Manwin and Pink Visual Answer Your Digital Finger Printing/Filtering Questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Pushcube
    Registered User
    • Dec 2007
    • 54

    #406
    Originally posted by Dirty Dane
    If the tube host is not in control of user database, then who is?
    The tube host controls the bandwidth, load balancing and routing, not the user database.
    Server Optimisation - Pentesting - Secure WP Installs.

    Comment

    • Dirty Dane
      Sick Fuck
      • Feb 2004
      • 9491

      #407
      Originally posted by Nathan
      If we would remove all the content from a user we ban right away, by my understanding (but we are verifying this with our lawyers currently), it would remove our safe harbor under DMCA because it becomes selecting content at that point. It is not a red flag!
      What if the banned infringer also uploaded non-porn hollywood movies or underage content, but no one sent DMCA notice about that, wouldn't you remove that too? If not, what is "selecting content"? If you choose to let only porn movies stay, then you ARE selecting.

      I don't think any host lose their safe harbor if it's in their TOS that all content will be removed if banned or they upload something else not allowed. Maybe your lawyers should consult with the laywers for YouTube, Rapidshare etc. they do it without losing safe harbor. YouTube remove porn (select).

      Rapidshare takes it further by banning duplicates. Maybe that should be implemented too, beside the fingerprint technology. Then nick2 won't be a problem.
      Last edited by Dirty Dane; 10-08-2010, 08:40 PM.

      Comment

      • Dirty Dane
        Sick Fuck
        • Feb 2004
        • 9491

        #408
        Originally posted by Pushcube
        The tube host controls the bandwidth, load balancing and routing, not the user database.
        I licensed a tube script and have full control over database. Me only. Guess I licensed very advanced script then.

        Comment

        • RycEric
          Confirmed User
          • Apr 2009
          • 1313

          #409
          Originally posted by Nathan
          Eric, it is not hard to notice that you are not a business minded person. All you can do in these threads, although you claim you are this big awesome protector of the content, is be a little kid and call me names... do funky claims like....

          And other completely childish and useless comments. The haters in this thread might love you for them, but that is all you get from it... I do not fear you and never will...
          Fabian Thylmann, you're no saint or businessman. You don't have to fear me and I never once said you had to. However, you will fear what lies ahead for Manwin. I guarantee it.

          Comment

          • RycEric
            Confirmed User
            • Apr 2009
            • 1313

            #410
            Originally posted by Dirty Dane
            I don't think any host lose their safe harbor if it's in their TOS that all content will be removed if banned or they upload something else not allowed. Maybe your lawyers should consult with the laywers for YouTube, Rapidshare etc. they do it without losing safe harbor. YouTube remove porn (select).
            You are correct. Youtube is an example of this.
            http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_program

            Comment

            • Paul Markham
              Too old to care
              • Jun 2001
              • 52942

              #411
              Originally posted by Nathan
              Paul, yes it does apply.
              This was in reply to this question.

              No, you're wrong. You assume all the Tubes are subject to the DMCA law. Try enforcing it in Russia, Ukraine or any other country that does not give a fuck about the US DMCA law. Does the "available tech" stipulation apply in the EU?
              So a US law applies in countries outside the US. Can you explain how that works and does it go in front of the countries law?

              Also Atticus said this.

              "Part of the DMCA law states that to comply a tube has to take advantage of available tech."

              Does that mean you have use all the available technology or content owners have to use it to use it to police you?



              Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
              PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

              Comment

              • Paul Markham
                Too old to care
                • Jun 2001
                • 52942

                #412
                Originally posted by Nathan
                Regarding the posts about weird looking stuff... like the dates for uploaded and joined and so on... you all do realize that programs have bugs, right? Digging around and posting every little thing you find, is very nice of you for our people in Q&A (or very bad, if they keep missing obvious things and will now get fired) since you are helping them find bugs, but it proves nothing...
                So you have now had your attention drawn to this bug, will you fix it or hide behind the "bug" excuse?

                Also now you've had your attention drawn to these 2 people will you be deleting all their movies or hiding behind the DMCA clause that the content owner has to send a DMCA notice? Because from what I can see these 2 people are uploading content from many different studios.

                Both questions go to your intentions of cleaning up the companies act. Either empty rhetoric or a true statement of intentions.
                Last edited by Paul Markham; 10-08-2010, 10:23 PM.



                Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
                PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

                Comment

                • Paul Markham
                  Too old to care
                  • Jun 2001
                  • 52942

                  #413
                  Originally posted by signupdamnit
                  * = Actually if I were highly motivated I would crawl everything on the site at least once a day and log it all; retaining it. Like you say "bugs" always exist in software. If someone were hiding something it would probably be a matter of time until it was somehow revealed one way or another. Being in the right place at the right time would be invaluable. As well as properly documenting it.
                  I have little to do now I'm retired, so maybe it's a job I should be doing and let Fabian tell us all these nicknames are from before he took over, or he owns all the content or it's a work in progress.

                  Do I charge Manwin for this service.

                  Originally posted by Nathan
                  You are correct, I invite you of logging whatever you want... Looking forward to the outcome...
                  Nor as much as we're looking for the excuses that trip off your keyboard.

                  Can you explain what the term Private means in the uploaders history of uploaded content?

                  Originally posted by Nathan
                  just because some person uploads 3 infringing videos does not make all of them infringing. And DMCA tells us we can not select. Them violating the TOS gets them banned.
                  So the DMCA law prohibits you from banning and blocking a law breaker?

                  You're not selecting, you're deleting the whole account including all the uploaded videos. No selection of content what so ever. Can you point to the place in the DMCA that says this.
                  Last edited by Paul Markham; 10-08-2010, 11:11 PM.



                  Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
                  PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

                  Comment

                  • Nathan
                    Confirmed User
                    • Jul 2003
                    • 3108

                    #414
                    Originally posted by RycEric
                    Fabian Thylmann, you're no saint or businessman. You don't have to fear me and I never once said you had to. However, you will fear what lies ahead for Manwin. I guarantee it.
                    It's strange how people somehow think posting my picture and real name on boards make me scared, simply because they never would reveal their own names on them...

                    I am actually looking _FORWARD_ to whatever you are trying to achieve... I love these little fights, I love the courts, you will be shocked of the outcome if you try anything funny....
                    "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                    - Charlie Munger

                    Comment

                    • Nathan
                      Confirmed User
                      • Jul 2003
                      • 3108

                      #415
                      Originally posted by Dirty Dane
                      What if the banned infringer also uploaded non-porn hollywood movies or underage content, but no one sent DMCA notice about that, wouldn't you remove that too? If not, what is "selecting content"? If you choose to let only porn movies stay, then you ARE selecting.

                      I don't think any host lose their safe harbor if it's in their TOS that all content will be removed if banned or they upload something else not allowed. Maybe your lawyers should consult with the laywers for YouTube, Rapidshare etc. they do it without losing safe harbor. YouTube remove porn (select).

                      Rapidshare takes it further by banning duplicates. Maybe that should be implemented too, beside the fingerprint technology. Then nick2 won't be a problem.
                      Dirty Dane, as I have said in a previous post I am not yet 100% sure what happens, and we are checking with legal also if removing it would cause us problems...

                      And you simply do not understand what selecting content is. Youtube not allowing porn is not selecting content, Us not allowing non-porn or illegal content is not selecting content either.
                      "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                      - Charlie Munger

                      Comment

                      • RycEric
                        Confirmed User
                        • Apr 2009
                        • 1313

                        #416
                        Originally posted by Nathan
                        It's strange how people somehow think posting my picture and real name on boards make me scared, simply because they never would reveal their own names on them...

                        I am actually looking _FORWARD_ to whatever you are trying to achieve... I love these little fights, I love the courts, you will be shocked of the outcome if you try anything funny....
                        My real name is all over the web tough guy. Lose the threats Fabian.

                        Comment

                        • Nathan
                          Confirmed User
                          • Jul 2003
                          • 3108

                          #417
                          Originally posted by Dirty Dane
                          I licensed a tube script and have full control over database. Me only. Guess I licensed very advanced script then.
                          He said tube "hosts" not tube..

                          I am guessing he said this because the Subpoena is sent to Reflected Networks, which hosts Tube8.com. Instead of to us directly, which honestly I do not get but ok... I will let him play his games...
                          "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                          - Charlie Munger

                          Comment

                          • Nathan
                            Confirmed User
                            • Jul 2003
                            • 3108

                            #418
                            Originally posted by Paul Markham
                            This was in reply to this question.



                            So a US law applies in countries outside the US. Can you explain how that works and does it go in front of the countries law?

                            Also Atticus said this.

                            "Part of the DMCA law states that to comply a tube has to take advantage of available tech."

                            Does that mean you have use all the available technology or content owners have to use it to use it to police you?
                            No Paul, I did not say US law applies in the EU. I replied it to "Does the "available tech" stipulation apply in the EU?" ... has nothing to do with US law. There are similar rulings in Europe which make "available tech" stipulation apply...
                            "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                            - Charlie Munger

                            Comment

                            • Nathan
                              Confirmed User
                              • Jul 2003
                              • 3108

                              #419
                              Originally posted by Paul Markham
                              So you have now had your attention drawn to this bug, will you fix it or hide behind the "bug" excuse?

                              Also now you've had your attention drawn to these 2 people will you be deleting all their movies or hiding behind the DMCA clause that the content owner has to send a DMCA notice? Because from what I can see these 2 people are uploading content from many different studios.

                              Both questions go to your intentions of cleaning up the companies act. Either empty rhetoric or a true statement of intentions.
                              Paul, as I said multiple times, its a case by case basis, we can not simply remove all content, we own licenses to a ton of content so we will see what happens. The two users will likely get banned from uploading content again.

                              This has very little to do with intention of the company... For all you know, we own special tube licenses from everyone out there... Also, asking me these questions right now, is useless, its the weekend, I can not give you real answers and it takes time to get many of them... As I have said, we are changing various aspects of how the tubes work, none of that can and will happen overnight. Either you accept that or you do not, but that's how it is going to be...

                              I will simply continue on my route and maybe at some point more people here on GFY will accept that I actually am doing things... maybe not... and I honestly do not care much since I know for myself that I am...
                              "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                              - Charlie Munger

                              Comment

                              • Nathan
                                Confirmed User
                                • Jul 2003
                                • 3108

                                #420
                                Originally posted by Paul Markham
                                Can you explain what the term Private means in the uploaders history of uploaded content?
                                Private area of content only they themselves can view and share with friends if they desire, but they are not publicly accessible.
                                "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
                                - Charlie Munger

                                Comment

                                Working...