Sorry but no. Search almost any term and you will see tubes at the top of almost every one. Do you really think no one has ever sent google a DMCA about pornhub or any of the others?

At best they will remove the one url to the specific content in the url, it will have next to no effect otherwise on overall search traffic to the main site.

No, I do not. If they did, you would see more people mentioning this in the past, across this board, in any number of a thousand tube posts other than me. I've obviously done it. Both sides of the issue to be exact in regards to Google, and DMCA'd according to the other tactics I have mentioned. I am not doing your GFY armchair quarterbacking of DMCA opinion.

When you have experience with the process, you come and let us know.

That said, they can be re-included (of you actually read the link that is) once they remove the offending, DMCA'd, material.

Unless you know what you are talking about in this regard, I prolly would keep the :2 cents: to myself.

No offense chief.

This is true.

if the fucking Jew mainstream entertainment mafia can't take down content sharing, porn tards don't stand a chance.

I doubt the surfers really care or ever stop to think about whether or not the content is stolen or licensed or anything else....they just care if it gets them off.

Picposts couldn't stop the linklists, linklists couldn't stop the TGP, TGP's can't stop the tubes, and the tubes won't be able to stop whatever comes next.

Similar logic to Karl Marx' 'historical dialectic': slave societies couldn't stop monarchies, monarchies couldn't stop capitalists, capitalists couldn't stop the Communist future.

Oh wait.... :1orglaugh

Just messing with you, Lenny. I get your point :thumbsup On the whole, you're right. It's the evolution of promotional strategies on the Internet. No one can really control the push-pull factors of content availability, social sharing, and technology. The key is to monetize it regardless of how it evolves.

The arguments that are being used against tubes are the exact same ones that were used against all of the other forms of free sites I mentioned earlier.
"Theft" seems to be the watchword with tubes, but this "theft" has existed on free sites from the beginning, it's just easier to spot now because tubes are so much easier to surf and see what content they have.
Plus I guess you couldn't really blame the link list owner or TGP owner if a site/gallery submitter was using stolen content, even if they knew the content was stolen and looked the other way, whereas the tube owner is hosting the content himself.
Other than that distinction the only difference really is the amount of content being given away for free. The reason free content was limited in the past though, was the expense of bandwidth, not the morals or business sense of free site owners.
$5/mbit bandwidth vs $150/mbit bandwidth is why people are giving away 30 minute movies instead of 10 crappy pics. :2 cents:

I remember posting movie galleries to The Hun a long time ago and being told on the boards that I was "ruining the industry" and "giving away the store" and "teaching the surfer that he can get movies from free" so now those surfers "will never join a paysite because they already jizzed all over their keyboards" because of the content on my gallery....and this was over a gallery that had 4 x 10 second clips 150 pixels on the longest side.

People who think surfers only buy memberships because they "can't get it for free" are mistaken. Everyone knows about limewire or rapidshare but Itunes has still sold 6 billion downloads.

FWIW, buying a membership isn't always the greatest way to get porn. I signed up for some sites recently as an experiment and it's a good way to get alot of charges crammed onto your card in very sneaky ways and you end up in members areas that don't have alot of content and are harder to surf than the average tube site.
Membership sites like those are a far bigger threat to our industry than copyright infringement, and that's a fact. Yet webmasters still send joins to those programs by the thousands while bitching about the tube sites.

Go figure.

HHHHmmm.

Thanks for telling me what I do and don't know about. I haven't seen Google remove an entire site just for DMCA only the offending content URL. That is just my experience that I was sharing but you know all obviously and I'm just a noob.

Ease back toots.

1. I answered your question. No. I do not think a lot know about it.

2. I explained I have done it. Both sides. So I know how it works, and doesn't.

3. Thanks for letting us know you have actually filed the DMCA, and know the process.

4. For the record, Google removes the main site's url from the index. Others remove only the link... Rapidshare, Youtube, etc..

5. To address your question of why some could be, or are, still listed ASSuming they were DMCA'd I explained re-inclusion is possibe, as provided by the link.

6. I did not claim I know all. Explained from experience.

7. I did not call you a noob.

Let's stick to the facts. Thank you.

bah, nevermind...forgot where i was posting


FIDDY! woot

toe say fiddy :winkwink:

:winkwink: ....................

No worries footsies, I wasn't upset just thought you were assuming a bit too much. I always enjoy your posts and I know you are knowledgeable guy from your posts, was only trying to share what I have seen happen.

I would be surprised though if any tube site that accepts user submitted content and that has large traffic didn't receive multiple DMCAs per week if not more. Let's just say one of those is sent to google per week. Delisting and reinclusion takes time usually at least a week or more. If someone was sending even one per week to google any large tube site would never have a chance to get reincluded in the index they would be constantly getting delisted and DMCA'd over and over again.

I'm not saying there aren't times when google does completely delist a site for stuff like this but I would seriously doubt that their policy is to automatically delist (the main url) anyone that receives a single DMCA.

It's all good BRO. I am not here to fight. I am here to make money.

Sorry for any offense. My apologies.
:)

Same here man. Like I said no worries, I know you know your shit and I don't get offended that easily.

except for that tricky fair use thing that automagically authorizes it use for such activity as timeshifting, backup and hopefully in the future access shifting.

again you can't licience way fair use if they could

counter suits like this one would not happen
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3777651

http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

and before you do the bullshit, sampling is obviously fair use, timeshifting isn't real dance you always do. The fact is there is no ladder of fair use, each is equally valid and has to be considered equally.

the irony is the more effective you prove this policy is
the more reason that the tubes would have to fight back.
if everyone dmca a site out of google then they would have no choice but to start counter suing to keep their listings.
Funny thing is counter claim notice is only 1 page long too, send that in and the list has to be put back.
The only way you could deal with it then is to go to court and prove that the fair use right justification is bogus.

I am sure the judge would love your ni gg a please arguement
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

that the point
BF is ignoring the fact that the counter notice is a 1 page form letter too.
If a tube site wants the listing back all they have to do if fill the form letter based on any of the fair use rights i have talked about.(with the relevant court cases quoted)
He would have to take them to court to discredit that application of fair use.

if anything this we are both scum effect makes it easier to defend your google ranking.

An answer to my question before..

:winkwink:

Goddamn you are ignorant.

Not one sentence in your reply has addressed anything I said. Your time shifting (i.e consumer use of backing up files on some internet cloud) has nothing to do with licensing of content to a company, and restrictions on how a client can use it (tubes, affiliates, distribution) as laid out by a license.

Learn to fucking read assclown.

I have gideon gallery on ignore, I'm not interested in people, who are here to share bullshit, I want to talk with people who are here to make money.

Wrong again bitch.

Can you fucking READ the counter suit? You have to swear out the affidavit that you have some kind of OWNERSHIP. Not to mention, this thread is about illegal tube content.

So let me point out the usual gideon routine.

1. Thread is about illegal content and tube stealing that content. Gideon defends it.
2. Gideon will change course, saying he does not defend illegal content but a consumer can cloud/timeshift/blah blah blah.
3. Nothing to do with O.P.
4. Gideon, as in almost all of these similar types of threads, is proven a troll as usual. He enjoys twisting people's words, the O.P. and trying to stir up shit arguing consumer use of time shifting. However, the argument does not apply because content theft is not protected by any laws of any kind.

The end.

from googles own site regarding copyright take down requests

http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/

http://www.google.com/dmca.html#counter

there is absolutely no requirement to prove or claim OWNERSHIP.



the reason i keep repeating myself is because you keep spouting the same bullshit again
tube posting is not theft it copyright infringement
fair use trumps all copyright infringement
you don't have to own the content to use it (see fair use trumps all copyright infringement)
if you file a counter notice, with the reasoning (referenced court cases) the next step for you would be going to court and proving that those fair uses did not justify the act of publishing without your consent.

where your nig ga please bullshit
or deliberately misrepresenting the counter notice by claiming that you have to prove OWENERSHIP will not work.

ok please explain how a member of one of your liciencees site

1. downloading the content from the members area
2. and using the torrent site as a tool to backup the viewing right for future download
3. or using a tube site to timeshifting his viewing rights to after the membership is cancelled

has absolutely nothing to do with fair use right of backup or timeshifting.

The tubes would have a hard time proving "fair use" when they are stealing thousands of images over and over again.

Content owners have the advantage in court, and that is where they should go for relief.

a tube site is now 'time shifting' or a means for people to back up their content??

Truly priceless.

So now you are saying a tube site is someone 'time shifting' or backing up thier content?!?
Fucking priceless. I would like to see how that one stands up in court.

My god your are an ignorant fuck.

So once again, you are blown out of the water.

Counter suit, to get re-included, means you removed the material.

I went ahead and underlined that for you, even though it is mentioned three times. Maybe you will actually READ it this time.

:2 cents:

Exactly right.

You have to love gideon's twisting of the words, and circumstances. Since he is not actually in this business, and does little more than troll this board spewing the same bullshit over and over in these threads. He has to twist all these discussions in a way that make him look like he has knows what he is talking about.

Kinda amusing when you think about it. But pathetic at the same time.

Tube sites are now a back up, like a hard drive? Pure comedy.

Sounds like a plan. If you have read a single thread he's in. You have read them all.

Same paraphrased bullshit and links as the thousand times before. Same twisting of people's words, the O.P. and situations that have nothing to do with one another. Just so he can repeat the same shtick. All this from someone not even in this industry.

:2 cents:

Well common sense says it isn't, and you and I both know it's bullshit.

But when dealing with the law it doesn't matter what you know, it only matters what you can prove, and this argument, unfortunately, could pass muster in court.

I dont think they remove the entire site, they remove the offending page. That is my experience when coming accross removed [pages when surfing anyway. It would not make sense to remove a whole site based on one infringing video.

Agreed.

A thing of beauty. :thumbsup

I do not know what they do more recently. I know Perfect10 had main site's url removed. Not the subsequent. Not just main, as well as many others. You can still find it on certain pages.

That said, and more REALISTICALLY, when I have had to do DMCA's. 99% of the time, offenders just remove the content, and apologize. It is that simple. YouTube, Rapidshare, whatever.

Few times you have to go to hosts, processors, sponsors, law enforcement and the rest. Despite these endless threads on GFY battling wet paper bulls in the dark about what you will do, could do, gideon's bullshit. 99% are resolved with one notice, and it's over in my experience. I've talked to others at some of the shows, and the say the same. Occasionally there is some gideon gallery asshat, or Pirate Bay, but most simply comply because they know they are in the wrong and that is the end of it.

my god you have the reading and compenhension level of a 5 year old.


this is what you do when you want to claim that the removal request is wrong

sort of exactly what lenz did in the lenz vs univeral case.

the second part (after the or) is the part you do if you backed down like a little bitch.

your absurd reading of the quote would mean they would have to remove the content EVEN if you had a fair use right to publish which would have resulted in a automagic win for universal. Guess what they lost that one.

Or simpler. They are giving the product away for free. Very tough to make great bank with this business model. Tubes make money but they make way less money with far more traffic then the older style marketing.

definition of a cloud (computing)

august 24, 2008 appeal court ruling establishing the right to timeshift using a cloud




it already has..

Agreed.

:2 cents:

You can't kill something people love.

I mean yah you can kill a person and they die and you can't bring them back.

But a tubesite is just a piece of software.

time for fake CJ tube sites.