Dear programs. Stop lying to us about how watermarks are to protect your content. - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

HorseShit · 05-02-2009, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

And if I catch an affiliate doing that I'll term them so fast it'll make their head spin.

Who Cares?

LadyMischief · 05-02-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

You clearly don't read much..

I read quite well and my comprehension is fine. You, on the other hand, make it very obvious that you don't pay production costs, staff to maintain production, or do anything other than promote other people's products. That being the case, your sense of entitlement is astounding.

Robbie · 05-02-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

Who Cares?

My guess would be the affiliates who are making money with me. You know, people who are actually in this business.

commonsense · 05-02-2009, 11:58 AM

The collective IQ of gfy dropped because of this thread.

Tempest is the next minusonebit

BV · 05-02-2009, 03:43 PM

Watermarking is not too rip off affiliate sales, I want affiliates to make good sales so they keep sending more. duh

I watermark so when my stuff gets ripped off, posted and hotlinked all over the net you have a chance of getting something out of it from your brand.

Or when members join and download your clips and post them to tubes and torrents, whatever it may be.

I do disagree with sponsors that brand with a different domain than the paysite. That's flat out sneaky. I don't do that.

However I believe the main reason they do this is because they are lazy and it takes so much more space and time. A lot of that content is used on many different sites and to re-encode the clips with different matching urls takes double, triple, the time and space, or so on, depending how many sites.

For sure you don't expect us to put content out there with no branding at all on it.

That's the stupidest thing any site owner could do.

HomerSimpson · 05-02-2009, 03:56 PM

here's my

on this oen
for example we have paysite: SiteName.com

- watermarking content with SiteName is ok
- watermarking content with site logo is ok (if it does not contain full url)
- watermarking content with SiteName.com is NOT ok (traffic leak)
- watermarking content with SiteNetwork.com - also not ok but (traffic leak but not that bad as one above IMO)

CyberHustler · 05-02-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson

here's my

on this oen
for example we have paysite: SiteName.com

- watermarking content with SiteName is ok
- watermarking content with site logo is ok (if it does not contain full url)
- watermarking content with SiteName.com is NOT ok (traffic leak)
- watermarking content with SiteNetwork.com - also not ok but (traffic leak but not that bad as one above IMO)

quantum-x · 05-02-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson

here's my

on this oen
for example we have paysite: SiteName.com

- watermarking content with SiteName is ok
- watermarking content with site logo is ok (if it does not contain full url)
- watermarking content with SiteName.com is NOT ok (traffic leak)
- watermarking content with SiteNetwork.com - also not ok but (traffic leak but not that bad as one above IMO)

Set cookies for the watermark URLs, and the issue is sorted.
If for some fucked up reason you can't promote the network site, promote someone else.

Iron Fist · 05-02-2009, 05:30 PM

Well.. I for one could care less about content being watermarked.... because if any lawyer comes calling, I just redirect them to the sponsor. It really is that simple.

And secondly, I completely agree that since I had no hand in producing and paying for the content, I am merely here for distribution and promotion, I honestly can't justify removing the watermark and being able to sleep at night... maybe I have morals and it's just the right thing to do.

Thirdly, If I don't like a sponsors actions, I pull all links and move on to another one, there's plenty out there for the picking. The sponsors who know I am dedicated to their programs know who they are and I know they appreciate my efforts, as small or insignificant to the larger whales out there.

Anyways, just my

Robo · 05-02-2009, 09:35 PM

Yes, watermark on any content should be visible as some graphic logo of the program or some letters of for example program name or owner name, something like GFY. It should never be full url of the site. I never use content with url as watermark. Some program owners think that webmasters are idiots...

BV · 05-02-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo2

Yes, watermark on any content should be visible as some graphic logo of the program or some letters of for example program name or owner name, something like GFY. It should never be full url of the site. I never use content with url as watermark. Some program owners think that webmasters are idiots...

but it's perfectly ok for you to have traffic leaks with our content?
ie: tgp recips, free site recips, dating sponsors, etc etc....

affiliates abuse the hell outta that!
paleez, this has gone for enough.

commonsense · 05-03-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robo2

Yes, watermark on any content should be visible as some graphic logo of the program or some letters of for example program name or owner name, something like GFY. It should never be full url of the site. I never use content with url as watermark. Some program owners think that webmasters are idiots...

Some program owners are idiots, but nothing compared to the amount of mentally retarded "affiliates" out there. ALL works should be credited. Plenty of "affiliates" take quality content, crop off the watermark and use the content to promote sites with the perceived highest payouts. Stealing the works of others for profit, devaluing the content then anonymously movin on.

But no talk about that ... only "OMGZZZZ!!!! the watermarks!!! All my monies is gone!!!!!!!!!

This is the dumbest GFY thread in a long time. it's time to bump Steve Lightspeeds thread about affiliates.

EvilFubAr · 05-04-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

I think it's hillarious as it's someone yanking everyones chain by pointing out what's allready going on in this business on so many of the tubes out there. And in fact it's something that's been goling on for years and years now in just the regular TGP/MGP arena.. I see it all the time on gallery submissions and I usually forward info on those submitters on to the content/program owners I respect.

Reading comprehension really seems to be lacking with some people in this thread.. No where did I ever say to "steal" a programs content and no where have I said to use an ACTIVE programs content to sell something else. Good god people.

Right, so you are in agreement that content is stolen all the time, however you still think content providers/sponsors have no right to watermark the content?

Barefootsies · 05-04-2009, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexes

Why don't you produce your own content and paysite then sport.

Without someone those companies who build the affiliate
pay sites you would have no where to monetize your traffic.

This industry was headed to ruin when the war for affiliate traffic prompted
affiliates program to do everything but wipe the ass of any moron with an
internet connection who claims they are a porn webmaster.

Same with all the parties and conventions, giving away more and content.

05-02-2009, 03:56 PM	#156
HomerSimpson Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Springfield Posts: 13,826	here's my on this oen for example we have paysite: SiteName.com - watermarking content with SiteName is ok - watermarking content with site logo is ok (if it does not contain full url) - watermarking content with SiteName.com is NOT ok (traffic leak) - watermarking content with SiteNetwork.com - also not ok but (traffic leak but not that bad as one above IMO) __________________ Make a bank with Chaturbate - the best selling webcam program Ads that can't be block with AdBlockers !!! /// Best paying popup program (Bitcoin payouts) !!! PHP, MySql, Smarty, CodeIgniter, Laravel, WordPress, NATS... fixing stuff, server migrations & optimizations... My ICQ: 27429884 \| Email:

05-02-2009, 05:30 PM	#159
Iron Fist Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 23,400	Well.. I for one could care less about content being watermarked.... because if any lawyer comes calling, I just redirect them to the sponsor. It really is that simple. And secondly, I completely agree that since I had no hand in producing and paying for the content, I am merely here for distribution and promotion, I honestly can't justify removing the watermark and being able to sleep at night... maybe I have morals and it's just the right thing to do. Thirdly, If I don't like a sponsors actions, I pull all links and move on to another one, there's plenty out there for the picking. The sponsors who know I am dedicated to their programs know who they are and I know they appreciate my efforts, as small or insignificant to the larger whales out there. Anyways, just my __________________ i like waffles

05-02-2009, 09:35 PM	#160
Robo Just a happy man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ICQ 159948094 Posts: 10,889	Yes, watermark on any content should be visible as some graphic logo of the program or some letters of for example program name or owner name, something like GFY. It should never be full url of the site. I never use content with url as watermark. Some program owners think that webmasters are idiots... __________________ Always Paid On Time

05-02-2009, 11:58 AM	#154
commonsense So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,790	The collective IQ of gfy dropped because of this thread. Tempest is the next minusonebit

05-02-2009, 03:43 PM	#155
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	Watermarking is not too rip off affiliate sales, I want affiliates to make good sales so they keep sending more. duh I watermark so when my stuff gets ripped off, posted and hotlinked all over the net you have a chance of getting something out of it from your brand. Or when members join and download your clips and post them to tubes and torrents, whatever it may be. I do disagree with sponsors that brand with a different domain than the paysite. That's flat out sneaky. I don't do that. However I believe the main reason they do this is because they are lazy and it takes so much more space and time. A lot of that content is used on many different sites and to re-encode the clips with different matching urls takes double, triple, the time and space, or so on, depending how many sites. For sure you don't expect us to put content out there with no branding at all on it. That's the stupidest thing any site owner could do.