-
-
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
-
gideongallery (and Nathan), the safe harbor is only at risk if you remove user submission by same time making official statement that the reason is infringement (your belief or assumption).
That is editorial. Removing for any other or no reason is not editorial. You can say "I don't like you - therefor I deleted you and your submission", and there is no law preventing you from doing that.Comment
-
no competent lawyer would say that
1. that doesn't even meet the dictionary definition of editorial control
by definition editorial control is the ability to edit or change the expression of the author based on the desires of the editor .
i don't like you so i am going to censor your expression completely is still editorial control.
secondly there are more then just DMCA laws to worry about
the eharmony lawsuit proves that, they choose to deny their services to gays because (as they claimed) the cost of doing the research to define the compatiblity questions would not be recoverable given the small size of the demographic (10% of the population).
That is a hell of a lot more defendable position then i am doing it because i don't like you
AND THEY STILL LOST
my lawyer says their a liablity, NAT lawyer says their a liability, your just Guy on GFY who has been proven wrong multiple times already.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
btw i noticed you dodged the questionSo 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.
if i were to put a TOS clause that would force you to put your content into the public domain if you filed take down notice
should that TOS supercede your rights under the DMCA.
every "piracy" site in the world would therefore get away scott free for every
because the first time you submitted a takedown request you would be agreeing to put all your content into the public domain
which means i would be able to put it right back up and never have to take it down again.
IF TOS supercede the free speach/Fair use rights (law granted) of submitter, why couldn't those same TOS supercede your rights as a copyright holder (law granted rights) especially when the only way you could identify "infringing content" would be to use my services.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
oh right i forgot Gays are the first and only minority.
oh and wait gay people would never choose to make money or be able to comment about straight porn either.
for example i could splice together matt bixel AKA Danny Rhymes into a fake threesome, compare and contrast it to one of his real threesome scenes, to comment on/bring attention to the anti -gay mentality of the female porn stars
i realize the idiot who you hire as a lawyer might be too clueless to see how i could portray that removal as a "deliberate attempt to censor the commentary about a clearly anti-gay policy within the porn industry" but my lawyers are actually competent.Recently, he has retired from doing gay porn, other than solo work, citing females lack of desire to work with him afterwards as the reason
The fact is even with your deliberately scope limited view, i can produce a liable situation proves how wrong you are. BTW that another time you have just been proven wrong.
Add in race (of the submitter not the content) and you would have tons of potential liablities from "taking down content for any reason"
btw i notice you dodged the question
if i you truely believed that TOS should supercede the DMCA, why hasn't a single torrent or tube site simple put in their TOS that by using their site to view content you claim is your copyright you agree to put all your content in the public domain.
IF you can TOS can force conditions dam your legal liabilites, why couldn't a tube site simple force you to put your content into the public domain, if you filled out a valid take down request against them.
It would totally end the problem, because the only way you could keep your content out of the public domain is to not file a takedown request for any content.
basically get the full benefit of the safe harbor, and no work taking shit down.Last edited by gideongallery; 11-12-2010, 06:04 AM.
“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve WozniakComment
-
Robbie, your last posts.. Man... I do not know what to say.. 1.2m unqs. 100+50k a month... And that back in the day when "everything" was so great??? Maybe we should teach you something instead of the other way around, LOL!
You just totally made my day! Almost as good as you saying claudia Marie is number one for big tits on Alexa, lol."Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie MungerComment
-
I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one.
Comment
-
big tubes pay famous rippers for uploading videos
duhComment
-
Comment
Comment