paid for, allowing them to recover the content they bought a right to view from you for free, you could legitimately argue that torrent sites are not providing timeshifting/recovery services to your former customers. Because you were providing such service already, at a price equal to theres (fair market competiton)

you choose not to. The point is that there is an re-up oppertunity with such a site. showcase all the videos that have been added since they last joined. Tell them about how they can get access by reactivating their membership and you got a new revenue stream comming in. Hell implement a torrent distributed download system, and the videos would be cheaper to distribute.

But you don't want to invest in fulfilling your fair use responsiblity, and you want to prevent others from filling that void. Do you really think that is fair ?

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

And btw i have no problem with muscians being as rich as they want to be. I fully support bands like radio head in what they are doing (cutting the middle man out of the opperation). Did you know that they made more money from all the free loaders who took the album for free then the record company would have paid them if they sold the album.

They made a deal with the venues that they toured to get a commission for every ticket they sold. Since artist only get like 1.05 per album, that commission x the number of buyers exceed the 1.05 they would have gotten if every one of those free loaders had bought the album.

The only one who got screwed was the record company, because they got cut out of the deal. And considering how much they rape artist every single day.

The real porn producers (the pornstars, camera men,etc) will make a lot more money in the free economy, it the distribution agents (vivid, hustler etc) which will see the money dry up. Considering how much money these companies made off scenes they paid the artist 3k to make, i don't feel sorry for them at all.

Using the suffering artist as a strawman is just as bogus as when the record companies do it.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

TheDoc

Way way way back, I used to run Free Hosts, some of the first ones. It was free of charge other than my ads. I would make just over $100k a month, and spend $90k a month in bandwidth. Bandwidth was far more expensive back then than it is today.

I was running on less than a 10% profit margin, I was like a major oil company and didn't even know it.

Today every tube has way more ways to make money than I did back then. I have looked around, tons of tubes are doing pre auths (allows for one click upsells), then free memberships for an email address, a few are doing per clip microbilling and/or some type of upgrade service for better clips. This is about .1% of the list of things they are doing or can do.


Anyone that thinks Tubes will hurt our business, end our business, and/or do anything other than provide traffic/sales for our business, needs to take a basic business 101 logic pill.

__________________

Robbie

Here we go again...gideongallery. The communist who does NOTHING on the internet himself. The man who isn't even in this business at all. Once again trying to tell us that the government "gave" us a monopoly on the benefits of our own work!

Our fathers and forefathers would roll in their graves listening to such bullshit. I could see it now: "Yes, I worked my entire life to build this shoe business. I'm so glad the government gave me the right to 'monopolize' the money I made for myself from my work and my product"

Guys, gideongallery is nothing more than a troll who doesn't even have any business to be here. He doesn't do anything in this business, he doesn't own anything (excuse me....I mean he hasn't asked the omnipotent govt. to grant him a monopoly to allow him to own something and monetize it)

His only purpose is to come on here and troll the people the he knows actually do own things and actually do have everything invested in their work.

He loves to make everyones' blood boil by laughing at them and stirring drama.

What he needs is his Mom and Dad to come to his bedroom and take his computer away from him and then give him a good spanking.

He is just another surfer. No more involved here than klaze (with his "investigations" using wikipedia, and his current attempts at making his posts have html tags...and since he doesn't KNOW html he is misunderstanding the whole concept lol)

Just surfers, stirring shit. We all know where this tube thing is gonna end up. It's going to be in the same place as all the other "threats" over the years. Legislation will eventually catch up to technology. The thieves will make their quick money grab in the meantime. gideongallery will continue to reveal his hatred of capitalism and his love of free-loading.

And then, when the dust settles. The stealing will be stopped.

Of course now gideongallery will come back and TRY to parse words and infer different meanings. And that's cool. Everybody is free to speak.

So have at it gideongallery. Tell us all how we are all full of shit for believing that content that we made is free for you and others to just take and monetize. And tell us all again how the government GAVE us a "monopoly" by allowing us the luxury of not only working 12 hours a day/7 days a week to run our businesses...but also granted us the fantastic fun job of adding more work and MORE expense by looking at thousands of rip-off tube and torrent sites trying to find our work and have it removed. And then having to write each one a dmca. And of course there is always the real fun thing of reading the thieves "Rules" to having them take your stuff down. And how if you have an "attitude" in your email they will ignore you.

LOL! You have no idea gideongallery because you merely troll. You don't know the feeling of violation that this causes for people. Or maybe you do? Maybe that's why you kick back at your parent's house and laugh and laugh at the stupid porn people. Now don't forget to clean your room so your mommy and daddy don't put you on restrictions.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Barefootsies

You've confirmed in this thread, many times over, that you are stupid beyond my wildest dreams.

But after reading this...

... you are just a complete fucking retard.

__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

Robbie

I don't think he's a retard barefootsies. I think he is a person who is lazy and a freeloader. He owns nothing. Does nothing. And is resentful of people who do own things and do work hard and do reap the rewards of their efforts.

gideongallery is a wannabe who never was and never will be unless he changes his sloth-like, lazy work ethic and channels his intelligence towards being productive instead of his never-ending quest to find ways to make money off of others work.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Barefootsies

Frankly,.. I do not think he has any.

__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

Jim_Gunn

What the fuck are you babbling about here? I know it is English but it makes no sense. You stat with some nonsense supposition about lifetime access to some content and then you go on in another paragraph saying I (me, Jim Gunn?) chooses not to do something? Do you know anything about my business or services? You didn't address or answer any of my questions because you don't have a reasonable answer. It's clear that you are a bona fide idiot who gets his jollies simply being a contrarian who riles people up on a message board. What do you even do for a living and are you working in the adult industry or other online industry in any capacity? Your posts make as much sense as those nutcases on Yahoo news comments section who used to just repeat the "N" word like a excitable thirteen year old.

gideongallery

and that why i am 4/4 on my predictions about how the case are going against you guys.
so far i have been right every time. When i predicted veoh would win, dmca would stand and the court case should be thrown out, even though tube sites changed the format (everyone less in the thread kept arguing it would let them get around the dmca safe harbor provision) i was right.

IF anything i think your position is going to get weaker with the court ruling that you now have to consider fair use before sending out a single take down notice. With the consequence of not doing so is getting sued for every penny of legal fees and economic damage.

every time you claimed i did not buy anything but only licience you are doing so because of the copyright act exclusive right to distribute (that the monopoly), however that monopoly excludes fair use explictly.

same government different law, and the safe harbor provision is designed to be the balance of the new takedown request power it gives, a power that has been abused with a shot gun approach.

A shot gun approach which now has a HUGE civil liablility. Now ignoring the rules not only get you "attitube" but a potential multi million dollar counter suite.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Jim_Gunn

I'm a real producer, who not only films for other big porn companies that hire me, but also an independent who puts up his own hard earned money to pay talent, crew, locations, etc, not to mention labor, to film movies for DVD & internet distribution. Explain to me how it benefits me to see one of my movies being seeded online for free? There's' no "Man" to stick it to in this case, just me, the hand on individual who needs to make a living and make a profit for my work.

Jim_Gunn

I doubt that there has ever been a single case of a porn site or individual who legitimately fairly used a porn scene or porn movie for any critical, artistic or other legitimate purpose and none of your half-assed sophistry will make it otherwise. None of those cases you invoked have any bearing on the argument, and you haven't been right about a single thing since you started annoying people on this forum despite your preposterous claim that you predicted one thing or another.

gideongallery

you one of those nitwits who also thought that musicians are all rich rock stars who ought to let their music be 'shared' for free as well and tough shit for the pornographers too?

answer : I fully support bands like radio head in what they are doing (cutting the middle man out of the opperation).

Radio head kept 100% of the money from those people who bought the album when they offered people pay what you want (instead of 10%). They made MORE MONEY from the freeloaders who gave them just their email address to get the entire album for nothing because they sold a portion of them tickets to their live events.

The artist would make more money in a free economy/ pay what you think is fair economy system, and the record company are using artists as a strawman in their battle with piracy All trying to ignore the fact that if you cut them out of the loop and use a free /pay what you want methodology the real content producers would make a hell of a lot more.




How does that pass a fairness test in your mind?

answer because people have a fair use right to back up/time shift/recover the content they bought a right to view. IF you don't want to fulfil those right with your distribution methods then others (tube, torrent sites) do.

i answered both your question now answer mine

But you don't want to invest in fulfilling your fair use responsiblity, and you want to prevent others from filling that void. Do you really think that is fair ? why ?

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Jim_Gunn

Your question is a loaded non-nonsensical question akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?". First of all you have no understanding of fair use so the entire question is invalid since there is no fair use component . Secondly, you also suppose that "I" (do you mean me personally or any producer, as we aren't all equivalent) don't want to fulfill my fair use right (how would you know that?) and that I am also trying to prevent other from filing some imaginary void that doesn't really exist. People can easily back up or time shift any of my scenes or movies that they purchase online or offline without relying on torrents or rapidshare or the like. When I occasionally purchase a scene or movie I sometimes will make a backup for myself, but I don't give it away to other people who never paid for it. Those tools are just used by people who simply want to avoid paying, not for any times-shifting backup or other nonsense reason. This whole discussion is one step above banging the keyboard and making random characters come up.

Robbie

Jim, gideongallery is a troll who is trying to justify theft so he can sleep well at night. Bottom line is...we make money. He doesn't. Now THAT is funny. Keep on trolling gideongallery. I already spoke to Ron at pussycash about your account by the way.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

gideongallery

every person who first creates a torrent file, is backing up content he bought a right to view. backup is a fair use right defined by the courts. So right there you have 1 fair use for each torrent that exists. Every person who signup for the pay site before and uses the torrents to recover the content they bought a right to view by signing up to the site in the past. Again another fair use right established by the courts. So that two for every torrent that exists.

Your arguement is to deny these people their fair use rights just because some people may use the technology to illegally gain access when they have not bought such a right to view. The problem with that is that you are unfairly denying people right the law has given them when you refuse to fulfill these needs for the actual customer. Considering you know who these customers are, and have an ability to service them fully, while the tube sites/torrent sites don't have such information at their finger tips and it is therefore harder for them to exclude all the pirates.

It not an arguement which is fair or unfair, it is which side of the arguement is fairer.

your argurement can be summarized into we want to deny you your fair use right to our content because i want to not provide your fair use rights and put the money in my pocket instead.

vs

we want to use a techology that has fair use implementations which can be used to pirate your content only so long as you refuse to fulfill the fair use right the law grants me, putting the money right in your pocket anyway.


Stop putting the money in your pocket, spend a portion of that on meeting those legitimate fair uses, and you are perfectly within your right to stop all alternative distribution of your content (torrent, tubes). The courts have recognized that arguement already (decss case).

As long as you refuse to the "pirates" arguement is the fairer of the two.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Robbie

And there gideongallery revealed himself in 7 words. And those seven words can be compressed to one: ENVY

And that envy that gideongallery has can be further brought down to another word: LAZINESS

Please gideongallery. Leave this forum. You are a surfer and you don't own anything and you're not in this business. Just leave.

Either that...or be a man and show up at The Atlanta Forum (if your parents will give you the money for the trip), and speak at one of the seminars so you can educate all of us on why you and other thieves have the rights to our work.

You don't have the balls.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

gideongallery

and your are you a nitwit question was not as loaded a question

I took the time to put it in the correct context and answer it.

i am only talking about court establish fair uses like backup recover, timeshifting. so i do understand what fair use is.

ok this is a strawman arguement here is why. Let suppose you setup a private tracker which only granted access to former members of "your" (to represent you and any other paysite owners) paysite. Only people who bought a right to view would have a right to download from that tracker (0 pirates). Then you would fully supporting the fair use right to back up the content

Why because such a torrent tracker would be an order of magnitude better than traditional backups

1. it would be free
2. it would be free
3. and it would have a redundancy of (#seeders)

to duplicate the same effect using traditional backups i would have to make x copies of the video and put them in x different locations. IT is so much better than a normal backup and it is free.

And under this circumstance there is no piracy, because everyone could be limited to only the content they have a fair use right too.

until you setup such a private tracker this arguement is at best a circular proof and at worst a rationalization to justify not meeting a need.

The funny part is meeting such a need is in fact the way to stop the piracy, because once you implement such a solution, you can legitimately claim that torrent sites have no fair use protection for their actions becuase anyone who has a fair use right to the content is already being services. They can not claim a privacy right, because all those who have a legitimate right have already given them your information. You could legally demand their distribution of your content be stopped automatically (steganography signature + auto removal) and you would legally be within your right (decss case).

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Jim_Gunn

God, this guy is an idiot, I have to stop responding to this nonsense. A torrent is a backup, LOL, sure whatever you say dude. Why does the backup *have* to be a torrent? Nothing he says makes a bit of sense and if it did I would at least give him the benefit of his theoretical argument. This guy just has to be a no pussy getting loser who is so angry at the world.

gideongallery

taking it out of context again to make a false point.

So i suppose you would claim that it ok to not pay your taxes and put that money in your pocket.

Or not pay for insurance and put that money in your pocket instead.

Not meeting your fair use responsiblity (see private tracker example) has a legal consequence as not paying these other bills and instead just putting the money in your pocket.

Does not mean i envy you in one bit.

Your so blinded by righteous indignation you fail to see the solutions right in front of your face (private tracker).

and open yourself up to massive liability when you "accidently on purpose" stomp over fair use rights (lenz vs universal)

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Robbie

No gideongallery. I'm blinded by the tears of laughter in my eyes at your pathetic attempt to tell professionals how their business works when you're not even in it. You have no rights to take my content and put it on a tube site for instance. You can claim torrents are "backups" until the cows come home. But anyone with any sense knows better.

And what about tube sites? Is that "backing it up" too?

Keep thinking the way you do gideongallery. It just makes it that much easier for guys like me to excel in the world. I couldn't be a winner if there were no losers. So I thank you for your attitude and your thought process. It ensures that you will always be a perpetual loser in life. Thanks bro!

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

gideongallery

take a file back it up to a tape, delete the file, restore it from the tape what happens you get the file back

take a file make a torrent, seed the torrent, after it is fully seed , delete the file connect to the torrent again what happens you get the file back.

There is no way you can claim that a torrent can not be used to fulfill the fair use right of backup the end result is exactly the same and with the lenz vs universal ruling (timeshifting using a cloud) it is legally the same thing too.

never said it have to be a torrent just that it could be, if you want to provide me with a tape backup solution that give me 10,000 point of redundancy for free, i will use that one instead. But i shouldnot be forced to use the more expensive, less efficient method just because you refuse to embrace the newer technology simply because your exclusive rights don't apply to fair use.

so you misrepresent what i say so you can ignore the theoretical arguement, just as long as you realize that your proving your arguement is false by doing that.


so now i am wrong because i won't fuck everything that moves, bill clinton would be proud.

I think with my brain, not with my penis, you might want to start doing the same, you will make more intelligent statements

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak