Don't Let Nathan Be Right...
 

Quote from Nathan's post last week on a different thread:

We've received good responses from some, but far too many are not acting. This could be for multiple reasons, including that some content owners are giving up. By not doing this, in some ways your are contributing to the piracy problem if you know the major tubes do have your content. Contribute to the solution.

A few common misconceptions that seem to be holding some back:

1. YOU DO NOT GIVE YOUR CONTENT TO THE TUBES! This is just flat out wrong. We (Pink Visual) get access to your content to do the fingerprinting and then we remove it from our side. No tube gets all your content.

2. YOU HAVE THE TIME! Since it doesn't really take any of your time. We do 99.9% of the work. You need to sign a contract to give us the right to fingerprint and you have to give our SysAdmin access to the content.

3. YOU WILL MAKE MONEY! And even if you don't - the tubes won't either with your content.

Hit me up if you are interested or want more info.

kristin @ dmcaforce.com
ICQ #: 147-945-440

First thread re: DMCA Force with more info:
https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1070...ght=dmca+force

The problem here is a lack of info.

Vobile? Free Fingerprinting? Why is it free?

Do I really need to contact you and blah blah blah for these simple questions to be answered?

I don't like your tone young lady.

What is the time line of getting it done? Say if a program like dogfart or bangbros wants it done. That's like 10 years of updates.

Take the time to explain what it is you are offering.

YES, sloooooooooooooooooooowly............. so everyone can understand. No such thing as a free lunch, why are you good enough to do this for nothing ?:2 cents:

What if Bill and Steve bought the same nonexclusive content and Bill has uploaded promo clips to the tubes, but Steve uses your program? Will Bill's videos get removed or plastered with ads for Steve's site?

First I have heard of it.

Do a better marketing campaign, GFY stickie, XBIZ, etc..

:2 cents:

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...04665131_n.jpg

:stoned

ADG

15,000 videos would take a week.

Steve can't use the services as its non-exclusive content. The original owner of the content can and then if Bill uploads that content to a tube site that is out of the parameters of the owners set rules, Bill's video would be truncated or removed.

When creating the rules, if you know in licensing contracts you have allowed for five minute clips or have large WMs using four minute, then you'd set the rules so it doesn't catch those clips.

:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Good question quoted for an answer.

I have zero skin in the content game but I agree that there is no such thing as truely free

Is this going to be like tgp2?

Hey I remember those :thumbsup :1orglaugh

Kristin: Every person that has talked to me about it has said the reason they don't want to get involved is the FSC connection. Perhaps you can discuss why this is not a concern . . . or why it should not be.

The FSC's involvement was crucial for this technology to be used within our industry. Mainstream companies normally pay $10-30k a month for this software. The FSC worked with Vobile to come up with a cost-effective solution.

Our service is not connected to the FSC, there are no FSC workers touching the content or anything. Where they were instrumental and we should applaud them for is that they fought for the industry to have a reasonable technology available for content producers.

The short answer is that we're not doing it "for nothing;" we're doing it to help reestablish some value to the product we all sell. It's also true that not all of DMCAForce's services are free, so we're counting on some percentage of clients who come to us for the free fingerprinting seeing some value in our paid services, and retaining us for those services, as well.

To answer some other questions about the DMCAForce services:

- You do not have to be a member of the FSC in order to make use of DMCAForce's services, or to receive the fingerprinting for free.

- If you choose to use the monetization option, the revenue generated by that option is divided between you, DMCAForce, vobile, any ad brokers that might be involved in the equation, and the site(s) where the content that replaces your filtered-out content is displayed. The content that gets swapped in might be an ad, or just a shorter promotional clip of yours, or what have you; as the content owner, that is your decision to make.

- If you choose to use the monetization option (and there's no requirement to do so), then as the content owner, you get 30% of that revenue, DMCAForce gets 5%, and the rest is divided between Vobile, the FSC, and the site where the swapped-in content is displayed.

- If you do not choose to implement the monetization aspect, DMCAForce will still fingerprint your content for free.

As to why we're willing to do the fingerprinting for free, even if the client never chooses to implement the monetization option, we look at all the content that is currently readily available to pirates as a market, and we see digital fingerprint filtering as a means of denying the pirates market share. So perhaps the real question is: Why would any of us NOT want to deny pirates market share?

We don't mind competing with other pornographers who have to face the same sorts of risks, costs and market fluctuations that we do; that's just business, and how it is done.

We do mind, quite a bit, competing with pirates who get all the benefits of distributing porn for profit, but who don't have to deal with the same costs that we do.

The way we see it, if we remain one of a small handful of companies actively fingerprinting content, then we'll have a minimal impact on pirates via fingerprint filtering. On the other hand, if lots of studios and producers join in with us, we can further limit the pirates' content options, and force them to rely on a smaller and smaller content pool to draw from. Gradually, surfers will tire of seeing the same content, over and over again, everywhere they turn in terms of pirated sources, and they will (again, gradually) go back to obtaining content from legitimate sources in greater numbers.

In other words, we're hoping to "do well by doing good" as the saying goes.

The benefit of doing the free fingerprinting is not going to come to us overnight, it's not going to come easily, and it is not guaranteed to come at all -- but we think the risk is worth it, and we think that making the fingerprinting free will bring about the eventual benefit to us more assuredly than charging for that component of the service would.

Yes, the old cliche is correct: There really is no such thing as a free lunch. On occasion, however, the guy buying lunch has his eye on the long term, and as such isn't particularly bothered by picking up your BLT, fries and iced tea on his tab, if doing so gets you on board with a plan that benefits both of you in the long run.

I hope this helps to clarify things a bit. If you have any additional questions, I'll be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

Nathan being wrong it's just a "negative moment" of he being absolutely right ...

This is probably the best explanation to date. Mind if I quote you at times?

Not at all -- if it helps clear things up for people, please do.

Q, you so rock, I wish you were my Uncle or something.

i dont see why content owners would not use the free service makes no sence.

Thanks for doing that Q:thumbsup:thumbsup

Well, it is possible that we are more distantly related; the lion's share of my family line ties back to your neck of the woods, and I have all sorts of several-times-removed cousins over in England/Scotland/Wales who I've never heard the names of, let alone know anything about.

Well, shit.... I just noticed that in my earlier post, I accidentally omitted the FSC from the list of entities that share in the revenue generated by the monetization program. The first sentence of that paragraph should have read:

Sorry about that, everyone. I wasn't trying snub the FSC there, or somehow conceal their involvement in the mix; just a simple flub on my part.

baddog, if/when you quote that part of the paragraph elsewhere, please insert the FSC accordingly.

I was told, by Manny at Vobile, the FSC had an exclusive arrangement which essentially locked out other folks, like ourselves, from using their software. Is this not the case now?

If Pink Visual wanted to reestablish some value to the product they sell, they would work on their websites. You guys are playing the wrong cards.

Yeah right.

A hamburger place is rocking it until a new place opens up right next door. The new business keeps walking in the back door and stealing the burgers the first place makes. The new place doesn't make burgers, they're just giving away the burgers the first place is making for nothing.

Who in their right mind would pay for the exact same burger that is being given away for free, especially if it's right next door?

Should the first place change their recipe that was clearly so successful or try to put the thieves out of business by locking their own back door?

That's a no-brainer.

I can't comment on that but let me clarify what I meant by "not connected." If a company wants to have their content fingerprinted, they don't have to work directly with the guys at the FSC to do so. Company signs a contract with DMCA Force, not the FSC. Our employees fingerprint the content, not the FSCs.

It's not like DMCA Force has gone direct to Vobile. One reason why the FSC receives a percentage of the ad revenue earned once the monetization part begins.

It's worth a bump for consideration at least...

Kids these days would rather complain than do something to help themselves; even if someone else is willing to do all the work.

I guess complaining is easier.

Question:is it possible to auto integrate this technology to tube script ?

Can you tell us WHO is using it already other than yourselves?

1. What difference does that make?
2. Have you ever heard of a Privacy Policy? You think those are just for show?

I'm not sure I understand the question, so I'll answer based on a couple of different things I think you might be asking. ;-)

If what you mean is "Can the software be integrated into a tube site so that the tube is then filtering digitally fingerprinted videos?" then yes -- that's an important piece of the puzzle for how all this works. In order for the fingerprint filtering to work on any particular site, that site has to integrate the technology so it can communicate with the central fingerprint database maintained by Vobile and match uploaded videos against the Vobile fingerprint database.

If what you mean is "Can the fingerprinting software be integrated into a tube script so that the tube site itself is doing the actual fingerprinting of the content and storing fingerprints directly?" then the answer is no. All fingerprints created under this system are stored centrally by Vobile for the sake of efficiency; a separate fingerprint database maintained by a tube site would not be synched with the Vobile database, and therefor the fingerprints made by that site would only be recognized by that site.

If neither of those responses addresses your question, please reword your question and I'll try again.

Am I correct in my understanding that only the original producer can have content fingerprinted and it must be exclusive content?

I can't/won't divulge any of our clients without their express permission to do so, but I can tell you that in the short time since we first beta launched DMCAForce, we have fingerprinted over 10,000 scenes, and that sum does not include Pink Visual's own content (which we began fingerprinting long before launching DMCAForce).

Whether through DMCAForce or otherwise, I strongly suspect more and more studios and sites are going to start employing digital fingerprint filtering in the months ahead. In some cases where UGC websites are concerned, it may not be a voluntary decision on their part; it's not unheard of for a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against a UGC site to include the implementation of digital fingerprint filtering as a condition of settling that lawsuit, or to petition the court to make that a part of the injunctive relief the court imposes, should the lawsuit go the distance.

Depending on what you mean by "exclusive content," the answer is yes and no. ;-)

It is my understanding that only the rights-holder can have content fingerprinted (and make legitimate use of it, at any rate; I would not recommend falsely asserting copyright in order to fingerprint content owned by a third party, as doing so carries liability all its own) but it is not the case that the rights-holder can never have licensed that same content to another party.

Anyone the rights-holder licensed the content to cannot fingerprint the content, or make use of the system with respect to that content to effect take-downs or monetization, but their license to use the content will still stand, subject to any limitations on use that exist in the original licensing agreement, of course.