Nathan / Fabian - Please step inside. Time to step up to the plate.

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.

Love you Steven.