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

4FITTFY answers

I am not entirely sure if this whole collaboration is represented thoroughly, or perhaps I am just not fully understanding it. I would like for anyone involved to just correct me, and others, on any of the following statements, please:

1. Content producers are being asked to pay a fee to protect 10 of their videos from being displayed by the same tubes currently displaying them in an unauthorized fashion, and in full length.
2. With only 10 videos protected, participating tubes still have the ability to display the rest of a producer's entire library without authorization, unless DMCA'ed, at which point they have to remove that specific link to that specific video.
3. You must be a member of the FSC for the privilege of paying $450 to have 10 of your videos protected against the people displaying them. Anything else in your library is still fair game unless DMCA'ed.
4. Anyone can start a tube, create fake users (or hire remote users), visit the torrent and forums that are very rampant with piracy to grab content, then upload the content to your own tube, put a DMCA provision in place to protect yourself, and then join in the protection scheme to be paid to protect content owners, and without any upfront costs to implement the protection software.
5. The foundation of this system is one of bait and switch, whereby a full length video is detected and switched for a shorter one that is authorized.
6. The FSC has effectively given up on doing anything to close DMCA loopholes through legal channels and are instead using a technology to address an issue for which they themselves have little to no experience with, and using this technology as a way to bolster membership.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but this thread has certainly caused me to have questions. If I am mistaken on any of the above, by all means I'd appreciate the clarification.

Robbie,

So, Allison tells me, she wants certain content to remain up until they can test the fingerprinting with it, and we comply with her request and that somehow makes me a bad person again? You guys are hilarious...

DWB, I wonder, although I think it is impossible, what would it need for you to believe that I actually bought the assets? I do not particularly care if you believe it or not, but it might convince others too...

The fact that Fabian has stated that even if a user uploads 2000+ copyrighted videos he won't do JACK SHIT about it unless he gets 2000+ DMCA notices (which he hopes to come under the guise of the APAP/FSC finger print revshare dicksuck program)...well that pretty much shows you how honest this guy is. This is why we don't believe he has ANY intentions whatsoever to clean up piracy. And PV and the FSC are putting out press releases like we're all supposed to jizz in our pants because this cocksucker company claims they're gonna join up. In the words of Winston Wolf - Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet. All this means is that they'll have some bullshit defense to trot out in court should anyone else ever sue them. So all that PV and the FSC have done is given Manwich cover so that they are untouchable in lawsuits.

Great job guys! Why don't we just stop calling it a settlement and call it what it really was for PV....a big fat LOSS! And for Manwich a big christmas present with a very VISUAL PINK bow on top.

Half man, if or if not we delete the rest of the videos I can not say for sure right now... And if we will change that policy, whatever it is, I can not say either right now. I do not make decisions on GFY. I make them with legal and business advisors...

1) No. There are 2 programs. There's a program called "Media Wise" which does not have a monthly fee. This program works with the participating tubes & prevents users from uploading your content by replacing it with advertising content that you select. There's a completely seperate program called "Video Tracker" which is a tool that is used to track your digital finger prints on the participating tubes AND 16+ other tubes (and more as they add them). It's a tool for sending DMCA notices, tracking, data collection and legal evidence collection. This tool costs $450 per month. There is bulk pricing for tracking more than 10 titles per month. You can participate in just "Media Wise", in just "Video Tracker", or both. I've pointed out that the "Media Wise" program is the no brainer, as participating studios now do not have to even worry about finding and DMCA'ing their content on 8 tube sites, instead by simply getting a digital finger print (which is very simple and help is provided) they can replace attempted uploads with advertisements for their sites on the fly.

2) No. See 1. You were overlooking the "Media Wise" program and instead referencing the "Video Tracker".

3) Yes, the program is limited to FSC members. See DDuke's response as to why as she explains it best. The FSC membership rates are based on a corporation's size, so you can contact the FSC for the exact rates.

4) Correct. In that case they make a distinction between past liability and current liability.

5) All of that is decided by the content owner. I have a feeling content owners will get very creative in figuring out ways to best appeal to a tube surfer.

6) There's no point in the FSC making attempts to clarify or change the laws behind DMCA because it's a waste of money for many reasons. First, is the fact that there has already been plenty of case law established when it comes to DMCA and copyright law. Second, is the fact that because larger industries are impacted by this like music and Hollywood, they are fronting the money to make headway in creating new case law (although some times that backfires too). And lastly, is the fact that it's more likely Congress would make a decision that would impact copyright law and DMCA more severely then any case law would.

I will definitely admit that I'm not an attorney, but I've been through a handful of litigations and have been advised by both in-house counsel and top of the line, experienced copyright law attorneys and I can say with confidence that digital finger printing and filtering is a solid and thorough remedy awarded by the courts.

In fact, while this technology was in its infancy (2001), it was a court ordered remedy in the Napster case:

http://news.cnet.com/Napster-to-add-..._3-267997.html

Since then, it's use has only grown and improved in the mainstream

One remark regarding 4)
If anyone did a tube that way, ie downloaded content from torrents and such and put it up, OR even if they just scraped other tubes in an automated way, they are NOT protected by DMCA!

Implementing the fingerprinting tech at that point does not help them either.

Lets say Pornhub has one of our 40 minute long vids - your service can replace that 40 minute video with a 30 sec. promo vid? I don't see how you could replace one video for another on a tube site you have no control over.

Vittle, because we are actively working with FSC's APAP and are committed to it. The least that will happen is for us to remove content which is fingerprinted and the vobile biz settings for it say not to allow it.

Allison: thanks a lot for the clarification on the above-noted points. The media wise program seems to have been overshadowed/forgotten while the tracking aspect (the one with the fees attached) has been the primary focus -- at least on my part.

Well, the person doing this would certainly never admit to uploading the videos. But to not recognize this is happening with a lot of tubes I think would be naive at best. Between remote uploaders, proxies, foreign IP's attached to inhouse user accounts, and other assorted methods, to insulate themselves against claims that would remove them from DMCA protection. Thus, "claiming" it was user uploads would put the burden of proof back on the person claiming the infringement.

As a result, it seems as though one could certainly start a tube in this manner, gain some marketshare, join the protection scheme, claim they are going legit, and then get paid to protect content producers as a supplementary revenue stream.

Granted, I have no intention of tossing my hat into the tube ring anytime soon. But it seems to me that this protection scheme provides a financial incentive, beyond advertising revenues and traffic sales, for people to start tubes en masse using unauthorized content with the ultimate goal of getting paid to protect content owners from themselves.

It's an interesting scenario.

robwod,

considering scripts like mechbunny have actual SCRAPER PLUGINs to allow for easy scraping... just gotta find out if the app is active in the code.

Fabian says that yes they can apparently easily replace a 40 minute video with a 30 second one. However, deleting all the videos a user has uploaded....well that is SUPER DIFFICULT MAN.

Hmmmmm.

Half man, it is sad to watch how hard it seems to be for you to read.

Allison has explained the problem, as have I, if you do not understand it, go talk to a lawyer about it if you actually have the money to pay for one.

This whole scheme depends on thieves acting honorably -- an oxymoron in my book.

I don't understand why Manwin is going to all this trouble. If I wanted to right now today I could buy 50k full length videos licensed for tube sites for $5 a pop. Content guys are desperate, hell i was paying $5 a pop 4 years ago, could prolly get them cheaper now. Seems they are attempting to share the wealth, yet most are upset about this?