This was serious btw.

I ICQ'd you:) Hit me up and yes I can do some stuff for ya:thumbsup

:pimp:pimp:pimp

I see you are already a Bro ...

THIS IS WHY ANYTHING COMING FROM A BROKE AS A JOKE DESIGNER IS WORTH TRASH.


:1orglaugh

You have got to be the most narcissistic piece of Amerotrash on this board. The closest you've ever come to even running anything was designing for CE Cash. When was that again? 1931? You're so far out of touch, you've made a loop around earth and came back only to land on Idontknowshitville.

Fuck you're a tool. Go design some galleries.

Well thats quite a compliment. I was just a designer amoung oh 60 other guys world wide and 20 or so in the office. If I came close to running the show there I would take what you have to say as a compliment:1orglaugh

GO learn and struggle somewhere else little fella.
Adult is to hard for you and may not be your thing.

What I said above is exactly right, exactly spot on you do not like the truth and obviously can not handle it. Just because you may fall into the category of failing and struggling while competing with tube sites maybe you can take what I had to say and learn from it.

YOu are a pussy and coward. 21 Posts and you claim to know all about me... I can only wonder what fake nic banned loser mother fucker you are. GO die in a trench bitch.

yawn.
time for your lithium windbag.

Time for you to get banned...
I predict your fucking nic will fry within a day or two as soon as Ice and them guys sober up from WMA. You smell like DirtyF.

GO die.

Say what you will, but there's a FAQ that implies terms of agreement that the tubes are not reading or ignoring and their accounts could be terminated:

http://xxxpixhost.com/images/r9wm2f4v2iqehiq9mvc.jpg

absolutely not, there is no law that says it not speeding if you don't get caught
the two examples specify specific conditions that turn what would otherwise be an illegal activity into a perfectly legal business.
good to hear since you consider profiting from porn the same criminal act "living of prostitution" because you don't care about the "loophole" that made it perfectly legal

you should be quiting soon, i will take all your sites off your hand.
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


the problem is they do have a right to publish your content without permission
that exactly the right they get when they comply with the DMCA take down request procedure
Just like the court ruling in california changed what was original criminal act into a perfectly legal business.

I am sure the religious right was plenty upset with that ruling, but the law made producing porn a legitimate business. And the Safe harbor provision does the exact same thing for tube sites.

If you really want a shocking scoop, find a story about...

A) An honest adult program
B) A porn site that works hard to satisfy their customers
C) An adult company finding an innovative way to build business.

As for adult companies being shady....meh.

#50 pirates!!!!!

lol.. I know the thread is going to get intresting when Gideon posts in it

EVERY affiliate program would want their banner on any site, no matter what content - legal or not, if they had that amount of traffic.

The only things that keep some from doing it, is their reputation among other affiliate programs AND their other affiliates.

It all boils down to a cost-benefit analysis. Is the traffic worth damaging our name or not.
Is it worth loosing 10 webmasters with 5k traffic each, but in return get a shady site that get 2mill hits? YES !


In mainstream you have Social Return on Investment (SROI). SROI is not a topic discussed in many Adult companies, because SROI is a long term investment. Long term investments are rare in this industry, therefor the companies dont care as much if their name have a bad reputation among the crowd they are depended on. The units(webmasters) in the crowd change all the time, and when a unit washes away, so do part of their bad rep.

holy shit gideon you sure know how to reach... :2 cents:

"good to hear since you consider profiting from porn the same criminal act "living of prostitution" because you don't care about the "loophole" that made it perfectly legal
"?!?! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

what the hell are you talking about exactly, where did ebus say this? (unless you are bringing something in from a different thread)...

anyways, this is just silly talk, and you are just muddying the issue with ridiculous comparisons :2 cents:

does the safe harbor provision make their actions legal
yes
so they meet the first condition

does the site with user uploaded content have tones of unique content
yes

every tube site is fully obeying this condition and therefore has a right to use AVNADS.

AVNADS has a legal responsiblity based on that terms and conditions to honor any ad posting request of the tube sites.

Are you seriously that simpleminded, or are you just trollbaiting?

You are trying to quote me for thing I have never said.

I never said that "profiting from porn the same criminal act "living of prostitution" because you don't care about the "loophole" that made it perfectly legal"

Are you unable to have a factual debate?

No they dont. It's called Copyright

is paying for sex illegal
yes

is paying for sex if you film it for a porn movie illegal
no

one little act of complience turns an illegal act into a perfectly legal act (filming it)

is copyright infringment illegal
yes

is publishing allowing people to post copyrighted material if you comply with the DMCA takedown request illegal
no

that the point when the law turns an illegal act into a legitimate business and it happens to be his business (it fact of law)

when the exact same thing happens and it cost him money its a loophole not a fact of law.

That the point i was making and that is exactly why i put the little :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

after my statement because your statement is exactly the bias i am talking about.

IT just as bad as the religious right saying all porn should be illegal because the law that made it legal is really just a loophole.

but that exactly the point

tell you what next time you plan to film a porno
turn off the camera
pay the girls to have sex with you
invite the cops over to act as a witness and see how quickly you get arrested.

Without the filming of the act, everything else becomes a criminal act.
That loophole turns a normally illegal activity into a perfectly legal business dispite how much the religious right wants it to be otherwise.

The exact same thing is happening here

if the tube sites owner took content they rented from a dvd store
ripped it
uploaded it themselves and invited the cops to witness that act they would also be arrested


but as long let users upload the content AND comply with any take down request
the safe harbor provision turns that into a 100% legal act dispite the fact you don't like it.

"is paying for sex illegal
yes"

Uhmm Depends where you are at.

i'm pretty sure theres a good chance that you and alien q freebase lithium together. two of the most illiterate, partially educated, slow bus drivers around.

No its NOT the same thing.

You can not compare shooting porn to distributing and facilitating the distribution of copyrighted content without the rights to do so.

Its two totally different things.

If what you said was true, why do you think YouTube have had to GEO filter their content? and why do you think YouTube have payed a lot of money to stay out of courtrooms?

Do you really think their million dollar legal advisors would not have saved them those trouble?

your arguement basically boils down to if the law wasn't the way it was then they what they are going would be illegal

and all i am saying is the same thing that every porn producer says to the religious right
"but the law makes it legal so tough shit"

you keep saying that they don't have a right to do so
if that was true you could shut down the porntube with a simple reporting them for criminal copyright infringement.
The fact that you can't proves that the safe harbor provision eliminates that liability.

what you are doing is called a circular proof, it a fundamental logical falacy.


what the hell are you talking about
a US law gives them a pass, non US laws may not give them a similar pass
they have to geo- filter to make sure they are comply with each different countries laws

They geo- filter their content exactly because what i am saying is true, if they meet certain conditions what would normally be illegal is not illegal.

there is no way to stop from getting sued, viacomm case is all about dredging thru youtube records to prove they are not fully complying with the dmca
either by
1) youtube employees uploading the content
2) youtube employees knowing (not just suspecting) that the content is wrongly posted.

youtube is making the liciencing deals because it more cost effective to take a deal then spend the money in court, if they were always backing down they would have handed viacomm a cheque for a billion dollars. They fight when the cost of going to court is less than the cost of settling and they settle when the reverse is true.

That just good business.

paying for sex in Canada is not illegal :2 cents:


and just because the prostitution laws in the U.S. are fucked up and should probably be unconstitutional means nothing to this argument anyways

gideongallery you are so ignorant of what WE do in the adult entertainment business...since you are NOT a part of it.

NOBODY pays ANYBODY to have sex. Here is how it works: Two or more people have sex. Nothing illegal there. The sex act is filmed. Again, it's still almost a "free" country.
Then the participants are paid for the rights to the film of the act of them having sex.

No loopholes involved. No prostitution involved. No need for your crazy analogies and double talk b.s. It's nice and simple.

Now please return to your constant, annoying spinning of facts. It's always fun to watch you further destroy any hopes of anybody ever taking you seriously in any way at all.

Yeah this has alot to do with TUbe sites now! LOL! THere must be a connection somewhere:thumbsup

the point i am making is simple
everyone who is bitching about this issue
is trying to reclassify a legal business model (because of the safe harbor) with it illegal counter part (copyright infringement) by ignoring the condition that makes it legal

IT IS THE SAME THING

as reclasifying shooting porn (legal because of the first ammendment) with it illegal counter part (prostitution in the US) by ignoring the condition that makes it legal (filming it).

Both declarations are equally invalid.

"Filming it" doesn't make anything legal or illegal.
Paying for sex is illegal period. Paying for a film of two people having sex is NOT illegal. Damn gideongallery, why do you stay on GFY and show how little you are aware of our business?

uuhhmm, no. It's simply because you dont know the routines and procedures when you find unlicensed content. You cant take a site like that down with no warning

Let me describe the flow

Some user with a tube account get their hands on some content

Said user uploads the content to a tube <- here the USER comits a crime

Tube start to convert the video to their format

Tube PUBLISH the content and make it avalible <- here the TUBE comits a crime

Copyright holder finds out about their content being on the Tube and notify the Tube

The Tube now have two ways to deside on

a - take the content down <- Tube is now in the Green again
b - take it to court <- If tube lose the case, they must take the content down, OR THEN the site can be shut down


THAT is the only reason ILEGAL tubes are still online.


Now back to the Viasat Youtube case - its STILL being investigated if Youtube is doing ENOUGH to prevent ilegal content being uploaded.

IF they agree that Youtube do to little about this, Youtube have two doors again
a - new procedures for upload
b - close youtube as we know it today

Tubes with actual user submited content = near 0%.

Prostitution is "sexual activity in exchange for remuneration"

That means that the only way your legal pathway works is if you paid the person the same amount of money weather they had sex or not.

The second you establish a scale of pay for different sexual activities you are providing remuneration for sexual activity and committing the act of prostitution.

The reason why this normally illegal act is not illegal is because some pointed out that if
two people fight, that would be a criminal acts of assault/disorderly conduct, put them in a ring, sanction it and put it on tv and it called a sporting event (boxing)

and equated the criminal act of prostitution to the criminal act of assault/disorderly conduct.

It is what allows you to charge different rates for different levels of sexual acts.

for your statement to be a true representation of the legal conditions of the adult industry if a girl could show up on set, sit on the bed and not have sex with anyone and you would have to pay her the exact same amount of money that you would have paid her for having sex, (since you are only paying her for the right to film her , not the sexual act).

you guys don't get it, doesn't matter how shitty the conversions are the history of our biz is whichever model of free sites gives away the most content the easiest gets the most traffic, and will always become the new standard because that's how it goes. Traffic is king, even if it's shit traffic that converts at 1:50k.

And if there is no incentive to create new content, that's fine, cause there's enough content out there for the next 1000 years. User generated content is where it's all going anyways.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are so dense gideongallery.

Nobody is paying for sex. What part of that don't you understand?

The only thing anybody is paying for is for a piece of film.

A girl sitting on a couch doesn't mean anything. Where the fuck do you come up with these completely off the wall analogies? LOL

If I film that girl just sitting on a couch and then offer to pay her for the film...I will give her what I think it's worth. Nothing.

If she takes it in the ass from 5 black guys instead of just sitting...then I'm gonna pay her and the guys for the rights for that video. (and then of course you'll just steal it and put it on a torrent site lol )

I'm not paying them to have sex. I'm not even paying them to be there at all. I'm paying them to sign a piece of paper giving me the full rights to that piece of footage to distribute in any way that I see fit.

You still don't understand this do you? Wait, did I just hear a womans' voice?
Hang on...I did...What's that she's saying?

OH, it's your mom yelling at you to come downstairs for dinner.... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

gideongallery, you must either be truely unaware of how the industry and law works, or you are Donny's fake nick

ok i will conseed this point (even though i could make some fair use arguements that justify this action)

i can do that since this is arguement about the criminal activity of the tube site not the criminal activity of the user of the tube site.

Just like if little jim steals his dad credit card to signup to your site, your not guilty of distributing porn to minors, even thou you did distribute porn to minors.

absolutely false

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/27...eoh-porn-case/

search for veoh on gfy you will find that predicted they would lose, while many people made the same bogus arguement you are making now.
Guess what titan did lose so this is still not a crime
and this is where every tube site you are complaining about stops, their actions have not, nor will they ever become illegal because they take the content down.

that the point they comply with the laws
they are legal
avnads is supporting a legal tube site

but that my point as long as they don't break the law (go into the red)
they are not illegal anything
they are a 100% legal tube site
if they do become illegal their illegal act will shut them down so there is nothing to advertise on.

actually no they are not
viacomm is trying to prove that youtube current policy does not fully comply with the takedown procedures

every arguement made so far can be group into three catagories

(i) does have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

• trying to prove youtube employee are doing the uploading

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

• arguing that anything with john stewart in the keyword list must be copyright infringement (ignoring parody and other fair uses like baby john steward)

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

• arguing that porn filtering technology and procedures should be applied to all copyright material

something i already pointed out was not the youtube killer that paul markham though it was

Wow, AVN supports piracy by allowing tube sites to deliver their ads.

But wait, Cams.com and the entire suite of Penthouse/Medley sites support piracy because they purchase ad spots on tube sites.

But wait, GFY ALSO supports piracy because they allow Cams.com and AFF to advertise on their forum.

But waaaaaiiiittt, Playboy supports piracy because they own the company that runs GFY.

Whoa, just a minute, PornNewz... do you mean to tell me that Hugh Fucking Hefner supports piracy? Well holy fucking shit, this is the news story of the goddamn millennium, and you should print it...

On a related note, it's nice to see you have the journalistic acumen of a Yenta (when you actually do write your own stories rather than reprint syndicated feeds). I'm going to start my own adult industry news blog called Porn Noose, because I want to fucking hang myself whenever I read a "news" story from these 3rd rate industry blogs.

Once again you fail to understand what you read.

Why do you think I typed "published" in capital letters?

The VEOH case is about IO Group suing about transcoding. I'm talking about publishing for gods sake. Jesus christ it's like talking to religious fanatic. Read the bloody facts man.

The SECOND VEOH made the content avalible on the net, they broke the law - PERIOD. That is a FACT. Small crime, but still a crime

THEN - the procedure is for the copyrightholder to ask for the content to be taken down OR the host can be forced to shut the site down

VEOH followed the request and took it down fast.

BUT IO Group still went ahead and tried to get them hit for Transcoding. Noone but sigwhores and idiots would ever think they could get sued for transcoding. Transcoding have never been a crime and never will.

PUBLISHING content without the right IS


and paul markham... dont quote his name as he had a clue about anything.

you just admitted value (pay) changed based on sexual act
remember freeman got convicted in the begining

go back and look at the case and you will see that freeman made that arguement and he still got convicted.

the prosecutor argued that if you paid x (nothing in your example) to film the person not having sex with 5 black guys was x+y (something your example) then y is the amount of money you are paying for sexual activity (having sex with 5 black guys)

They won on that arguement and freemen got convicted on 5 counts.




the supreme court accepted that having sex on film was a first ammendment protected right of expression and that is what allows you to make the arguement you are making.

say for example the court had ruled that the first amendment did not apply because the founding fathers never considered porn when they were writing the bill of rights.

All that california would have had to do is make a law that would make it illegal to distribute movies with sex scenes in them and that would criminalize the entire industry.

Because the value of having sex with 5 guys would be zero and you would not be paying them for proportionate compensation for its market value.


ok back to the safe harbor

the parallel is same in this case

the tube sites are not violating your copyright
they are providing a service that allows their user to potentially violate your copyright
and blindly trusting the user when he says he is not committing such a violation

they can legally do that because the safe harbor provision says they are not responsible as long as they take down the content when the blind trust is not legitimate.


as long as the first ammendment is not changed to exclude porn your declarations make your act legal

like wise as long as the safe harbor provision exists their actions are also equally legal.