Hush gets a real present in its lawsuit against Mindgeek I was all too happy to deliver it
 

The guys at Hush just got handed a HUGE present. whether the reader comes forward or not this time they named names....The reader has expressed to me that he will help Hush (and anyone else) if done through me.

The full story on MikeSouth.Com

I'll bet they are preparing subpoenas as I write this


MindGeek Employee Speaks – Reader Mail
By MikeSouth
February 5th, 2016

I have written extensively about this but this time I think the email speaks for itself, None of what you will read here is new, but this is the first time that a Manwin/MindGeek Employee has come forward on the record…read on….This info will be very valuable for HushHush.

I have worked for Mindgeek for many years.

I knew the company had been breaking DMCA laws since my first day on the job as a “redacted job title”. My role quickly evolved into screening videos like the rest of the Department did and still does.
Every single video posted on any Mindgeek tubesite is screened by a person from start to finish and the employee who doesn’t actually view the whole thing can get in trouble! So… trust me when I say they are 100% aware of every-single-video that goes up on their site… I used to work on another website that was a DMCA takedowns magnet, so I feel like I know a thing or two about the DMCA and how a website can claim safe harbor. Not only that, but they also have a compliance department whose job is to screen all the tubesites in hopes that they find little slip-ups (by Slip-ups I mean.. human error is still a factor here, a “gatekeeper” might let a bad video through once in a while) before anyone else in order to avoid fines.

I know that Mindgeek wants people to believe they are protected under Safe Harbor but they have a whole department of around 30 employees that pretty much directly denies them of safe harbor AND a separate compliance department to make sure they don’t mess up. The reason for this is that they make a LOT of money through VISA but Visa has very strict rules on the kind of content they will allow to be associated with! They don’t mind copyright infringing material BUT they do mind other common illegal content such as child porn etc .. I don’t think I need to tell you what I mean by “common illegal content”.

Why not just make money off of ads and let any type of content through and let the community flag the bad stuff and actually be stress free since all you have to do is comply with DMCA and take videos down as the requests come and that’s it? Well, as it turns out, Pornhub makes over 175,000$ a month off of their deal with Visa but can get fined up to 200,000$ for every non-compliant video by Visa, which has happened in the past. And that is how “Gatekeepers” or something like that started being a thing…Mindgeek can be creative with how they hide the fact that people screen the videos but make no mistake, there is a full department of people whose full time jobs are to review AND queue the videos for release onto the front page.

But you know what other source of money is quite important? Well.. their videos…obviously haha.

I have been personally instructed, along with most employees of the tubes department, to let copyright infringing material hit front page on the site because “By the time it gets taken down, we’ve made the money” With the millions of views they get on videos every day, every video counts right? It could be the difference between making an extra few thousand dollars in a day, you know… Gotta keep the money coming in! Somebody has to come up with the money so Feras and his friends can keep buying those Porsches and Ferraris hahaha.

At the end of the day, they need to keep the copyright infringing content’s generated revenue until takedown + the Visa money because actually following the law and only living off of millions made from infringing content’s generated revenue until taken is not enough �� , Oh and I don’t think I need to specify that this applies to all their websites.. so… Millions multiplied by Youporn/Redtube…I’d mention all the other sites of the network but we all know those other tubesites they own don’t generate anywhere near as much as those big 3 do.

I don’t know how helpful my email might be but since I read on your blog that Mindgeek is currently being sued by HushHush… I assume that Mindgeek is claiming that they are in compliance with the DMCA and saying that they aren’t aware of the illegal material on their site and do their best to take it all down upon requested haha…What a joke

Here’s the question HushHush should be asking: Feras, you mean to tell me that you have two separate departments with two completely different sets of people who are smart enough to catch most of the (I’d say 99.99% but who is gonna pull out that stat anyway?) illegal sex content such as Snuff and Children but not smart enough to recognize copyrighted content? That’s odd. You don’t recognize content your own company makes with actors your own company employs?

You certainly stay busy Mike. :2 cents:

interesting read :thumbsup

LOL more than ya know mikesouth.com isn't even my most time consuming job but it's one I love and I love the fact that I make my own hours and can take off and fish for a long weekend anytime I take a notion...main thing...I am happy!

Nice post sir. Where are all the MG cronies bitchin and callin ya names? That is a nice present for HUSH. If they can depose that guy, MG will have to bribe lots o people not to get triple anal.

Again, Fuck Manwin.

Not unsurprising but at least there is someone speaking out about it with first hand knowledge.

Do you have more proof?

An email isn't proof.

Interesting read. I won't even go into the ramifications of this.


I hope you had your attorney depose this ''reader'' before you published this.

It wont just be him that hush deposes...notice he named his superiors....In my original he does anyway...and I have no problem sharing those names with Hush oh and he has mentioned his intention to co-operate with Hush.

How long before MindGeek settles this ya think?

If they settle, who will be next to hit MG?

Already double threaded:

https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...l-madness.html

dumbfuck

gotmomentum.com

while it is likely that MG does what the "email" describes, it is not enough proof.

We hate porn posts many conspiracy videos and they have more evidence but are labeled as crap by ppl here.

if said employee would have wanted to spill the beans he would have gone somewhere else.

it could also be a disgruntled employee.
you have to be objective on this regardles if you like MG or not

Would be nice to see sumbody settle for enough that puts a crack in MG's shell. Looks like nobody ever does that. Chump change settlements.

Wouldn't they have to sign a ND agreement before working there ?:2 cents:

How are they supposed to tell a video is actually copyrighted material uploaded illegally?

By the watermark? Watermark doesnt prove anyting, anyone can watermark any video and upload it claiming he is the copyright owner.

This email is a desperate joke.

The DMCA does not break down because you screen content for things that are illegal.

Google actively filter and screen out unlawful content and the DMCA still applies.

There is a difference between screening for unlawful content and screening for copyright infringing content.

If Mindgeek view every video on their array of tube sites to filter out illegal content that doesn't mean that they have to form a view as to whether the content breaches someone's copyright.

The way the DMCA works is that rights holders need to issue a takedown notice, the site has safe harbour if it follows the DMCA to the letter, which I believe Mindgeek does.

So nice try, but no cigar.

I know that Mindgeek bought and paid for you, they tried to buy me too, apparently I have a much higher price for my integrity...The beauty of that email was that it included names, titles and directives from upper management, stuff that will come out in the depositions if Mindgeek lets it go that far. Hush attorneys are very happy and the employee who wrote it is co-operating. Another poinjt NDA or not JFK they arent protected you cant contract to conspire to commit an illegal act then hide behind and NDA that won't fly.

Just what I said above.. there is nothing illegal in reviewing uploaded content as they can't tell what is copyrighted content and what is not.

adapt or die.

Someone with "integrity" wouldn't keep repeating this outright lie you keep trotting out. Nobody owns me or my opinions. Your assertion that anyone can "buy me" is a stupid lie.

You don't have integrity, you have an ego and a big mouth which bypasses your brain preventing you from availing yourself of both fact and logic.

DMCA does not break down because a user submitted content site weeds out content, if that were the case then YouTube would have disappeared years ago.

The DMCA is a very flawed piece of legislation, it puts the problem into the hands of rights holders and rarely provides them benefit. Large tubes know this, they play the game very well and for the most part play it according to the law.

For the situation to change the laws need to change, until that happens I don't foresee modification in the behaviour of any large tube site being a likely outcome.

I remember Fabian right here on this forum claiming that he could NOT "weed out" any content because his team of high priced attorneys told him that if they did that it would take away their safe harbor under DMCA law.

I argued that with him extensively right here on GFY a few years back.

So Adult King are you saying that Fabian was lying? (no big surprise there)
Or is it possible that their high powered attorneys know the law better than I did (or you do)?

I'm honestly not sure. I'm obviously not an attorney...but Fabian sure did argue that one hard with me. Told me that it didn't matter if they could plainly see it was another company's copywritten content...that IF they took it down without getting a DMCA from that company first...they would be legally in trouble.

That's what he said.

Agreed. It's just words typed. Even testimony in a court can be disproven. The financial gain for a whistleblower to prove MG weed out illegal like snuff, scat, videos and pass pirated ones is immense. 8 years and very little proof has been found. What has, was acted on.

As far as I know, in the UK, not in the case of criminal activity. Is piracy a crime?

Even if MG were sued and brought down by this. It will make no difference to online porn's income. For most it's over because content is king and if all MG sites disappear tomorrow, the surfers will still be on Tube Sites. Even blacklisting by all the search engines would make little difference. Surfers go to the people with the best product. And in Porn, and most of the online business, that's free stuff.

GFY would be closed if we had to pay to be here and YNOT would get all the traffic. :1orglaugh

Most likely you wrote that yourself Mike.

It absolutely does you silly goose:

Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains what are called the â??safe harborâ?� provisions for online service providers. These provisions may shield you from liability for the copyright infringements of your siteâ??s users and for your provision of links to copyright-infringing material from other Internet sources as long as you have effective notice-and-takedown procedures, promptly remove content when a copyright owner notifies you that it is infringing and have no actual or effective knowledge that the posted material is infringing.
Two provisions of Section 512 are potentially relevant to your online publishing activities. Under 512(c), you are not liable for money damages for user-generated content that infringes another copyright as long as
you are not aware of any infringing content on your site nor know of any â??red flagsâ?� that would make an infringement apparent;
you do not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity if you have the right and ability to control that activity; and
you act expeditiously to remove the infringing content from your site once you have received proper notice of the infringement.
- See more at: Protection for infringing material posted by others: DMCA safe harbor provisions | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Late sig spot ...

Neither. Fabian isn't a liar, however I believe you misunderstood what he said at the time.

The Service Provider doesn't screen for infringement, however screening for illegal content does not nullify the DMCA provisions that apply to a User Submitted Content service.

So long as the service provider acts in accordance with the DMCA and responds to take down and counter notification requests in a timely manner than it's compliant.

Just post the MindGeek headquarters address on Reddit.

At least try changing writing style.

this is a surprise?

80% of tube sites inform you that your video will need to be viewed and approved first before it goes live.

Damn I also want Mindgeek to try buy me, how to to this? I have to open a blog or what?

Knowledge (legal construct) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To contract an NDA for an illegal purpose is not binding. In other words; an NDA does not restrict your right to disclose, nor the court's right to discover, any unlawful activity by the party(s) protected by the NDA.

In the argument...I specifically went and found a link to a Naughty America full scene on Pornhub. It had Naughty America's watermark on it and 2257 info as well at the beginning.

I showed Fabian the link.

I told him "there you go"...that is a Naughty America film that is stolen and making you money without their consent or any link back to them.
I told him he should take that down immediately.

He then told me that his attorneys told him that if they took that down they would be in legal trouble. He said the that the ONLY legal way for him to take it down would be for him to get a DMCA from Naughty America.

I told him he was full of shit and that he can take down ANY video on his site anytime he wants for any reason.
He assured me that his team of attorneys said that was false.

Just saying...the guy was lying through his fucking teeth about it in my opinion. And if he wasn't lying, then you are wrong in what you are saying. Unless you know more about the law than his team of lawyers did.

Bottom line: Those thieves won't take down anything unless they get a DMCA. And they will make sure that the vid remains a few days to make some money off of it (and devalue the content for the person who made it).
And of course...they will then allow that same exact video to be put right back on their site over and over again.

Watermarks dont prove a video is stolen - how can you possibly know the vid wasnt uploaded by the copyright owner? You cant. I can also buy content and put any site named in the video - that makes the vid illegal?

Or.. you buy a shitty car and put "Ferrari" sign on it, does it make the car a Ferrari? No.

How about tubes that take uploads but dont offer banners/content partner program? We upload our own watermarked videos, based on your logic they would have to take them all down.

Case closed.

Everytime I find our videos uploaded by someone else, I simply send their representative the link and he deletes the vid. Takes 10 second to send them the email.

Are we supposed to ignore the fact that this industry has well recognized brands?

The equivalent would be someone sitting behind Youtube, manually reviewing every video, and saying they didn't understand Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or other easily identifiable content was copyrighted material, and approving it. :2 cents:

I am pretty sure someone who is fresh to the industry, and is given 10 minutes of training and a list of the biggest brands can sort that a video greater than 20 minutes in time-length, carrying a recognizable watermark and clear identifications of that brand, is piracy. I think ignoring this simple reality very much fits the definition of "willfully blind." That type of mentality certainly suits their bottom line at the expense of content creators, and everybody here knows it.

Yes, but there are two points of view.. one is how YOU view it and the other one is how the LAWS view it. Yeah, the webmaster should understand there is a waterrmark of a well known company - that doesn't mean, he MUST know all paysites out there and all uploaders accounts.

There is no way to tell who uploaded the particular video and whether it is a legal upload or not.

Also, there are companies that actually let affiliates watermark their videos with a custom watermark. This again doesn't mean the upload is illegal, even though the content is well known.

So you are suggesting that a website shouldn't understand some basic common sense? The lawyers get paid to twist and distort the reality, this we all understand. You're argument clearly has some twist.

Something like this will be one component of a larger story, with many facts and details making each website a little bit different. In general, pre-screening 100% of material is a risky approach. It shows exercise of control over the website and the user uploads. It's not as cut and dry as anyone who is doing it would like to believe. :2 cents: