-
-
A few quotes from Nathan:
"Hi Dean, my real name is Fabian, Nathan is my nickname I use online since I am 16. It stuck
I would be lying if I claimed I do not somewhat profit from stolen content."
"I will even let you say I am an unethical person. In that small regard I will have to then say I am. My tubes make up 1/4 of my business, and as I said 20% of that might be stolen content. So yes, in terms of 5% of my business, I am unethical. I know a lot more unethical people in this business."
"I think there is noone as honest as me ;) Profiting from stolen content comes with the territory and is not being done on purpose..."
"You might think I am unethical... I for me disagree..."Comment
-
his backpeddling is part of the public record
he went from agreeing to handle all the day to day operations of the join venture
to demanding that i do the day to day submissions to the tube sites /torrent sites,
the day to day maintance of the private tracker, hell he even wanted me to hire and shoot the content.
given the fact he claimed he had done product placement before (and then later admitted that when he tried no one would even consider doing the deal because he stupidly tried to get mainstream companies product placement) i suspect doc thought i was just going to show him stuff he already knew how to do, he do all the work (which he already knew how to do ) and he have to give me 50%.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
I'd wager that number to be significantly higher. 20% might be accurate for the content added over the last couple of months, but not even close for the pre-existing libraries.Originally posted by NathanComment
-
You call 1 (one) video = all? If it was copyright infringement, then the video wouldn't be there for your "proof".
Alprazolam is right. They can remove 'all' videos, and they do, if they ban a user when their policy is the three-strike. They 'can', which is the point, no law prevent them from doing that with a "consequense" as claimed.
Try it yourself: Upload 10 movies, where 8 violate their TOS/infringe, and I can guarantee they will also remove the last 2 after you are banned
Comment
-
That the point you moron, youtube does not remove all the videos from an account when they ban someone
yes that person can't post anymore, but non infringing videos stay up
they appear orphanned just like the example i gave you
Only the offending videos are remove period
you can't be that stupidAlprazolam is right. They can remove 'all' videos, and they do, if they ban a user when their policy is the three-strike. They 'can', which is the point, no law prevent them from doing that with a "consequense" as claimed.
Try it yourself: Upload 10 movies, where 8 violate their TOS/infringe, and I can guarantee they will also remove the last 2 after you are banned
you actually trying to claim that you can TOS criminal and civil liablities
news flash when the law conflicts with TOS the TOS loses.
as i pointed out if TOS supercede the law eharmony would have spent 2 million dollar defending/settling a case for not providing their service to gay people
if youtube dropped the non offending videos, the videos that in no way shape or form violated their TOS,
1. present the proof that they didn't do for a white person posting
2. ask them to explain why they suddenly decide to treat a visible minority differently
and if you don't think i could sue them for being inconsistant when race is they only difference (all my videos got banned, only the offending ones did for the white person) you are a world class moron.
If gay people can force eharmony, to pay them thousands of dollars, and setup a money losing business just to comply with anti discrimination laws, imagine the pain a visible minority can cause.
youtube couldn't act inconsistant like your claiming they can, the fact that i produced one example of a video staying up proves that youtube policy is to only remove the offending videos and to leave the non offending ones up until they have a community complaint to blame.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
gideongallery are you stupid? Nathan claims they can't remove all movies from a banned user because that could "bring legal trouble".
Bullshit.
This is what they write on TOS at PornHub:
They write it themselves: For ANY or NO reason at all. They can do WHATEVER they want!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.
They are saying to uploaders they can, but here they say they can't?
No law or no laywer will tell you that you can't moderate and remove user submitted content if they violated TOS. Like PornHub says; you do NOT need a reason. Youtube can remove, Rapidshare can, you can remove all spam from one spammer on your blog without looking at all posts. It happens every day. So stop bullshitting.Last edited by Dirty Dane; 11-09-2010, 09:36 PM.Comment
-
Again more or less ripped out of context dean, but you know that yourself.
The best part though is, that most people understand how I meant this and why I said it.
As your paste says, it cokes with the territory, it is not done on purpose. If we want to run tubes, then we need dmca protection, we have no other choice. And as the paste also said, it 'might' be stolen content. We simply do not know.
I think at some point in the future I might have to talk at one of the next shows about why dmca exists and what finer repercussions it brings with which most people posting here do not understand."Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
Why does your TOS say something different than you say here:
You can remove submission for NO reason at all, but here you say you can't?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.Comment
-
Please do. That would be the icing on the shit cake.
However, at this point we have moved beyond DMCA and are talking about your TOS. Why have terms at all and state you can remove anything for any reason, if you now say DMCA forbids you from following your own terms? That doesn't make much sense.
Your own terms were not taken out of context.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.
This was really the reason of this thread to begin with.Comment
-
we have had this arguement before when you attempted to claim that you could use the TOS away fair use right like backupgideongallery are you stupid? Nathan claims they can't remove all movies from a banned user because that could "bring legal trouble".
Bullshit.
This is what they write on TOS at PornHub:
They write it themselves: For ANY or NO reason at all. They can do WHATEVER they want!
They are saying to uploaders they can, but here they say they can't?
No law or no laywer will tell you that you can't moderate and remove user submitted content if they violated TOS. Like PornHub says; you do NOT need a reason. Youtube can remove, Rapidshare can, you can remove all spam from one spammer on your blog without looking at all posts. It happens every day. So stop bullshitting.
you can't TOS away your legal liablities under the law, if your TOS violate the law, the LAW wins and the TOS is invalid.
try it yourself, put in your TOS your allowed to distribute Kiddie porn
and none of the content can be used as evidence against you in a trial
see how quickly your ass goes to jail
it court cost inflater, it will not win in court, it just will increase the cost of bringing a lawsuit.
You would have to prove that the TOS violates the law to get around the blanket we can do anything clause.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
see above post for explainationPlease do. That would be the icing on the shit cake.
However, at this point we have moved beyond DMCA and are talking about your TOS. Why have terms at all and state you can remove anything for any reason, if you now say DMCA forbids you from following your own terms? That doesn't make much sense.
Your own terms were not taken out of context.
This was really the reason of this thread to begin with.
TOS does not nor will it supercede the law
if the law says something is wrong, and your TOS says that it ok, your TOS becomes invalid PERIOD.
That how the law works.
imagine a world where TOS supercede the law, you could get with any crime you wanted.
Bury a clause that says you can charge anything you want to a persons credit card, and you could bang a customers card for hundreds of dollars, for a site you advertise as free.
want to commit murder, just put it in your TOS that your allowed to kill them,
fair use would be totally useless, since you could simple TOS any fair use you wanted.
Hell the fair use cases i keep showing you guys prove that TOS can't supercede the law
if TOS could over write the law, then universal could have put a TOS warning at the begining of all their shows, and the timeshifting of that show would be illegal.
If TOS could over writhe the law, sony could have put a TOS on the back of the CD and it would have been illegal to rip them to MP3.
in fact the original microsoft TOS disallowed making copies of Windows 95 and they got sued were forced to change it to "making illegal copies" and had to pay out millions in damages to Americans who had to buy backup for 19.95 from microsoft (something like $75 per person after legal cost were included)
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
The whole fucking point of this tap dance gideon and nathan is that you PROFIT from STOLEN content. It is NOT in your BEST interest to do the RIGHT thing. You know very well an INDIVIDUAL surfer posting stolen content is not going to drag you into court for banning his account after multiple dmca complaints. There is absolutely no benefit for him to do that. BUT, it gives you perfect cover to rip, ravage and rape your competitors.
As I said before, I would have tons of respect for you if you said this was a business decision. We are going to stretch the laws to our benefit and try to put as many of our competitors out of the business before the laws are changed. But I guess your "attorneys" told you to deny deny deny. They probably told you to shut the fuck up too and quit posting on this board. But you won't do that because you have some sort of inner need not to be "a bad guy". Nathan/Fabian... you are the bad guy. You are the one hurting more people than you could ever imagine. Own the bad guy in you and tell us to fuck off and quit whining. You are the big dick in the room. You have the cheese bro, own it.!
I truly believe if someone with balls and enough money could take you to court (and not bow down to suck your cock with a nice pay day settlement) it would change this industry for the better. The days of getting your employees to rip off entire member areas would be over if someone ripped you a new one publicly. But money talks and now we have some useless digital thumbprint that the people you are killing with your UNETHICAL business practices could never afford to use(and you probably profit from with some back room agreement made during your last payoff).
Anyways, kudos to you man. You rock
Dont worry about karma or hell, that's why you over-pay your lawyers. Sleep well knowing you are a fucking leech.
AlanAgus1 at gmail dot com-------------------------------Comment
-
Comparing allowing kiddie porn to disallowing repeated infringement abuse is mumbojumbo. No one have never gone to jail or lost their safe harbor for booting a member for violating their TOS (which is another reason than the infringement itself)
No one have to prove anything, everyone know their TOS doesn't violate the law and that's the point: They can remove user submissions for ANY or NO reason (as they state). But here they claim they can't. It's not about law but policy, so saying two different things is lying.
You can't have it both ways, gideongallery. That's what bring people into trouble. The best example is piratebay, first they said fuck you to DMCA, next day in court, they argue and beg for DMCA protection. It doesn't work that way...Comment
-
This thread seems to be going in circles.↑ see post ↑
13101Comment
-
so then start a tube site, take my submission and claim that your removeing them because i am a visable minorityyou just said
No one have to prove anything, everyone know their TOS doesn't violate the law and that's the point: They can remove user submissions for ANY or NO reason (as they state). But here they claim they can't. It's not about law but policy, so saying two different things is lying.
see how quickly i win that lawsuit.
microsoft could not TOS away backup rights
and there was no free speech arguement to worry about
and you think a porn site is going to get away with it
if they censored a legit post they most certainly get sued, just because they wouldn't lose the safe harbor provision or go to jail doesn't mean there is zero liablity.
You can't have it both ways, gideongallery. That's what bring people into trouble. The best example is piratebay, first they said fuck you to DMCA, next day in court, they argue and beg for DMCA protection. It doesn't work that way...
wtf are you talking about the pirate bay never begged for DMCA protection, they claimed what they were doing was non infringing based on swedish law.
swedish law doesn't have a take down process like america
they got convicted for contributing to infringement for something where the evidence didn't even prove they were involved at all (DHT was turn on).Last edited by gideongallery; 11-10-2010, 01:08 PM.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
I have to agree with you. If you're gonna be the bad guy, own it and be the bad guy. You have to respect someone who walks it like he talks it. I don't have to agree with your business model, but for fuck sake, man up to what you're doing and tell it like it is.The whole fucking point of this tap dance gideon and nathan is that you PROFIT from STOLEN content. It is NOT in your BEST interest to do the RIGHT thing. You know very well an INDIVIDUAL surfer posting stolen content is not going to drag you into court for banning his account after multiple dmca complaints. There is absolutely no benefit for him to do that. BUT, it gives you perfect cover to rip, ravage and rape your competitors.
As I said before, I would have tons of respect for you if you said this was a business decision. We are going to stretch the laws to our benefit and try to put as many of our competitors out of the business before the laws are changed. But I guess your "attorneys" told you to deny deny deny. They probably told you to shut the fuck up too and quit posting on this board. But you won't do that because you have some sort of inner need not to be "a bad guy". Nathan/Fabian... you are the bad guy. You are the one hurting more people than you could ever imagine. Own the bad guy in you and tell us to fuck off and quit whining. You are the big dick in the room. You have the cheese bro, own it.!
I truly believe if someone with balls and enough money could take you to court (and not bow down to suck your cock with a nice pay day settlement) it would change this industry for the better. The days of getting your employees to rip off entire member areas would be over if someone ripped you a new one publicly. But money talks and now we have some useless digital thumbprint that the people you are killing with your UNETHICAL business practices could never afford to use(and you probably profit from with some back room agreement made during your last payoff).
Anyways, kudos to you man. You rock Dont worry about karma or hell, that's why you over-pay your lawyers. Sleep well knowing you are a fucking leech.
But don't keep blowing smoke up everyone's ass while trying to convince them it's not smoke because we're all too stupid to even know what smoke is. That is where you lose all respect and make me want to smash a brick on the side of your head. I hate pansies with every fiber of my being. Grow a pair.
Comment
-
The part you do not seem to understand is that a ton of studios are uploading their own content to our tubes. A bunch of amateurs are uploading their own content to our tubes, and yes, some users claim they are from company X and they upload the companie's own content but in fact it is not true. THIS is why DMCA exists. Becuase WE should not be held accountable for users lieing to us and should not need the burden on us to prove every single submission is ok. So sure, we might know that someone DEFINATELY NOT EMPLOYED OR CONTRACTED by a studio is not allowed to uploaded content XYZ, _BUT_ if they claim they are, we can NOT "know very well". This is why we use Vobile, this is why we follow DMCA, to make it as easy as possible for studios to make sure content they never want to see there either never gets there or easily can be removed.
I disagree, I am sorry, but I do. We help more companies than we hurt. By far. We have hundreds of studios submitting content. We license millions worth of content from studios. We are implementing Vobile. We are not target specific competitors to take them out of business, that's complete bullshit. We work with a ton of our competitors, a ton of them are good friends of ours. The people bitching around here would bitch even if I turned off the tubes, they would start bitching about moviebox giving users access to too much content for a low fee and they can not compete, they would be bitching about brazzers paying too much for ad spots so they can not compete, they would be bitching that we are not fair to affiliates for some reason. They always find something, because all they can do is bitch.
Nobody would win against us in court, because we ARE NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS. We also did not do any weird deals with Vobile or FSC. We pay quite a bit of money to Vobile every single month to even use their system, both for brazzers/mofos and for the tubes! Also, Vobile is NOT too expensive! It's NOT something people "could never afford to use", that's just rediculous. It adds a TINY premium on top of exclusively produced content.
Most importantly, your continous bullshit about us ripping other people's content.. WE DO NOT. We do not upload content we do not license directly, we do not rip members areas, we do not steal content. Other tubes we know very well that they do, but WE DO NOT."Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
DWB you're right.
And for the second time I'm gonna have to admit to being a hypocrite. I kept gideongallery around because he made me laugh. But I have to follow my own code so I was forced to put him on ignore.
He's a clown and doesn't have the abilities to ever be able to enable me to make money with him. So off to IGNORE he went.
Nathan/Fabian is the same damn thing. A clown who won't make a dime for me. He's useless and has no knowledge of this business. I almost choked on my soda when he said HE is going to lecture to US about the DMCA law!!!
He's been a "managing partner" for a few months and he's an expert? But he can't answer any questions? LOL! Fucking clown!
Goodbye Nathan/Fabian. You were insignificant before and now you return there because you don't exist to me. Welcome to my ignore list.-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
Ouch, that hurts, I do not exist for Robbie :/ poor me..."Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
Comment
-
I could remove your movies for ANY reason, if you agreed to that contract between us. Any private company or individual running a website or service can set their own rules and limit free speech. They can say "you are not granted unlimited backup "rights" on our servers" (ie they can also remove it for NO or ANY reason if they agreed). In case you didn't know, that's called a legal contract. You would not win any lawsuit, because you signed the contract.Comment
-
That is exactly what it is. I know for myself, I enjoy watching Nathan's replies and how he dances around. We place bets here in the office on what he will say to boogie around a topic. "The Nathan Side Step" we call it. Almost better than playing Call Of Duty.
But most of all I enjoy wasting his time. He'll never get that back and it's the one thing I can steal from him with no recourse. Every minute he wastes on GFY being a smart ass and not spending time with his family, is a stolen minute. It's one more minute stolen from his life. He'll regret all the time he spent here later on. It's the least I can do for all the time I've wasted sending DMCAs to his sites. I render videos while I post so I'm still being productive, so no skin off my back.
Everyone who posts in these threads knows nothing will change. It never does. But we all love to waste his time and enjoy watching him dance. He's quite the ballerina.Comment
-
DWB and Robbie why dont you stop wasting your time and try to work with Nathan?
He could send you both serious sales and traffic.
Tubes are going no where. They have sucked up all the traffic that 10000's of little tgps used to control.
Deal with it.Comment
-
Already tried that. I put up 6 videos (pornhub is an affiliate of mine). The videos together have so far been viewed 2,131,924 times over the last 9 months.
From all those views on pornhub it has sent a TOTAL of 13464 uniques and SEVEN signups in NINE MONTHS.
I get more than that in type-ins in 15 minutes.
Do you think I haven't already checked all of this out, and I'm just talking out of my ass? Well, I'm not. This is a business and I'm damn good at making money at it. Pornhub is USELESS to sell paysite memberships off of the videos.
Two reasons...
1. They don't know how to promote it (the page is so full of pre-paid ads that you can't see the trees for the forest of spammy shit...also there's nothing to promote the actual site but a TINY text link above the vid)
2. The people that go to Pornhub have now been conditioned to think that they don't have to pay for porn anymore.
Here is one of my vids on pornhub...see for yourself...I can get more traffic to the site from the lowliest blog post than all of pornhub can send:
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=1028809565-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
-
Now that is something that is unknown. Hell that's how Freeones gets all their signups is from people searching for models names on search engines. Difference is they know how to put together a page that sells memberships. Nathan doesn't.
But conversely...I can't prove that I don't get a shit ton of type in traffic from those videos either. Especially since Pornhub's guys don't have a clue how to market. (just look at that page with my video on it...no way that's ever gonna sell)
Hell, that's why I still leave them up there. The thought of a few people watching the vids...and then typing in claudia-marie in google and hitting my link in the number one spot and denying Nathan a sale kinda warms my heart.
Don't get me wrong...if the guy had a clue how to do what I do as far as being an affiliate then he COULD be making a fortune just on selling paysite memberships. But he's a programmer. Not a pornographer or a promoter. His skills aren't in sales, entertainment, and understanding how that all comes together. So he leaves millions of dollars lying on the table.Last edited by Robbie; 11-10-2010, 03:48 PM.-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
Comment
-
You get 13464 type-ins in 15 minutes to claudia-marie.com? Or you talking about some other site? 1.3 million type ins a day?! Or you mean 7 type-in signup in 15 minutes? 672 type in signups a DAY? All of claudia-marie.com does not even get 100k hits a DAY man... what are you talking about...
Or do you have some site with a traffic rank of 1500 or less on alexa hidden somewhere? Definitely not grampland.com or claudia-marie.com"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
Gee wiz, never thought about that before.
I stopped trying to work with their tubes before Nathan was in the picture. Never was able to get a video up there. Oddly, 100s of my videos would get put up my someone else who usually have over 1000 submissions in a short period of time.
That said, I have tried working with some honest tubes, and even a few dishonest ones, and I wasn't impressed with the results. I know some guys can work them with results, but I have not seen success. However, their success could also be relative. What is great for them may be horrible for me. Just the same as my greatest day ever in sales would probably cause Pimp Roll Dave to commit suicide.
I don't have a problem with tubes. I only have a problem with tubes who steal my videos, over and over and over again. I have a problem with people who devalue my content. And I have a real problem with them when they are arrogant pricks about it.
Right. The honest people should just "deal with it" and let everyone just ass fuck them. We shouldn't even bust the balls of those who are criminals or who have literally ruined the entire industry. Better to bend over and take it. Why even fight it? I mean fuck, Robbie, you just wasted all your time protecting your video stream, and so did I, we should have just continued to get hammered from behind.
Good logic.
Comment
-
I had to admit, you guys really lucked out with DMCA.
Anyone can create a total criminal enterprise with 100% stolen content and so long as they show no editorial control and remove any infringing video/photo if notified, you get free content and get to profit from it. Seriously, this is the best business model in the history of business models.
However, it is still unethical and built on thievery.
You slithering behind DMCA is the same as a person not paying taxes to the IRS but they don't avoid them and continue to file simply so they don't get brought up on tax evasion charges. Meaning, they use the existing law to do things they shouldn't be doing.
Slavery was once legal too. That doesn't mean those who owned slaves and beat them daily were doing the right thing simply because it was legal to own Negros. But they did it anyway. And that's the the sort of issue that divides the ethical people from the unethical people.Comment
-
Robbie, are you taking into account that a significant part of those type-ins you get could be people that viewed your videos on Pornhub or other tubes and then typed your URL in the browser? Your videos have been viewed 2.1 mln times and that can be considered good branding. You didn't get many sales from the link above the video (thus saving you affiliate payouts to PH), but users can view your watermark and go from there. You can't track it, but you can't deny it.Comment
-
Comment
-
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”Comment
-
So if i were to start a tube site and say put it in my TOS
by using our service to view videos you claim copyright ownership of, you agree to put all your content into the public domain, that should supercede all laws including the DMCA.
you do realize that if i were allowed to do that, the safe harbor provision would be turned into a trap that forces you to put all your shit into the public domain.
no copyright holder would be able to make a valid takedown request EVER
because a valid take down request requires you to identify the video exactly confirm that you have viewed it enough to know that it is not fair use, and declare that you own the copyright holder ,
you would meet all the conditions that my TOS requirement that you put all your content into the public domain.
and since i don't have to obey any take down request that is invalid, i wouldn't have to take the content down either.
That type of action would be just as invalid as when microsoft tried to take away backup rights and forced people to pay them 19.95 for replacement media of their software.
Microsoft lost their case , and i would lose mine.
actually technically because the DMCA says you must declare you have a good faith belief i might actually win (have the right to blanket ignore all your takedowns) because as long as you keep claiming the TOS supercedes the laws, there is no way you could ever have a good faith belief that content infringes your copyright, because you would believe (wrongly) that the instant you made your complaint your content would be in the public domain, and the uploader would therefore would be fully authorized to upload it.Last edited by gideongallery; 11-11-2010, 01:57 PM.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
personally if i were NATI have to agree with you. If you're gonna be the bad guy, own it and be the bad guy. You have to respect someone who walks it like he talks it. I don't have to agree with your business model, but for fuck sake, man up to what you're doing and tell it like it is.
But don't keep blowing smoke up everyone's ass while trying to convince them it's not smoke because we're all too stupid to even know what smoke is. That is where you lose all respect and make me want to smash a brick on the side of your head. I hate pansies with every fiber of my being. Grow a pair.
i would put the if you view it you must put it in the public domain trap clause in TOS just to see how many of you guys would argue that TOS supercedes DMCA when it used against you.
and how many of you guys would backpeddle like little bitches argueing that would not be valid for some made up reason.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
As you can see...I already covered that. As for their "branding"...Claudia-Marie.Com was already the number one alexa ranked traffic site for big tit girls in the world before pornhub was around. I have never had problems with branding. Also, since people are deliberately looking for her vids on pornhub...I don't think that they are bringing that many NEW eyes to her. Just old ones that want to see if there's any free vids of her.-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
Damn this is GREAT! I shoulda done it long ago!
Today, 02:49 PM
Remove user from ignore list
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 03:03 PM
Remove user from ignore list
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 03:08 PM
Remove user from ignore list
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
cliff nodtes ?Comment
-
It's all older footage that I put up there and was an old text watermark that I used to use two years ago. I guess after they process the vid with their tube script it kinda lowered the quality and made the watermark a little blurry. Not really that big a deal for us. CM is pretty well known and branded amongst my target audience (big tit lovers) and a quick Google search brings her up (we rank number one for her name thanks to my cleverness lol )-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
I didn't put it in there that way. Their marketing geniuses did. A lot of webmasters don't understand the BBW niche at ALL. Claudia-Marie has never done well on BBW sites that tried to promote her. True lovers of big women look at her and she is waaaayyy too skinny for their tastes. She might could be a smallish plumper, but even then she ain't what they are looking for.
When I submitted the vids I put them in the big tits category where they belong. But Pornhub marketing geniuses put it in BBW. Some webmasters have such a thing for little teen girls that are super skinny that they think any woman over 105 pounds is "fat"
Unfortunately for them...bbw enthusiasts do not. Like I said...Nathan's people have NO idea how to sell paysite memberships.
At the height of my tgp's right before tubes destroyed my traffic I had 1.2 million uniques a day. And I was making right at 100 grand a month in sales to paysites for almost 10 years at that point. I was also selling text links, banners, etc. for an extra 50 grand a month.
The rumor is that Pornhub gets 10 million uniques a day. It makes my mouth water to think how much money I or another skilled webmaster could make with that kind of traffic. I'd dwarf what they are making for damn sure as far as paysite sales go. Wouldn't even be close.
And that's what Nathan/Fabian can't understand with his mathematical programmers brain.
EDIT: And I think you know why people are so "angry" at tube sites.
They steal content.
They use your content to sell OTHER things like cams and dating.
They have destroyed sales for everybody by giving away full scenes for free.
Should I keep going?Last edited by Robbie; 11-11-2010, 04:16 PM.-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.ComComment
-
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
Comment