Lack of 2257 To Bring Down Tube Sites? - GoFuckYourself.com

amvcdotcom · 03-09-2010, 07:15 PM

There are lots of discussions on GFY about tube sites, if they're evil, how to bring them down, are they fucking up everyone else's money, etc., so I was wondering something....

Isn't it a regulation that a 2257 must appear directly on porn videos (on the actual video before any porn is shown)? I'm not sure I've ever seen a tube site where a clip had a 2257 statement before the clip's content began. If this is the case, aren't they in violation?

GrouchyAdmin · 03-09-2010, 07:17 PM

Tubes are certainly running everything lawful with the exception of the 2257.

amvcdotcom · 03-09-2010, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrouchyAdmin

Tubes are certainly running everything lawful with the exception of the 2257.

but isn't the lack of 2257 the point?

Barefootsies · 03-09-2010, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amvcdotcom

There are lots of discussions on GFY about tube sites, if they're evil, how to bring them down, are they fucking up everyone else's money, etc., so I was wondering something....

Isn't it a regulation that a 2257 must appear directly on porn videos (on the actual video before any porn is shown)? I'm not sure I've ever seen a tube site where a clip had a 2257 statement before the clip's content began. If this is the case, aren't they in violation?

Sweet justice.

Jdoughs · 03-09-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amvcdotcom

but isn't the lack of 2257 the point?

There is a whole world outside the US, most of which could care less what rules, or laws you want them to follow.

amvcdotcom · 03-09-2010, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdoughs

There is a whole world outside the US, most of which could care less what rules, or laws you want them to follow.

you're right...i should've said us-based sites.

Robbie · 03-09-2010, 08:40 PM

This has been discussed a thousand times. But here is the brief version of it:

User uploaded videos aren't required to have 2257 docs. It's a nice loophole that has made the 3 or 4 big tube sites a fortune. Not only do they not have to worry about copyright, but they also don't have to worry about 2257.

I'm thinking about putting a user upload button on Claudia-Marie.Com and instead of uploading to my server via FTP I'll just create a "user" nick and upload our scenes that way. Then I won't have to worry about keeping all these 2257 docs anymore.

And no, it doesn't make any damn sense does it?

2257 is SUPPOSED to "protect children" by stopping the bad porn people from shooting sweet innocent babies. Reality is...the ONLY people who keep 2257 docs are the people who have no interest in shooting minors. The real bad guys shoot 'em all the time and don't keep any docs since their entire operations are underground and illegal.

So basically, with the "user upload" loophole...any asshole can create a tube site make a "user" and then start uploading any damn thing they want to. Underage, beastiality, etc.

And the only thing that can be done is to have someone ask nicely to take it down (I don't want to call that a DMCA because it's not a copyright issue...but you get the idea)

GatorB · 03-09-2010, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amvcdotcom

you're right...i should've said us-based sites.

OK so you kill maybe 50% of tube sites at most.

Joshua G · 03-09-2010, 09:06 PM

dont count on uncle sam to do anything to help the porn biz. they made 2257 to hurt porno peddlers not help them.

pornlaw · 03-09-2010, 09:14 PM

And they dont care about 2257 and tube sites because they know its hurting the industry...

I have always wondered why a conservative right wing christian fundamentalist hasnt taken up this fight -- I saw that Pat Robertson's lawyers filed a brief in the FSC case supporting 2257. Why arent they fighting against free porn easily available to kids and urging the FBI to use 2257 to go after them... Strange world we live in...

Robbie · 03-09-2010, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I saw that Pat Robertson's lawyers filed a brief in the FSC case supporting 2257. Why arent they fighting against free porn easily available to kids and urging the FBI to use 2257 to go after them... Strange world we live in...

I think they are watching it destroy the adult business and are calculating that if they just let this go on a little longer it will do what neither they or the govt. were able to accomplish because of that pesky U.S. Constitution.

amvcdotcom · 03-09-2010, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

This has been discussed a thousand times. But here is the brief version of it:

User uploaded videos aren't required to have 2257 docs. It's a nice loophole that has made the 3 or 4 big tube sites a fortune. Not only do they not have to worry about copyright, but they also don't have to worry about 2257.

I'm thinking about putting a user upload button on Claudia-Marie.Com and instead of uploading to my server via FTP I'll just create a "user" nick and upload our scenes that way. Then I won't have to worry about keeping all these 2257 docs anymore.

And no, it doesn't make any damn sense does it?

2257 is SUPPOSED to "protect children" by stopping the bad porn people from shooting sweet innocent babies. Reality is...the ONLY people who keep 2257 docs are the people who have no interest in shooting minors. The real bad guys shoot 'em all the time and don't keep any docs since their entire operations are underground and illegal.

So basically, with the "user upload" loophole...any asshole can create a tube site make a "user" and then start uploading any damn thing they want to. Underage, beastiality, etc.

And the only thing that can be done is to have someone ask nicely to take it down (I don't want to call that a DMCA because it's not a copyright issue...but you get the idea)

good point. i forgot about the user-uploaded content loophole. well....not just a loophole, but it's also a protective measure against the unknowing bigger guy (like an isp, hosting co., etc.) getting fucked because of what a customer puts on their hosted website or emails to someone.

gideongallery · 03-09-2010, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amvcdotcom

good point. i forgot about the user-uploaded content loophole. well....not just a loophole, but it's also a protective measure against the unknowing bigger guy (like an isp, hosting co., etc.) getting fucked because of what a customer puts on their hosted website or emails to someone.

it not also a protective measure that what it was designed to do, of course people like robbie will always consider it a loophole.

aniloscash · 03-09-2010, 11:58 PM

user uploaded tube sites = legal

Robbie · 03-10-2010, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

it not also a protective measure that what it was designed to do, of course people like robbie will always consider it a loophole.

That's because scumbags have made it a loophole by using it as a way to get away with bullshit that honest people can't get away with. If it were only used in the manner in which it was intended then it would be just fine. But the fact that a producer is required to keep all kinds of records at great expense and possible prosecution and jail time from the govt., and then some asshole can just put up a tube site and an "upload" button then create a username for himself and upload anything without worry is not fair, not right, and it's destroying many of the major studios.

PornMD · 03-10-2010, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

it not also a protective measure that what it was designed to do, of course people like robbie will always consider it a loophole.

It's only a loophole because anyone with a brain understands that the "user submissions" on these large tube sites are anything but. No way to prove that in a court of law of course but cmon.

What everyone should be looking at is to see if there's any other possible industries where this business model of getting everyone's copyrighted content, using "user submission" to get it online, pleading ignorance as to any of it being copyrighted material, only having to take it down when you've been asked to, and making tons of money off of it. I'm not sure if there's other industries with this kind of business model but hell, see how well it works for the big tubes?

XPays · 03-10-2010, 12:24 AM

they have safe harbor if they have actual user generated content

Nautilus · 03-10-2010, 01:39 AM

They also need to be registered as an ISP with the US copyright office to be exempt from liability, which I doubt many of them did. They also need to show the lack of "direct financial benefit" from infingement, which is also doubtful when they're selling advertisement by clicks and damn sure they're directly interested in every click the infringing video can bring them.

Pink Visual vs Brazzers lawsuit will clarify alot of these points.

Tickler · 03-10-2010, 02:18 AM

The tube sites have actually co-opted the safe harbor for "hosts" provision that was made available for hosting companies. They are not an actual host, but only a website that hosts user content.

Maybe everybody should just file a 2257 complaint with the FBI everytime they send out a DMCA takedown. If they start getting 10,000s of legal complaints, sooner or later they will have to act, or else force the government to change the laws.

The same thing with using DMCA-512(H), maybe flooding courts with 10,000s of them would probably get some attention to the problem.

And as far as non-USA based tubes, a lot of them are based in countries where porn is illegal. One wonders if the mass copyright filings(30,000???) against heavy uploaders in Korea last year, had more to do with outing people to the cops in a country where porn is illegal vs. actual copyright enforcement.

sicone · 03-10-2010, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

... User uploaded....

Lousy loopholes

andrej_NDC · 03-10-2010, 04:51 AM

This loophole will be here until youtube and other mainstream video upload sites exist. Because all that youtube does is removing illegal content, too. They are surely quicker than adult tubes, but you can upload an illegal movie to youtube, too. They will delete it sooner or later, but it will be there for a while. And google has way too much money, nobody will make a law against them, money = political power.

rollinthunder · 03-10-2010, 04:54 AM

Adapt or die bitches

fuzebox · 03-10-2010, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

2257 is SUPPOSED to "protect children" by stopping the bad porn people from shooting sweet innocent babies. Reality is...the ONLY people who keep 2257 docs are the people who have no interest in shooting minors. The real bad guys shoot 'em all the time and don't keep any docs since their entire operations are underground and illegal.

It's not unlike gun control

gideongallery · 03-10-2010, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's because scumbags have made it a loophole by using it as a way to get away with bullshit that honest people can't get away with. If it were only used in the manner in which it was intended then it would be just fine. But the fact that a producer is required to keep all kinds of records at great expense and possible prosecution and jail time from the govt., and then some asshole can just put up a tube site and an "upload" button then create a username for himself and upload anything without worry is not fair, not right, and it's destroying many of the major studios.

except that arguement is total bullshit because the if you can PROVE that is what they are doing the safe harbor and this exception does not apply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornMD

It's only a loophole because anyone with a brain understands that the "user submissions" on these large tube sites are anything but. No way to prove that in a court of law of course but cmon.

What everyone should be looking at is to see if there's any other possible industries where this business model of getting everyone's copyrighted content, using "user submission" to get it online, pleading ignorance as to any of it being copyrighted material, only having to take it down when you've been asked to, and making tons of money off of it. I'm not sure if there's other industries with this kind of business model but hell, see how well it works for the big tubes?

your bitching because the concept of innocent until proven guilty
the fundamental principle protects people from being railroaded makes it difficult to procecute them.

of course that same principle keeps you out of jail when little jim steals his dad credit card to gain access to your site, so the question comes down would you want principle struck down for everyone including yourself.

gideongallery · 03-10-2010, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

They also need to be registered as an ISP with the US copyright office to be exempt from liability, which I doubt many of them did. They also need to show the lack of "direct financial benefit" from infingement, which is also doubtful when they're selling advertisement by clicks and damn sure they're directly interested in every click the infringing video can bring them.

Pink Visual vs Brazzers lawsuit will clarify alot of these points.

you really need to get a dictionary and lookup the term direct and indirect.

your grasp of the english language let alone the laws astounding.

Serge Litehead · 03-10-2010, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

except that arguement is total bullshit because the if you can PROVE that is what they are doing the safe harbor and this exception does not apply.

your bitching because the concept of innocent until proven guilty
the fundamental principle protects people from being railroaded makes it difficult to procecute them.

of course that same principle keeps you out of jail when little jim steals his dad credit card to gain access to your site, so the question comes down would you want principle struck down for everyone including yourself.

it is a loophole, because it puts blind eye on control of content and at the same time allows any content legit or not freely distributed.

Jack Sparrow · 03-10-2010, 08:56 AM

Exempt is the word for today kids.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

And they dont care about 2257 and tube sites because they know its hurting the industry...

I have always wondered why a conservative right wing christian fundamentalist hasnt taken up this fight -- I saw that Pat Robertson's lawyers filed a brief in the FSC case supporting 2257. Why arent they fighting against free porn easily available to kids and urging the FBI to use 2257 to go after them... Strange world we live in...

Can you contact me on any of the messengers, or can i contact you by those or email you?

gideongallery · 03-10-2010, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holograph

it is a loophole, because it puts blind eye on control of content and at the same time allows any content legit or not freely distributed.

copyright has always been a conditional monopoly people should always have a right to use copyright material in fair use(s) like commentary and parody.

the producers of downfall should never have had the right to take down the 43 video parodies before the eff successfully defend that right with this video.

if anything the dmca is to copyright holder friendly since they can censor such parody videos with no penalty until someone )thank you eff) spends 100,000 defending the right for themselves.

there should be a three strikes rule for making false takedown request do it 3 times an all your content goes into the public domain.

PlugRush Sascha · 03-10-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you really need to get a dictionary and lookup* the term** direct and indirect.

your grasp of the english language let alone the laws astounding***.

* "lookup" should be "look up"
** "term" should be "terms"
*** "the laws astounding" should be "the law is astounding" or alternatively "the laws is astounding"

I don't think it's very bright to call someone out for being illiterate, if you are illiterate yourself.

pornlaw · 03-10-2010, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrfrisky

Can you contact me on any of the messengers, or can i contact you by those or email you?

You can email me at michael(at)fattlegal.com

BV · 03-10-2010, 09:44 AM

IMO, the tube owners should require the uploader to post their 2257 info, since in this scenario the uploader is the publisher

gideongallery · 03-10-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktj4l

* "lookup" should be "look up"
** "term" should be "terms"
*** "the laws astounding" should be "the law is astounding" or alternatively "the laws is astounding"

I don't think it's very bright to call someone out for being illiterate, if you are illiterate yourself.

there is a huge difference between someone not knowing the difference between a word and it EXACT opposite

and a person gramatical skills are admittedly lacking because of a reliance on spell checkers /grammer checker(which unfortunately gfy does not have)

only a world class moron would not realize the difference.

MaDalton · 03-10-2010, 11:50 AM

"user uploaded" my ass - we all know that this is not the case. just gideon still believes in that and the toothfairy

there should be rewards offered to those tube site employees who upload the "user generated" content and are willing to rat out their owners - including screenshots etc.

gideongallery · 03-10-2010, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

"user uploaded" my ass - we all know that this is not the case. just gideon still believes in that and the toothfairy

no you idiot i am saying the presumption of innocents should work for everyone, not just yourself.

if you can prove they are doing it internally then you have no issues with the safe harbor provision
because it does not apply

your arguement is that i can't prove it but i believe it so let just punish them as if i could prove it.

Which is total bullshit.

Quote:

there should be rewards offered to those tube site employees who upload the "user generated" content and are willing to rat out their owners - including screenshots etc.

idiot if you ever bribed some employee to do that the tube site would simple claim you created the situation with your reward.

the employee only uploaded the content to claim the reward.

RegUser · 03-10-2010, 04:49 PM

can someone please post the link to legal statement that exempts user uploaded porn content from 2257?
I dont think there is any such beast

burntfilm · 03-10-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RegUser

can someone please post the link to legal statement that exempts user uploaded porn content from 2257?
I dont think there is any such beast

Good point - Sorta Nutto if you ask me.
In re. the assumed ignorance of the site owner - I'd like someone to subpoena the ip's of these "uploaders" and see if they're not the same as the site owners...

halfpint · 03-10-2010, 05:48 PM

If you think the current tube model is bad wait until you see whats comming.. A whole new way to make money using a specific advertiser which I wont mention here Once this gets out I can see a lot of tubes doing the same thing

And to be honest if its done correctly with purchased content (long movies) The user wont have to spend a penny, but the owner of the tube will make $$$

halfpint · 03-10-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burntfilm

Good point - Sorta Nutto if you ask me.
In re. the assumed ignorance of the site owner - I'd like someone to subpoena the ip's of these "uploaders" and see if they're not the same as the site owners...

The site owner could use proxies but saying that

I had a problem with a guy who exploited a script and attempted to send 500 of my members on a mainstream site emails to join a diff site which they claimed was a sister site. Together with my host we traced the IP back to the town in the UK which he either lives in or was using the computer from and found out which ISP he was using. I have since sent the ISP all the logs and the emails between myself and my host in the hope that they stop him from using their service. I know he will just go somewhere else if they do decide to stop his service but at least its a start.

pornlaw · 03-10-2010, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RegUser

can someone please post the link to legal statement that exempts user uploaded porn content from 2257?
I dont think there is any such beast

From the DOJ's own Small Business Guide to 2257...

Quote:

Q. How do eligible entities comply with the "safe harbor" exemption?

A. Entities seeking to claim the exemption may certify for itself and for all sub-entities that it owns or controls. Both United States and foreign entities may certify. In the case of a certification by a foreign entity, the foreign entity, which may be unlikely to collect and maintain information in accordance with United States federal and state tax and other laws, may certify that it maintains the required information in accordance with their foreign equivalents. The certification is to be signed by the chief executive officer of the entity making the certification, or in the event an entity does not have a chief executive officer, the senior manager responsible for overseeing the entity's activities. A producer of materials not covered by the certification regime as well as materials covered by the certification regime is not disqualified from using the certification regime for materials covered by the certification regime. Those entities who wish to use the certification process must file an initial certification within 180 days after publication of the 2008 final rule, that is, by June 16, 2009. This will provide sufficient time for entities to determine if they wish to certify and come into compliance with the certification requirements. Initial certifications of producers who begin production after the expiration of the 180 day period are due within 60 days of the start of production. See, 28 C.F.R. § 75.9.

Q. How is the certification enforced?

A. Certifications that are knowingly and willingly false subject the signer to criminal prosecution for making a false statement regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

Q. What is the required format of the certification?

A. The certification must (1) outline the statutory basis for eligibility for the safe harbor; (2) state in specified language that in the regular course of business, the producer and sub-entities collect and maintain individually identifiable information concerning all performers; and, if appropriate, (3) state in specified language that the visual depictions were produced outside the United States, but that either records were kept by the foreign producer on foreign performers or that the U.S. producer took reasonable steps to confirm that foreign performers were not minors. See 28 C.F.R. § 75.9(b) and (c) for the form and specific content of the certification.

Q. What are the recordkeeping obligations for a producer who is eligible for certification once the rule takes effect?

A. The recordkeeping requirements take effect at the same time as the certification regime. Producers who are eligible for the certification will be able to make such certifications without the necessity of having to comply with the recordkeeping requirements.

If you can fully understand that you are smarter than the average bear -- and probably more than 99% of the FBI agents on the inspection team.

Here's a link to the entire guide...

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/optf...nce-guide.html

burntfilm · 03-10-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfpint

The site owner could use proxies but saying that

I had a problem with a guy who exploited a script and attempted to send 500 of my members on a mainstream site emails to join a diff site which they claimed was a sister site. Together with my host we traced the IP back to the town in the UK which he either lives in or was using the computer from and found out which ISP he was using. I have since sent the ISP all the logs and the emails between myself and my host in the hope that they stop him from using their service. I know he will just go somewhere else if they do decide to stop his service but at least its a start.

Good to see you followed that through though

MaDalton · 03-11-2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no you idiot i am saying the presumption of innocents should work for everyone, not just yourself.

if you can prove they are doing it internally then you have no issues with the safe harbor provision
because it does not apply

your arguement is that i can't prove it but i believe it so let just punish them as if i could prove it.

Which is total bullshit.

idiot if you ever bribed some employee to do that the tube site would simple claim you created the situation with your reward.

the employee only uploaded the content to claim the reward.

thank god i'm done argueing with you personally

Hentaikid · 03-11-2010, 07:14 AM

Quote:

if there's any other possible industries where this business model of getting everyone's copyrighted content, using "user submission" to get it online, pleading ignorance as to any of it being copyrighted material, only having to take it down when you've been asked to

well that is the business model of all the file hosting sites, rapidshare megaupload etc certainly

gideongallery · 03-11-2010, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

thank god i'm done argueing with you personally

good to see that you finally realize how wrong you are.

03-09-2010, 07:15 PM	#1
amvcdotcom i like kitties. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Seattle & NC Posts: 886	Lack of 2257 To Bring Down Tube Sites? There are lots of discussions on GFY about tube sites, if they're evil, how to bring them down, are they fucking up everyone else's money, etc., so I was wondering something.... Isn't it a regulation that a 2257 must appear directly on porn videos (on the actual video before any porn is shown)? I'm not sure I've ever seen a tube site where a clip had a 2257 statement before the clip's content began. If this is the case, aren't they in violation? __________________ Email only: allen at/ amvc dotcom

03-09-2010, 07:17 PM	#2
GrouchyAdmin Now choke yourself! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 12,085	Tubes are certainly running everything lawful with the exception of the 2257. __________________ AIM: GrouchyGfy

03-09-2010, 08:40 PM	#7
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	This has been discussed a thousand times. But here is the brief version of it: User uploaded videos aren't required to have 2257 docs. It's a nice loophole that has made the 3 or 4 big tube sites a fortune. Not only do they not have to worry about copyright, but they also don't have to worry about 2257. I'm thinking about putting a user upload button on Claudia-Marie.Com and instead of uploading to my server via FTP I'll just create a "user" nick and upload our scenes that way. Then I won't have to worry about keeping all these 2257 docs anymore. And no, it doesn't make any damn sense does it? 2257 is SUPPOSED to "protect children" by stopping the bad porn people from shooting sweet innocent babies. Reality is...the ONLY people who keep 2257 docs are the people who have no interest in shooting minors. The real bad guys shoot 'em all the time and don't keep any docs since their entire operations are underground and illegal. So basically, with the "user upload" loophole...any asshole can create a tube site make a "user" and then start uploading any damn thing they want to. Underage, beastiality, etc. And the only thing that can be done is to have someone ask nicely to take it down (I don't want to call that a DMCA because it's not a copyright issue...but you get the idea) __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

03-09-2010, 09:14 PM	#10
pornlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,876	And they dont care about 2257 and tube sites because they know its hurting the industry... I have always wondered why a conservative right wing christian fundamentalist hasnt taken up this fight -- I saw that Pat Robertson's lawyers filed a brief in the FSC case supporting 2257. Why arent they fighting against free porn easily available to kids and urging the FBI to use 2257 to go after them... Strange world we live in... __________________ Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com

03-09-2010, 11:58 PM	#14
aniloscash Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,161	user uploaded tube sites = legal __________________ Got Milf Traffic Contact Me ICQ 473236446 j (at)anilos (dot)com http://www.aniloscash.com

03-09-2010, 09:06 PM	#9
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	dont count on uncle sam to do anything to help the porn biz. they made 2257 to hurt porno peddlers not help them.

03-10-2010, 12:24 AM	#17
XPays Team Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Inside the most accurately counting and reporting affiliate system in the world at XPays.com Posts: 13,002	they have safe harbor if they have actual user generated content __________________ InterNext Expo Domain Auction Live Now thru Feb 5 HuntingMoon GFY Domains Marketplace is LIVE XPays always pays! Top Site: * RealJasmine.com * + HotelHeiress® with The Paris Hilton Sex Video Insert the HotelHeiress® HD FEED into your members areas XPin.com Opening for Pin Partners Soonish Mainstream Offers For Emailers and DomainersNONADULT.COM Like Us!

03-10-2010, 01:39 AM	#18
Nautilus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,631	They also need to be registered as an ISP with the US copyright office to be exempt from liability, which I doubt many of them did. They also need to show the lack of "direct financial benefit" from infingement, which is also doubtful when they're selling advertisement by clicks and damn sure they're directly interested in every click the infringing video can bring them. Pink Visual vs Brazzers lawsuit will clarify alot of these points. __________________ . . FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote \| 100K+ FHGs \| Check recently added galleries New sites \| Pantyhose \| Nylon \| Shemale \| Strapon \| Lesbian \| Mature/MILF \| Anal \| Old&Young \| Gay \| Feet Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog\| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2) Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password. ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

03-10-2010, 02:18 AM	#19
Tickler Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 650	The tube sites have actually co-opted the safe harbor for "hosts" provision that was made available for hosting companies. They are not an actual host, but only a website that hosts user content. Maybe everybody should just file a 2257 complaint with the FBI everytime they send out a DMCA takedown. If they start getting 10,000s of legal complaints, sooner or later they will have to act, or else force the government to change the laws. The same thing with using DMCA-512(H), maybe flooding courts with 10,000s of them would probably get some attention to the problem. And as far as non-USA based tubes, a lot of them are based in countries where porn is illegal. One wonders if the mass copyright filings(30,000???) against heavy uploaders in Korea last year, had more to do with outing people to the cops in a country where porn is illegal vs. actual copyright enforcement. __________________ Big Sister Live - Live sex club paid in Euros Why all the PSYCHIC ads in the papers, and on TV? Makes $$$s on the web @ Psychic Access

03-10-2010, 04:51 AM	#21
andrej_NDC Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,760	This loophole will be here until youtube and other mainstream video upload sites exist. Because all that youtube does is removing illegal content, too. They are surely quicker than adult tubes, but you can upload an illegal movie to youtube, too. They will delete it sooner or later, but it will be there for a while. And google has way too much money, nobody will make a law against them, money = political power.

03-10-2010, 04:54 AM	#22
rollinthunder So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 359	Adapt or die bitches

03-10-2010, 09:44 AM	#31
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	IMO, the tube owners should require the uploader to post their 2257 info, since in this scenario the uploader is the publisher

03-10-2010, 11:50 AM	#33
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,828	"user uploaded" my ass - we all know that this is not the case. just gideon still believes in that and the toothfairy there should be rewards offered to those tube site employees who upload the "user generated" content and are willing to rat out their owners - including screenshots etc. __________________ AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003 Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you! Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

03-10-2010, 04:49 PM	#35
RegUser Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,472	can someone please post the link to legal statement that exempts user uploaded porn content from 2257? I dont think there is any such beast

03-10-2010, 05:48 PM	#37
halfpint GFY's Halfpint Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: UK Posts: 15,223	If you think the current tube model is bad wait until you see whats comming.. A whole new way to make money using a specific advertiser which I wont mention here Once this gets out I can see a lot of tubes doing the same thing And to be honest if its done correctly with purchased content (long movies) The user wont have to spend a penny, but the owner of the tube will make $$$ __________________ Get FREE website listings on Cryptocoinshops.net Last edited by halfpint; 03-10-2010 at 05:52 PM..