Yea damn the haters I mean it's the internets.. You have the right to steal anything you want and damn them if they hate on you.

You make a living writing code right? Would you hate on us if we stole all your code and put it on websites all over the net so for everyone else to D/L it for free?

Right on. What I was trying to say is that it is imposible to know if the content on the other tube has been purchased or not when you link to it . I am in no way knocking Amacontent at all, and kudus to you for working with him.

Take off your warrior outfit and re read my post. I didn't say I approve of stolen content, I just said you're damned it you don't and damned if you do.

No matter what, the people here blast you for running any type of tube.

Thnks for response BP, im a little wet behind the ears on marketing ploys but ill hit you up later when im done shooting. Im just tiredof finding my stuff all over the place free

Lets not fool anyone here.

Everyone knows that there is almost no licencing on those sites and a really good chance that almost all those videos were stolen for the purpose of gaining traffic. All the free loaders out there visit and that gets these sites a good Alexa ranking so they can get good advertizing money.

That's no secret...

Come on here.. No one is uploading to these sites except the people who are running them.

The purpose of these sites that host the 12 minute movies to to get high Alexa rankings to sell ad space..

They are the biggest cheats in the world.. You should never link to these guys like xhamster and and the rest.

It's not marketing ploys it's theft. Pure and simple. Why show any respect from somebody who steals from you?

IM not stealing from him.
Im stealing from the people who steal from him. Unless that is he sells to them in which case I am not.

I can help him get in touch with and get his stuff removed better than most people if he WANTS and I can help him understand how its all taking place. More importantly so I can more than likely get his content sold for him if these people are indeed stealing it. (which i hope they are not doing)

Yeah the whole situation sucks but for those willing there is a lot of money in it as well. At the very least I can get his shit taken down for him or get him in contact with the proper people. My network of people in all aspects of the biz is still very deep.

If someone is stealing from him I can help him get it taken down, or if he chooses get stuff sold $$$.. No cut in my part.

I dont want to see his shit getting stolen anymore than the rest of you.
The tube guys can afford to buy his shit this day in age.

If I find out xhamster is stealing content or unresponsive to removing anyone's content upon request I will indeed remove them from any traffic I send to them. Again, if anyone sees anything on my sites Ill do the best I can to assist you in getting it removed, getting in contact with the owners of the site, and if it comes to it blacklisting traffic sent to them if indeed they are unresponsive to your requests.

crazy days

One day they'll turn around, if not so already. It takes 2 to tango or content WILL dry up. The rest just copycats the new/old school sucess stories but forget about the laywers, accountants, fiscal advisors, notary and even business a whole in the end.
Many (not all) studios/producers started out the same way in this bizz many years ago
doing stuff that was not proper and some faded out and some even went IPO or got bought by other big companies. Same stuff for 22 years but just packaged differently IMO.

Fitty BP Sites:thumbsup

Still a thief no matter which way you spin it.

i didnt know that, i havent been to a CJ site in many years ...

well nice site(s) and very good script as well.
I like the "I am stealing from the people who steal" quote.

Boneprone is the original "bro", so he gets a pass. :winkwink:

FWIW, I haven't looked to see what content if ama's is on there, but he's had alot of blowout deals in the past, at a time when tubes didn't exist and therefore tubes were not excluded in the license agreement.....so it's not out of the question that the content was paid for and is being used in a proper manner.

They wouldn't be the first webmasters in history to not send content producers a list of domains they've purchased that they may or may not use previously purchased content on.

100% wrong as license states content must be used behind a password protected area.

2- ACCEPTABLE USES OF LICENSED CONTENT:

Banners and Web Page Design: Banners with licensed material on them must be linked to a site owned by the licensee, and material used in web page design elements must be located on a website owned by the licensee.

Thumbnail Posts: Up to thirty (30) images may be used at one time in a thumbnail post URL, so long as the material remains hosted at the licensee's site. If the material is to be hosted at the Thumbnail post's URL, then up to fifteen (15) images may be used, providing that all images are clearly identified as being from the Licensee owned site, and a link to that site is provided.

Movie Posts: Up to twelve (12) videos and a maximum of 100 secondes may be used at one time in a movie post URL, so long as the material remains hosted at the licensee's site. If the material is to be hosted at the post URL, then up to three (3) videos and a maximum of 30 secondes may be used, providing that all images are clearly identified as being from the Licensee owned site, and a link to that site is provided.

All of the material contained on the Product may be used as "web content" on up to twenty (20) domains owned by the Licensee. Licensee may distribute the product only via internet website(s) which are intended for end user usage only. Product may not be placed on a website with the intent to resell the content's use to other webmasters. Product may not be used on any type of leased product made available to other webmasters.

"All elements not used for banner usage or webpage design are to be placed behind some form of membership only access system, such as an Adult Verification Service, or a paysite membership system."

Ok, well then that definitely takes away the embed rights, although that can be more the fault of the person doing the embedding rather than the person hosting the video.

As for "membership only access system", that could just mean that registered users who create a free account can access the vids. Theoretically speaking.

Bullfucking shit, You sold me and several people this content stating in ICQ logs that they are fine for tube sites. I think it's time I contact my attorney and get a lawsuit filed against you, you have yet to deliver me a signed license. I'm also gonna find all the guys you sold this content to KNOWING full well they were using it for tube sites and the proof is in the icq and email logs. You were fast to take peoples money on your content deals but where's the fucking license for tubes you promised? If I dont get a license signed by you and 2257 files within 7 days I'm gonna file a lawsuit. Think I'm bluffing? Watch.

AMA,

Hmm. This is strange. Im talking to some large tubesite owners now and they say they bought your content for their tubes.. Maybe you didnt know it was tube use?

Either way Ill help point you in the right direction.

Hit me up in private so I can assist you.

you fail at logic :2 cents:

Yeah he agrees to whatever a buyer wants on icq or email until he gets the payment from them, then he changes his mind? LOL, I don't fucking think so. 7 days Ama then i meet with my attorney and for damned sure I'm gonna find every buyer you sold this package to telling them they can use it on tube sites and add them into the lawsuit. I'm not even gonna go into how it took you over 6 months to deliver the content I paid you for.

You missed my whole point, with this initial post I thought this was someone elses tube site. I gave permission to some companies over last year they can use on thier own tube sites. I didnt realize it was only links promoting someone elses tube site and I questioned if that was still cool.

Seems to me that this entire mess could have been avoided if you bought the content from Ama for your own tube site instead of stealing it from others.

Looks like a bunch of cans of a bunch of worms just opened up all over...

Looks like the big picture just went above someone's head here.

Read deeper into it. If you can that is.

you're actually way off :thumbsup

hey bros...nothing to see here.

see this is another reason why the DMCA needs a safe harbor provision. And why fair use has to be protected by the courts and congress.

Otherwise copyrightholders can simply retroactively rewrite their liciences to fuck over their customers.

He agreed that i can use the content unrestricted on tube sites and i informed him that i would not allow other webmasters to imbed the videos. He said fine, and has refused to send me a license of any sort and refused to provide me 2257 docs. I think there is a clause in the 2257 laws that address this refusal? I'll know more tomorrow when I call my attorney. Bottom line is that Ama is not a man of his word, he is quick to take your money for his content but does not deliver the content for 6 months later, then refuses to provide 2257 and a license. Is this someone you want to do business with? Boneprone don't refer him business, i made the mistake of selling a couple packages for him he promised me a referal for it but never delivered. Again the man does not keep his word.

Heres my point. I may be right, I may be wrong. Yes I gave a number of people to use the content on THIER tube sites. Sites that they owned. In this day and age I understand that. What I dont understand is how another site.. can put up links to those videos that the tube site owner bought from me. How I see it, the surfer or whoever clicks a thmb on that site..and the video plays. Whats the difference if its linked or not. Surfer still watches my video from a site that the owner did not pay for. But if im wrong I apologize to Choker and anyone else involved. But I will be talking to legal about this.

Understandable.
Embeds do seem a bit excessive I agree.....

Maybe limit your licence to not allow these guys to embed....

But getting them to limit people like myself from linking to their gallery or sending them traffic may be a bit more difficult.

Heres what Im saying.. im saying if surferboy goes to a traffic site, that he can click a thumb, and watch the video..and jerk off.. whats the difference if the owner of that traffic site hosts the video clip or its linked. Surferboy is watching it on the traffic site.

Now some may say well its same concept of MGPS.. but in my eyes its not i dont think. MGPS my license limits to a small percentage of the video for promo use ( by the purchaser of the content ) not allowing the traffic guy to show whole video from his site.

Once again, I may be way off here, im open to all constructive thoughts on the matter, but my legal will give me best advice

you really need to talk to a good lawyer because that licience is basically authorizes giving your movies away on every torrent site available
as long as the tracker is a private tracker (requires a membership to login/download the content)

so basically i have a torrent domain
i buy your content
i put the content up on my tracker
make the torrent file (pointing to the private tracker) and post it on every single torrent search engine out there.

and that would meet the condition of your licience.

so if you DCMA'ed anyone licienced torrent you just admitted your liable for all their losses incurred by that action.

In addition to the blowout deals, I personally have a shitload of ama content that I bought from sobegirl.

At the time I didn't realize it was ama's stuff, I thought it was Sobe's....but still, I paid for it and have a license to use it. (because Sobe had a right to resell it...although the asshole later tried to charge for the 2257 documents that didn't originally come with the content)

I know those two had some sort of dispute and I don't know what ever came of it....but that would be some serious shit that would cost a ton of money to litigate if someone tried to make me take that content down.

Anyhoo, I guess my point is that anything that was licensed before tubes and embedding came about is going to be a problem, if the licensor doesn't like the way the content is being used.

Once again SOBE never had resale rights to my content. Why do you think hes gone and im still here

Just another point ive only given tube rights to 7 clients. So its a small field to deal with. As far as Im concerned, you cannot link my content to any tube site videos unless im paid a license fee for each video. And yes I will be speaking to a good internet lawyer about this. If my attorney says I have no case, well then it is what it is. I will however not be rocking anyones boat and will contact each case i find individually as I have with this one here and have a calm conversation with that person..

So your saying that if someone links to my movie pages with your videos on them they have to pay you a license fee? So basically the content I bought from you only I can link to? So I guess if google or yahoo lists these movie pages your gonna go after them? Or go after me because I knowingly allowed google to spider the movie page? If this is your reasoning then your content is pretty much useless to anyone. LOL. My friend I STRONGLY suggest you get a competant attorney. There have been NUMEROUS high court rulings about liability of linking to pages.

The fact that you outlasted him doesn't mean everything he sold was stuff he didn't have permission to sell.

I remember you arguing on the board with him, and the problem you seemed to have was the price he was selling it for, not the fact that he was selling it at all.
If he never had a right to resell it at all, why were you giving 2257 documents to people who bought your stuff through him?

Here, let me refresh your memory.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...3&postcount=54

So in that thread you admit that you agreed to let him resell your content, but you thought there was a $40 minimum per set handshake agreement in place.

Now, today, you say that he NEVER had rights to resell your content. (thereby implying that I'm using that content illegally)

You sold me content directly before tubes existed, that you're now saying I can't use on a tube site.

Why the fuck would I, or anyone who reads this, do business with you again? With your selective memory and wanting to change terms beyond what's in the written contract after the fact.