I will say this much for Fabian...

At least with him "in charge" there is a pretty good chance that "Manwin" will end up bankrupt.

At least judging by his great success as a master businessman behind FAO Cash

http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=709857

Was it just a scant three years ago that you opened that up Mr. Bigshot?

Oh, that would be the same time I opened up Claudia-Marie.Com!

And her paysite has NETTED over 2 million dollars PROFIT for me in that time and is the number one big tit solo girl site in the world according to Alexa.

Meanwhile....what happened to FAO Cash again? Or am I not seeing that "big picture" that you are somehow so much smarter than all those of us who have consistently made millions of dollars over the years while you were an employee of other companies?

The domain is regged at eNom, they are known for pulling the plug on sites/domains. If enough people contact them and claim that PH has their content illegally on their site I bet they would act on it, hell just send them a link to this thread/forum.

There is enough proof to show that the PH owners know for a fact that their site is full of illegal content.

eNom will not be able to avoid doing something about the claims.

Basically sick the bitch on them...

Per PornHub.com TOS ~
"You agree that Pornhub may at its sole discretion have the right to refuse to publish, remove, or block access to any User Submission that is available via the Website or other Pornhub network or services at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, with or without notice.
Pornhub provides its website as a service to its users. However, Pornhub assumes no responsibility whatsoever for monitoring the Pornhub Services for inappropriate content or conduct. If at any time Pornhub chooses, in its sole discretion, to monitor the Pornhub Services, however, Pornhub assumes no responsibility for the content, no obligation to modify or remove any inappropriate content, and no responsibility for the conduct of the User submitting any such content. Pornhub may review and delete any User Submissions that, in its sole judgment, violates this Agreement or may be otherwise offensive or illegal, or violate the rights, harm, or threaten the safety of any User or person not associated with the Website (collectively "Inappropriate User Submissions"). You are solely responsible for the User Submissions that you make visible on the Website or to any third-party website via an embedded player provided by the Website or any other material or information that you transmit or share with other Users or unrelated third-parties via the Website. TOS

Uh Uh Uh, lawyer this and lawyer that. Tell the truth spanky, you will not pull down videos from a known copyright infringer. The truth is painfully obvious, yet you squirm around it. Just tell us you dont care if most of the videos are stolen, that you aren't taking down anything until someone sends you a complaint. That if you did, you wouldn't have anything worth watching on your tubes. I would be satisfied with that explanation, a business decision. But to jerk us around with what you have stated above is an insult to our intelligence. Either that or you are really a stupid fuck.

Ain't that the truth.

"You guys"? What do I have to do with the old owners of Mansef? Nothing. What you post here about people I have nothing to do with I do not care. Post whatever you want... but without knowing why this ever happened, you are just as uninformed as before. It has absolutely nothing to do with the tubes. Also, this is long over.

It's not my case, what do I care?

LOL.. you are hilarious.. I closed FAO Cash because I bought 2 other sites.

Robbie, just because it's on GFY does not make it true or accurate or anything like that.. it's really funny how you think information from GFY in any way proves anything :)

The 2 sites I bought btw, net me 2 million every single month ;) 2mil euro's btw...

Just since you have to through numbers around... obviously you will not believe that either.. since on GFY there is some post again that you will find making it clear that it is all a lie since, hey, its on GFY so it must be true!

Robbie, your 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. post above proves that you know nothing about Manwin btw... everyone that does is laughing their asses off...

As I said, none of your business.. Until you understand the size, which might or might not happen in the next few months, you will never understand me.

Not so quick couple of questions that really don't add up to much more then curiosity...

As a content owner do you ever or do you have staff that looks for your own movies being uploaded to the tubes you own?

I know that you do own the rights to these videos, I'm just curious if you have or implement ways (other then FSC software) to spot these video.

I know I would want to control the release of my own content that I give away.

Example: http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=1773892973
40 min video - sure it maybe a special user and sure someone may have authorizes the release of this video.
But I'm more interested in knowing if you look for non-authorized videos going live...

And if you do use manual means to remove unauthorized content, that you own the rights to, then what affect if any at all does this have on the safe harbor laws.
- Not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent -

Lastly it is commonly known that tube site get money based on ad sales, the ad sales are directly link to the videos they have
But they also make money based on upselling to their own services (premium memberships and sales to their own website - direct income)
How does the case "A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc." Not apply then?

Where the safe harbor provision was deemed void in this case do to 512(c) requires that the OSP, not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity. The court held that copyrighted material on Napster’s system created a "draw" for customers which resulted in a direct financial benefit because Napster’s future revenue was directly dependent on increases in user-base, because the copyrighted work did "draw" new customers, retained customers etc. as a result of the infringing material. IE. Paid for premium member ships...

I know these are not simple questions, you did not start the site you just bought them as an investment would not expect you to be all knowing and all seeing, this is why companies have staff.

These questions maybe better asked to someone in a legal position.
But thought I would ask you seeing as you will be talking to your lawyers anyways with regards to other DMCA legal questions with regards to removing content.

I'm in now way trying to pretending that I know anything about DMCA or the safe harbor sections I'm just seeking a more clear view on the subject. SO if anyone can answer these great. :)

Par,

If a video of brazzers shows up on the tubes that our brazzers division does not want there, they send a DMCA notice to the tubes. It's that simple really. And yes, they actually send a DMCA notice. We use the same means on our tubes as we use on any other tube. We being brazzers/mofos division.

Re Financial Benefit... it's tricky of course, and there is no good case law on it. Either way, Youtube is the same way and it has no problem with it.

The main direct link of financial benefit comes from a premium membership to the Napster service itself. Our premium service is not a premium version of Pornhub (et al) itself, its a whitelabel of moviebox.com.

that rich you keep arguing that nat is lying and has the full right to censor uploads, just because you can remove links to content on your tgp.

and when i put the arguement into context with your sites, you call me obsessed.

hosting vs just sending traffic is a huge difference.

your host doesn't have the right to simple shut your site down willy nilly, there would be one hell of a liablity for them if they did.

tube sites are asking for protection under the safe harbor by defining themselves as host, which means they also inherit the liablities (censorship) that a host must face too.

the point is if they do the hands off approach (wait for the dmca / send counter notice/ put the stuff back up if counter notice comes)

now this makes sense

Sorry this post will be much quicker then the last as its been a long night and about 9AM now.

Youtube = free no direct upsell to any service it has any connection to any sales made directly to the users. Its paid based on the AD placements.

Pornhub and Moviebox at the end of the day are connected on a corporate level
Just the same as Moviebox's video license rights can extend to all the sites and entities. Can it also not be said that Profits and or advances made possible from 1 division then extend to all directly and or indirectly at the parent company level.

Voiding the shell that Pornhub is not directly profiting from the Moviebox.
Even if separated by using different divisions/company names/bank accounts/workers..
The parent company is what stands to profit...

Or is it much more simple then I'm thinking and Napster would still be around had it just upsold its' users a premium download service that was owned by a branched off division?
Yet still owned by the same parent company.

I think this will just endup in an area away from DMCA and Safe Harbor and into the areas of dealing with:

Parent-Subsidiary Liability
Parent-Subsidiary Infringements
Parent-Subsidiary Assets
Parent-Subsidiary consent to commit
Parent-Subsidiary collusion
bla bla bla..

And this is not the road that I was looking to walk down.
I'm just wondering if it's option A or option B..

Because it's starting to sound like Napster would still be around making money had it just setup a division that handled its' premium users and setup the premium service as a stand alone site and just white labeled a copy.

And they only messed up the safe harbor part due to direct profit from members.
*selling of ad space is not subject to this. (youtube)*

PAR,

Moviebox is an ad Placement too. With your Logic i could argue that google, which owns YouTube is profiting from the premium services it sells and has more traffic because of YouTube.

Parent company or not, premium remains an ad placement. If someone else would pay our tube division more than moviebox it would be sold to them instead.

:1orglaugh

Love you Steven. :thumbsup

Nathan, if someone violates your TOS, I would think you could delete, ban or anything you want based on that TOS violation. Otherwise, why bother have a TOS in the first place? It then becomes a TOS violation and not a DMCA issue.

I know if I could spend 100+ million dollars on a company and had the kind of wealth you supposedly have, I would have my attorney on speed dial and he would take my calls 24/7. At the very least, take my call in the daytime.

I don't even have 1 million dollars and my attorney will do that for me.

There's no business like porn business...

Based on the photo that was posted of you before, I _KNOW_ you are pretty enough to want to fuck. And I mean that.

I could look at your pretty face for hours. It's so feminine and smooth looking. Your skin is so pale and soft, like a school boy. Seriously, you give me wood. And while I _DO_ believe in violence, real bad third world violence, I would _NEVER_ want to hurt you. Just the opposite. I would treat you like a like a fragile virgin school boy. Even your name, "Fabian," makes me hot for you. You're just like an innocent, bratty, little boy. Do you mind if I start calling you Pretty Boy Fabian? That gets me hard.

You don't have to answer this here (ICQ is fine), but have you ever had a more masculine and slightly older man cum inside your ass before? I think you would like it once you were comfortable with a big strong cock in your ass.

All piracy, thieving, lying, cheating and scum-baggery aside, if you ever want to hook up, ICQ me. I _WILL_ turn you out.

I just wanted to quote that again, thanks Charlie.

Forget DMCA, it is in violation of their site terms.


Anything that violates their TOS should supersede a DMCA, as it has broken their site terms and at that point has nothing to do with DMCA, it is simply a matter of a user who violated the rules of the site, which at that time Pornhub or whoever *may* at their sole discretion to pretty much to anything they want. That is the reason for TERMS.

I find it absolutely hilarious that a guy, a programmer nonetheless, can buy such an expensive criminal enterprise... I mean business, and have absolutely no clue over the day to day operations of it or even who in the FBI you have contact with to report child porn when it's uploaded. Both a programmer and a man of such wealth has to pay attention to details, that is why they can do what they do. How can you delegate responsibilities if you don't even know why the fuck is going on or what you can and can not do? Don't worry, no answer is required until you check with the attorney about what you should say.

Regardless of all that, I'd still like to cum in Nathan's ass.

I uploaded some of my promo videos for Astral Blue on Youtube. They were very soft and softer than some of the stuff on Youtube. Got a complaint on one video and the lot came down. No DMCA, notification or anything. The only problem I expect was the advert at the front and back. A static picture with the URL. I broke their TOS and everything came down.

Fabian is full of it as usual. Or Youtube are breaking the law.

I'm afraid that pic that was posted is rather old :( So I am not sure if you would still like my ass so much when you see me in person I'm afraid :/

When you think about it for 5 minutes it becomes clear Fabian is full of shit or just lying.

An owner of a site can take down anything he sees fit to. If not Youtube would of been put over a barrel time and time again. Site owner have been deleting content after it was put up for as long as these UGC sites have existed.

Fabian seems very clued in about other aspects of the DMCA, yet clueless on this one. Even when told it's pirated and he checked it's pirated, it stay up.

You don't know Dirty White Boy very well do you? :1orglaugh

i don't even know why 'nathan' posts here. where is everyone going with this? they are stinking rich and couldn't give a fuck. who knows where they got all the money to start out but for the most part, it seems these illegal tube profiteers are the same kind of people who would rob banks if they could find a legal loophole that would let them get away with it.

I will bow to your knowledge of employing a service to upload videos. :1orglaugh

If you could spend 100+ million dollars to buy a company would you be going back and forth on GFY? But maybe if you are paid to play someone who paid 100+ million dollars then being a GFY is just the avg work day.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You have a young face, will age very well. I bet you're still quite a hottie.

For the records, if I had 100 million dollars, none of you would ever see or hear from my monkey ass again.

Seriously, that is a LOT of money. How much more do you need before you just go do fun shit all the time with your family? I know I wouldn't be on GFY, that is for damn sure.

aw come on manwin appeared just mansef was coming under pressure from lawsuits, the feds and were the subject of a investigative series in their local paper.

sure the paper trails is long and deep and clouded now. nathan is just the pr man of this new entity.

I'm a horribly bad pr man :( Good thing that we have someone else actually in charge of PR other than me...

I'm just a bored person on days where I have little to do, like the weekend... so I sit on GFY and post, you should notice that I post more on weekends and on holidays than on other days, far more actually...

But I can not expect you guys to think for yourselves obviously... much easier to just claim that noone in their right mind that has enough money to buy something like Mansef would actually spend time on GFY... I've been here from ages, just because I found a way to grow my business very well does not mean I have to run away and all of a sudden hide, especially when the subject is stuff that applies to me... heck, people are posting my full name and pictures of myself here, you guys are like stalkers <G>

Why would I not be replying to you... Got nothing better to do right now :/ Late in europe, holiday in North America :/

And waiting for something fun to happen very close to times square today.. so I have to stay up :)

Actually, in case of TopBucks, I was specifically asked not to take it down yet. In terms of BangBros, never said it was pirated, just said we had no license for it. Not the same thing obviously... but I know I do not have to explain that one to you...

you can't tos away fair use
which means if they take it down as TOS and the court ultimately rule that posting was covered by fair use (ala commentary was extended to include that) then manwin would be liable

if they wait for the DMCA then the copyright holder who issued the takedown notice has the liability

http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/l...opg_v_diebold/

what nat is defending is just smart business, if the copyright holder truely believes that commentary will never be extended to that level, then let them take the liability for it

if they do let the content stay up.

manwin washes their hands of it accept non of the liability from either side of the arguement

he would be a world class moron to do anything else.

Regardless of where anyone stands, good to see some spirited debate going on at the GFY....:winkwink:

no shit you mean tubes really steal content?!?!!!!!111111

it would take a lot less than 100 million dollars to make me never come back here or to my office - the second it hits my bank account you will only see a cloud of dust which is me running as fast as i can :1orglaugh

gfy is my family

Indeed. :2 cents:

fabian is fatfoo

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Technical glitch? I'm just sayin...