Adult Friend Finder SUED over RedTube and YouPorn

[TarPy]

From their terms: "You hereby represent and warrant to us that materials posted on your site do not violate or infringe upon the rights of any third party (including, for example, copyrights, trademarks, privacy, or other personal or proprietary rights), and that materials posted on your site are not libelous or otherwise illegal."


It is impossible to concieve that AFF is not aware that RedTube, XNXX, and YouPorn contain infringed material.


As far as I understand, allowing some affiliates to participate in the program without adhearing to the Terms and Conditons constitutes unfair business practices.


Also, from what I understood, under the Perfect 10 rulings, if you CC your DMCA to AFF and Twisty's, and they continue to accept traffic from sites that infringe on your content, they become a complicit party to the theft.


HINT: If XNXX, RedTube, or YouPorn are stealing your content, CC their sponsors, because if B pay A to generate signups for B using stolen content, then it is arguable that B might as well steal the content under the guise of being affiliates.


PS - Tube sights aren't going anywhere, but their infringment needs to, boycotting of their traffic due to a violation of basic terms is the same reason Warez, Torrent, Password Stealing sites, and so forth have been banned from affiliate programs for a long time.


Look for an announcement about this in XBiz soon, I thought it was genious when I heard it, shit Shap even publicly announced that he's aware of their infringment but accepts the traffic anyhow. SLAM DUNK.

Plus keep in mind that AFF is now publicly traded, keep an eye on their stock price when word of the lawsuits hit wallstreet.

sry guys can't say who, I've said too much already. ;-)

[High Class Grass]

oh la la ... sig spot is for sale .
start with 400$

[tical]

nice, bout time

[dropped9]

intersting.................

[dropped9]

[Brujah]

Nothing will change.

[SHANESWORLD]

[SL|M!]

My cats breath smells like cat food

[papill0n]

LOve it!!!!!

[StarkReality]

Now, this is becoming REALLY interesting...

[Nookster]

Very sickening to me being a really small guy in the industry and basically getting trampled all over. Looking forward to the article.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by TarPy

From their terms: "You hereby represent and warrant to us that materials posted on your site do not violate or infringe upon the rights of any third party (including, for example, copyrights, trademarks, privacy, or other personal or proprietary rights), and that materials posted on your site are not libelous or otherwise illegal."


It is impossible to concieve that AFF is not aware that RedTube, XNXX, and YouPorn contain infringed material.


As far as I understand, allowing some affiliates to participate in the program without adhearing to the Terms and Conditons constitutes unfair business practices.


Also, from what I understood, under the Perfect 10 rulings, if you CC your DMCA to AFF and Twisty's, and they continue to accept traffic from sites that infringe on your content, they become a complicit party to the theft.


HINT: If XNXX, RedTube, or YouPorn are stealing your content, CC their sponsors, because if B pay A to generate signups for B using stolen content, then it is arguable that B might as well steal the content under the guise of being affiliates.


PS - Tube sights aren't going anywhere, but their infringment needs to, boycotting of their traffic due to a violation of basic terms is the same reason Warez, Torrent, Password Stealing sites, and so forth have been banned from affiliate programs for a long time.


Look for an announcement about this in XBiz soon, I thought it was genious when I heard it, shit Shap even publicly announced that he's aware of their infringment but accepts the traffic anyhow. SLAM DUNK.

Plus keep in mind that AFF is now publicly traded, keep an eye on their stock price when word of the lawsuits hit wallstreet.

sry guys can't say who, I've said too much already. ;-)

Do you own PicHunter?

[TidalWave]

gonna buy some stock once it drips

[BAKO]

This could get very interesting

[MediumPimpin]

Tarpy please hit me up, I owe you money, lol

[Tempest]

Sweet stuff...

[mrkrabs]

bump!!!!

[tony286]

one judgment and the house cards will start to fall.

[pocketkangaroo]

I don't think this is the same lawsuit I know about but I do know that Penthouse (AFF), SexSearch and one other company is about to be sued by someone for the same thing.

[SpeakEasy]

Interresting news for sure. AFF and Shap are morons and thieves according to all their own admission on this board. I for one hope this can work. I am not against tube sites as this issue is about thieves and illegal tube sites.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by TarPy

As far as I understand, allowing some affiliates to participate in the program without adhearing to the Terms and Conditons constitutes unfair business practices.

Hmmmm? That's a good point.

[Socks]

Wow.. I think they can just say that they have special affiliate rules for certain situations through business dealings that exempt certain affilates from their normal blanket terms of service. I've seen TOS's that clearly state you can get in touch with the owners of the site before entering to attempt to work out their own personal TOS, but that it may not be successful.

My gut feeling is that it isn't this easy, and if sponsors want to accept the traffic, they can just change their terms to make sure they can operate how they want to. Why should they be liable? It's all about reducing liability.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by sortie

Hmmmm? That's a good point.

I don't think anyone can require you into enforcing your own T&Cs unless a law is being broken.

If they are sued then it affects people a LOT bigger than even AFF, and those people wont let it happen.

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by SL|M!

My cats breath smells like cat food

So? My cats arse smells of cat shit, but you dont hear me complaining

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Damian_Maxcash

I don't think anyone can require you into enforcing your own T&Cs unless a law is being broken.

If they are sued then it affects people a LOT bigger than even AFF, and those people wont let it happen.

I know the one suit they will be facing isn't about the T&C. It's about them directly profiting off of someone else's copyrighted material. It's a unique case but does have some precedent if you go back to the old Gator (Claria) lawsuit.

[ladida]

Why is brazzers excluded from the release.... They're doing it more then shap is.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I know the one suit they will be facing isn't about the T&C. It's about them directly profiting off of someone else's copyrighted material. It's a unique case but does have some precedent if you go back to the old Gator (Claria) lawsuit.

I think the problem will be that sites like YouTube operate in a similar way to these Porn Tubes. Users put the content up and they take it down if they are asked.

YouTube/Google and others are never going to let their business model be put on trial. imho

[Shap]

Originally Posted by TarPy

From their terms: "You hereby represent and warrant to us that materials posted on your site do not violate or infringe upon the rights of any third party (including, for example, copyrights, trademarks, privacy, or other personal or proprietary rights), and that materials posted on your site are not libelous or otherwise illegal."


It is impossible to concieve that AFF is not aware that RedTube, XNXX, and YouPorn contain infringed material.


As far as I understand, allowing some affiliates to participate in the program without adhearing to the Terms and Conditons constitutes unfair business practices.


Also, from what I understood, under the Perfect 10 rulings, if you CC your DMCA to AFF and Twisty's, and they continue to accept traffic from sites that infringe on your content, they become a complicit party to the theft.


HINT: If XNXX, RedTube, or YouPorn are stealing your content, CC their sponsors, because if B pay A to generate signups for B using stolen content, then it is arguable that B might as well steal the content under the guise of being affiliates.


PS - Tube sights aren't going anywhere, but their infringment needs to, boycotting of their traffic due to a violation of basic terms is the same reason Warez, Torrent, Password Stealing sites, and so forth have been banned from affiliate programs for a long time.


Look for an announcement about this in XBiz soon, I thought it was genious when I heard it, shit Shap even publicly announced that he's aware of their infringment but accepts the traffic anyhow. SLAM DUNK.

Plus keep in mind that AFF is now publicly traded, keep an eye on their stock price when word of the lawsuits hit wallstreet.

sry guys can't say who, I've said too much already. ;-)

This is fantastic news hopefully something good comes of it.

[Jace]

that sounds great, doubt anything will happen though, nothing ever does

[NinjaSteve]

It'll be interesting once we know more and see how things change if this goes further.

[wild_s]

Just in case...

[pornask]

looks like a decent spot for parkade

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Damian_Maxcash

I think the problem will be that sites like YouTube operate in a similar way to these Porn Tubes. Users put the content up and they take it down if they are asked.

This is a different lawsuit though. It's targeting advertisers who are making profit off other peoples copyright. It would be a landmark decision and I believe it would go in favor of the copyright owner.

YouTube/Google and others are never going to let their business model be put on trial. imho[/QUOTE]

There is already a billion dollar lawsuit against Google/Youtube by Viacom that will start in a few months. There are other smaller ones as well. If Viacom wins it will change the way tube sites operate.

[TarPy]

Originally Posted by Brujah

Nothing will change.

I remember back when I could type in Metallica MP3, and find full album MP3 zips, and open FTP servers reigned supreme.


How about those days when you could search "South Park" on YouTube and get every episode from every season.



um, why don't those things work now? I guess things changed.

[Sethseekstruth]

We'll see what happens..but the rich get richer and never go broke

[TarPy]

Originally Posted by StarkReality

Now, this is becoming REALLY interesting...

I mean, yes and no.

Perfect 10 established a while go, that I can't just promote Twisty's with Raven Riley content. Twisty's if notified of my behavior should terminate my account, or become complicit.

Nothing is really different here, the stolen pictures are now a movie, the stolen gallery, is now a flash player.


Why has everyone lost their damn mind, blanket content theft is blanket content theft. A Flash Plugin doesn't change anything about that.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by TarPy

I mean, yes and no.

Perfect 10 established a while go, that I can't just promote Twisty's with Raven Riley content. Twisty's if notified of my behavior should terminate my account, or become complicit.

Nothing is really different here, the stolen pictures are now a movie, the stolen gallery, is now a flash player.


Why has everyone lost their damn mind, blanket content theft is blanket content theft. A Flash Plugin doesn't change anything about that.

Just curious any particular reason you use me in every one of your examples? lol

[TarPy]

Originally Posted by Nookster

Very sickening to me being a really small guy in the industry and basically getting trampled all over. Looking forward to the article.

Exactly. While this is an "issue" for BrazBucks and Twisty's, with all due respect to their considerable content budgets, they have legal advisors on retainer.

For the owners of LadySonia, Cathy's Craving, Heather from iDeepThroat, and a million others, this is absolutly devestating.

While brazBucks can afford to ride things out for a few months, smaller programs and site cannot afford such luxery, and their is no reason they should have to.


I ask you, about the man who filmed his wife 100 times and just wants $25.00 through CCBill to see it all, What about him, Does he not matter?


This is worse for the small businesses than it is the large ones.

[RayBonga]

I'm short selling aff right now

[sortie]

Originally Posted by Damian_Maxcash

I don't think anyone can require you into enforcing your own T&Cs unless a law is being broken.

The copyright law is being broken in this case.

It is a law you know.

[TarPy]

Originally Posted by Damian_Maxcash

Do you own PicHunter?

You could say I'm a partner.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by RayBonga

I'm short selling aff right now

I love people saying AFF is public. How is AFF a public company now?

[TarPy]

Originally Posted by MediumPimpin

Tarpy please hit me up, I owe you money, lol

Werd, I like money, talk to you monday.

[TheAgent]

Originally Posted by TarPy

From their terms: "You hereby represent and warrant to us that materials posted on your site do not violate or infringe upon the rights of any third party (including, for example, copyrights, trademarks, privacy, or other personal or proprietary rights), and that materials posted on your site are not libelous or otherwise illegal."


It is impossible to concieve that AFF is not aware that RedTube, XNXX, and YouPorn contain infringed material.


As far as I understand, allowing some affiliates to participate in the program without adhearing to the Terms and Conditons constitutes unfair business practices.


Also, from what I understood, under the Perfect 10 rulings, if you CC your DMCA to AFF and Twisty's, and they continue to accept traffic from sites that infringe on your content, they become a complicit party to the theft.


HINT: If XNXX, RedTube, or YouPorn are stealing your content, CC their sponsors, because if B pay A to generate signups for B using stolen content, then it is arguable that B might as well steal the content under the guise of being affiliates.


PS - Tube sights aren't going anywhere, but their infringment needs to, boycotting of their traffic due to a violation of basic terms is the same reason Warez, Torrent, Password Stealing sites, and so forth have been banned from affiliate programs for a long time.


Look for an announcement about this in XBiz soon, I thought it was genious when I heard it, shit Shap even publicly announced that he's aware of their infringment but accepts the traffic anyhow. SLAM DUNK.

Plus keep in mind that AFF is now publicly traded, keep an eye on their stock price when word of the lawsuits hit wallstreet.

sry guys can't say who, I've said too much already. ;-)

You realize AFF and stupid law suits like this dont really send jitters in their stock price, they have powerhouse lawyers, they can fight these little shits till no end, its like going up against the Giant.

[tehHinjew]

so is that saying there is no money in making tube sites?

[TarPy]

Originally Posted by tony404

one judgment and the house cards will start to fall.

Yep, and AFF is a sweet target, for a number of reasons. Let's break them down.



1. Domestically based.

2. Involved in the infringement on virtually every site.

3. They don't sell porn, so they don't mind damaging the porn business.

4. PUBLICLY TRADED

5. Recently Professionally Valuated

6. Their lawyers will know they are fighting an uphill battle if they defend it to court, they have looked at this from penthouse's side as a content holder as well.


7. the MAJORITY of their business and new sales are NOT derived from Tube sites, and it wouldn't surprise me if a large percentage of their revenues weren't derived from sites with free porn on them at all. So, it would be easy for them to walk away on this small portion of their affiliate traffic to stay out of trouble.

[TarPy]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I don't think this is the same lawsuit I know about but I do know that Penthouse (AFF), SexSearch and one other company is about to be sued by someone for the same thing.

I would expect them to end up with more than one suit by the end of 2008.

[Shap]

Originally Posted by TarPy

Yep, and AFF is a sweet target, for a number of reasons. Let's break them down.



1. Domestically based.

2. Involved in the infringement on virtually every site.

3. They don't sell porn, so they don't mind damaging the porn business.

4. PUBLICLY TRADED

5. Recently Professionally Valuated

6. Their lawyers will know they are fighting an uphill battle if they defend it to court, they have looked at this from penthouse's side as a content holder as well.


7. the MAJORITY of their business and new sales are NOT derived from Tube sites, and it wouldn't surprise me if a large percentage of their revenues weren't derived from sites with free porn on them at all. So, it would be easy for them to walk away on this small portion of their affiliate traffic to stay out of trouble.

How is AFF publicly traded? Penthouse is a private company.

[TarPy]

Originally Posted by SpeakEasy

Interresting news for sure. AFF and Shap are morons and thieves according to all their own admission on this board. I for one hope this can work. I am not against tube sites as this issue is about thieves and illegal tube sites.

A Tube site is an video display website utilizing a flash player.


Content Theft is willfull disregard for law, effort, and ownership usually for personal gain.


Tube sites can't be stopped, Content Theft can.

[TarPy]

Originally Posted by Socks

Wow.. I think they can just say that they have special affiliate rules for certain situations through business dealings that exempt certain affilates from their normal blanket terms of service. I've seen TOS's that clearly state you can get in touch with the owners of the site before entering to attempt to work out their own personal TOS, but that it may not be successful.

My gut feeling is that it isn't this easy, and if sponsors want to accept the traffic, they can just change their terms to make sure they can operate how they want to. Why should they be liable? It's all about reducing liability.

I can't say that I'm intimately familiar with exactly what role the ToS is playing in their case, but it was meantioned that their specific ToS acknowledges outright that violating content rights wouldn't be tolerated, so it shows previous consideration of possibility that people may steal content to promote their program, and that the practice SHOULD be held as unacceptable.


Someone after you said, unless they are doing something illegal, in this case they are, so maybe that's where it comes into play if not for the reason above.