Over the thirteen years I've been in the industry, I've seen this same cycle
repeat several times. Free porn has been here since the beginning, and
since the beginning those trying to earn a living have complained about it.
Several things have been tried, only one thing has worked at all.

As mentioned, new laws have had little effect because they only hurt the industry
in the country that passes the law. This isn't speculation, it's been done.
In the US, Clinton did the CDA and COPA. That scared the _US_ webmasters a bit.
Neither was enforced much before the court struck them down, but we've
seen more enforcement elsewhere, such as what we've seen in Australia.
No law has ever reduced free porn, only made the thieves and webmasters
in that one country a little nervous.

There is one thing that worked somewhat well from roughly 1996-2002 or so.
It didn't eliminate "free" stolen content, but it did keep the problem under control.
Deny them the resources they need - hosting, advertising, banner money, etc.
In those days, the thieves were separate from the legitimate adult industry.
We would not aid or assist them in any way, nor would we tolerate anyone who did.
In that time, the thieves couldn't buy advertising on GFY, because if GFY accepted
advertising from them, GFY would then be considered to be in partnership
with thieves and no legitimate webmaster would have anything to do with GFY after that.

For a time, the thieves couldn't join any affiliate programs, except a couple
run by thieves who would themselves steal from the thieves who were their
affiliates. Legitimate affiliate programs would not accept them. If someone
started accepting thieves as affiliates, all of their legitimate affiliates would leave.
The few programs that accepted thieves as affiliates were scumbags who themselves scammed the user, scammed their affiliates, etc. so they went
out of business pretty quickly.

Same thing with hosting - web hosts would not host the thieves. If they did, the
rest of us had enough integrity not to buy hosting from that company. We'd also
send notices to their upstream provider. The upstream would at some point
figure out that providing bandwidth to that host wasn't worth the hassle.
Besides, if the host has no one but thieves as customers, those thieving
customers often won't pay the hosting bill, and those hosts didn't last long.

Same thing for software, etc. Don't buy or sell anything to the thieves, nor
with the people who consort with thieves. If the thieves can only interact with
each other, they will rip each other off often enough to keep the problem under control.

Not one person reading this can claim that they've done that to the best of
their ability, because you are reading this on GFY after GFY accepted thousands of dollars in advertising from a tube site. So if you're reading this,
you have not done your part.

You're spot on on cutting off the advertising - don't consort with those advertisers in any way,
and let them know WHY you won't promote their sites. Streaming is a huge myth, though.
It took me less than two minutes to go to Google, find a tool to save a stream, download it,
and start saving my first stream. The people who steal the content already have that software
installed, so stealing your stream is just two mouse clicks for them. This is such a rampant
myth, let me repeat - it takes two mouse clicks to save a streaming video to FLV. Streaming
does nothing but irritate the legitimate user who can't see your stream or wants to watch it later.
The thieves, the ones who rip off huge amounts of content, don't give crap whether it's set to stream, save, or play via HTTP. It's all two click for them.

it really to bad that what they are doing is legal under the safe harbor provision

Did I read correctly that the Final Solution is to exterminate the tubes? And both Germany and Dirty Dane's avatar have shown up in this thread?

http://www.gfy.com/image.php?u=29525...ine=1206248337

= more sales. :2 cents:

I seriously doubt there is even one single tube site which meets any of the four major
requirements of the safe harbor provision of DMCA. If they know about the infringement or
should know about it they don't qualify. If they profit from the infringement they don't qualify.
If they fail to register a contact person with the copyright office they do not qualify, and
if they fail to post notice of said registration on their web site they don't qualify. So every
tube site I've ever seen is disqualified four times over. The DMCA, as designed, protects
ISPs, such as your cable modem operator, from being held liable for what you download.

You are a fucking retard.

A) Even if you get free porn banned it would only be a USA law and everyone will just move offshore. Over half the porn already comes from outside the US. So now it'll be 100%. This solves the problem how?

B) You can't block sites at the ISP level. ISPs would fight this. Free speech people would fight it. Any law passed would be tied up in the courts for years. COPA was in the court system for 10 years. And if it did really come to pass, your deal with the Jesus freaks may not only mean blocking "free" porn but end up having them blocking ALL porn. Or requiring those that want access to porn to pay a fee to have it unblocked. Now who is going to pay for porn when they just paid their ISP $10 to unblock porn?

Your "solution" makes 3 phrases pop into my head

A) blowback

B) unintended consequences

C) The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Think about those before you spout off anymore retarded ideas.

Enforce 2257.


.

qft :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

good luck with that.

How's that going to work with sites hosted outside the US? Not to mention the whole secondary producer clause it total bullshit anyways.

last time I checked, natural selection is still in effect.

I understand your reasoning, but it aint ever gonna happen.


Jack

...and it favors sites that steal content and give it away free.