You cannot kill TUBES... Here is why...
 

In the Napster case Napster tried to claim that all they were was a clearinghouse for information. They didn't actually send the copy written data. But by being a party to the crime the RIAA could prove they were co-conspirators and therefor just as liable as the perpetrators.

In the Tubes case three of the biggest sponsors own tubes for sure. RKNetMedia, Brazzers and hahaha. So if they don't want to sue themselves you have to get sponsors with deep pockets to do it.

This would require dues to be paid to an organization which a lot of sponsors don't have. Believe it or not many of them live pay period to pay period. It would also require someone to create said organization. If you do create it, you will be banned from a lot of things. The top three sponsors will fight back.

They will also buy your top contributors and turn them into the opposition. Don't think so? Remember, a lot of programs don't have millions in reserve... Or even tens of thousands. You might perceive them as being pimps, but that is only because you make a lot less in terms of revenue. So, YES, they can wipe their ass with a $100 as a joke when you would rather buy beer with that money, but they cannot replace their toilet paper with Benjamins. Which brings us to greed. When someone offers you $2 million to be paid into your account today, you take it.

And so there you have it.

No more threads about how we can kill tubes.

UNLESS... You have already filed papers to start the organization that is going to collect member dues and bring them down.


... Ohh jeez.... Sorry, forgot about you Shap.

Tube sites as a business model are not going anywhere.

1. Affiliates are crying in their beers because soon they will be more a less wiped out if things keep going as they are. Most admit to sales in a tailspin.

2. Content providers, and programs who license content are pissed about illegal tubes. Those being the one's who do not own any of the material, license, copyright, and post full length movies for traffic.

The 'tube issue' is more complicated than most of the threads get down to. All depending on which segment of this industry you are in, and how it effects you directly.

The only possible to stop the illegal ones is to eat their bandwidth away to a point they can longer make money. This would take all the legit big players getting together and putting a plan in action.

Trying to stop them with legal threats is useless. If the music and movie industry can't do it what chance porn?

1. You can easily get them removed from Google.
2. For copyright. Tough battle. Still can be done to some degree. Depending on a number of factors.
3. Enforcement for licensed docs in regards to 2257 compliance. Not so tough. Catch 22. Double whammy.

While not all, most, of this industry is based in the U.S., E.U., and Australia or Canada. Sure, some will slip through, but living in the U.S., or E.U., and having off shore hosting does not save you in liability.

There is no, one size fits all, solution to this issue.

how ?
______________________

Give us some issues for this

http://www.google.com/dmca.html

Once you send them a DMCA, swear out your affidavit, sign it, and provide the examples, the offending site is removed from the SERPS. Tada. An illegal tube no longer holds the top spot for your keywords.

It is that fucking easy. Almost like magic eh?

Steps

-They are stealing your shit, any shit, pictures, videos, whatever.
-You notice they are ranking well in Google for your keywords.
-You swear out an affidavit, provide links to your material, their main url, submit to the G. Removed.

So they will not longer be showing up in Google results. Which is even nicer if you see them ranking ahead of you in your keywords in SERPS. It's one thing if they are a legal site with licensed content, or simply beat you with SEO skills.

It is another if they are some illegal site ranking head of you, and profiting off your work product.

So if nothing else, you can kill them in SERP results.

I'd expect the second coming of Jesus before any sort of adult coalition forms to pursue legal action against any sort of piracy. If only we could pay lawyers with forum posts.

Tube sites will begin to fizzle out though on their own. As the margins start to get smaller the owners will move on and the sites will morph into something else.

The only thing that can keep them going is if there is a new profitable product/site to advertise on them. If one of those comes out on a regular basis, then the tubes can theoretically go on forever.

very interesting thread... I am parking by balls here until all illegal tubes have been taken down....or hell freezes over :)

Im against tubes, but you know what I dont understand? Why the hell do sites put videos on the web and not stamp their url's on their video?
then at the very least when their videos get stolen they get some advertising out of it.
I would Never put a video on the web unless it has my domain name stamped on it

The reason why you cant kill tubes is because it gives 100% full length porn movies for free.

No that is why they are one of the things killing porn. The real reason "you cant kill tubes" is apathy. Their main expense is bandwidth. Their main profit is cams/dating sales. Make their bandwidth cost higher than their sales amounts and they will soon look elsewhere.

Rapidshit forums and torrents however... a losing battle as with the movie/music industry who resort to flooding these sites with fakes.

I fought the tube but the tube won

Yes it is,here is one example:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/27731.htm

tubes aren't going anywhere. smart sponsors know they might as well do their part to control the net's adult traffic flow. fuck affiliates, these guys are gonna do what they can to monetize a new traffic flow. smart of them. smart affiliates go elsewhere and find tangible product to sell...

Lots of Content providers do not allow watermarking on some things unless the content was shot custom.

of course you make a mistake, target something you licienced even accidentally, or is legitimate because of fair use, and you are legally liable for damages.

too many people are stupid about the DMCA stuff.
you better be 100% certain that there is no fair use right to the content or that you have not accidentally licienced the content in the past.
otherwise you will find yourself with a very hefty legal bill.

I doubt any tube site (that is run 100% by a script anyway and rarely sees human eyes) in the porn biz is going to sue any producer for dmca'ing his content down. I don't doubt that it CAN be done...just like we could all start suing for a bunch of reasons. But since none of us want to be on the govt. radar, I'm gonna say that the big boys of tubes aren't gonna want that either...and since most of them are paysite owners as well I can pretty much guarantee you that they aren't gonna take legal action against someone who produced that content and then bring the light of day upon themselves.

Now I'm sure that theory can and does hold true with mainstream stuff....but in the porn biz I just don't see that ridiculous scenario happening. And if it did, you would find the tube owner and content owner both wishing they had never went into a courtroom. Because in the end they are both "scum" in the eyes of the court because of the fact it's porn.

kill tubes :1orglaugh

We don't but I guess some are lazy like I am as I don't add watermarks to the bought in content.

Good post.

The only guys screaming about the legal angle are ones with shallow pockets and will do nothing to help.

if u have high quality content , youll have nothing to worry about ... ;)

I do something absolutely CRAZY.. you know... keep records.

You'll have to explain this concept a little more for some. :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Yes, to stop it the fastest Google is the way to go. They have to do it with YouTube ...

Just start your own legal tube sites. TGPs are dead. Surfers want tubes, give them tubes. Legal ones that drive traffic to the sponsors.

Got a 1. 2. 3. on how to do that?

but those google dmca takedown requests only apply to a specific video or page on the site..... you don't see youtube being banished from the serps for repeated copyright violations, just like you will never see the tube site sitting at number 1 for "Porn" on google losing that serp position due to a few dozen videos, those videos will lose their specific spot in the serps, perhaps, but the main page of the tubesite will still be sitting pretty on page one of Google for the big keywords :2 cents:


if only Google had a policy that 3 strikes and you're out or something, but that is obviously dreaming because they are not about to deindex Youtube for the same kind of behaviour that the big porn tubesites are pulling

surfers don't want legal tubes, they want the tube that gives them the most stolen content, quickly and easily searchable.... the pretenders to that goal will fizzle and die and the strongest stolen content sites with the most of the full length content that the surfers want for free will start to pull away from the pack...... things are still shifting around but as the months go by you will see the traffic shift away from the tubesites that aren't giving them the maximum free ride

says the guy who puts the hahahahahaha please every time i mention fair use.

Forget fair use for a second, and let talk about the most common mistake in this industry
accidental liciensing of content.

how many times have you seen an affiliate program explictly state that it was ok to send traffic "anyway you like" as long as it was "not spam".

guess what you just accidentally licienced your content.

i can count on one hand the number of companies who have never made that mistake.

You can't kill tubes, but you can kill a website.

You make me laugh.

Again, here is a novel concept for you. Drum roll please...

I actually TALK to my content buyer clients. I know who does and does not have affiliate programs, what most of them are doing with the content, and giving them some support tips.

So, once again, you are mistaken in your broad assumptions of legalese hypothetical situations you love to come up with. Furthermore, most DMCA requests are dealt with in a simple manner. Not this whole lawsuit, saber rattling, gideon bullshit crap you spew here. My own experience included.

Nine out of ten times, a DMCA will get the offender to remove your shit and give you an apology, and that is the end of it. There is typically only one gideon gallery in ten who you are going to have to go to the distance with. Including Google, host, registrar, processing company or fax legal to their local.

So dream on with more of your hypothetical bullshit that does not apply to how real life business is actually handled most of the time.

:disgust

If it was so easy, why are Google's search results littered with torrent results then?

Apathy friend.

Most people 'talk' on this board. Few actually do something about it.

:2 cents:

Tube sites will dominate the world...

so far i have only found a small handful of the affiliate programs which have not made this mistake. Established big boys like lightspeedcash made this mistake.
I would really like to see a list of the affiliate programs (all of those you deal with) that have not made that mistake.

the RIAA thought everyone would backpeddle to their demands for payment too, they thought no one would fight them when they came a knocking. They thought that any mistakes they made would be covered up the mountain of legal paperwork that is filed every year. They were wrong on both counts.
1. people fought back
2. their mistakes were made public (sending notices to a printer, sueing a dead guy)

The average cost of a case has ballooned for them (resulting in them not being able to give the artists any money)
and surveys show that only 3% of the population believes that filesharing should be illegal (down from 25% when they started).

the fact is the more people you convince to "Fight the good fight" the more likely this is going to happen to you too.

Quit while you're behind.

1. You have no idea who I do, and do not, do business with.
2. Most do not have affiliate programs.
3. My license restricts use, and I know which programs are licensed to use content, and how.

This include the domain(s) they are licensed to use to promote material on, and which are authorized to USE the material according to the license. How and where material can be used.

For simple minded gideon's sake, I'll provide a real life legal example. Tube sites are not allowed according to the license. So I see a full length clip on ANY tube, I know there is no license permitting that. Any DMCA is legal. Should any affiliate or program use clips in such a manner would be breaking the license, making it null and void.

While that is one of countless examples to blow gideon's hypotheticals out of the water. One is enough. We, as do many content providers, have licenses and limits to how content can be used. It is spelled out clearly urls, and uses, or limitations.

Now, once you are finished talking out of your ass, and making up hypotheticals that do not apply to any mistakes I am not going to be making in the future thanks to a license, good record keeping, and restrictions.....

carry on with your usual stirring up bullshit shtick.

:2 cents:

Sorry but no. Search almost any term and you will see tubes at the top of almost every one. Do you really think no one has ever sent google a DMCA about pornhub or any of the others?

At best they will remove the one url to the specific content in the url, it will have next to no effect otherwise on overall search traffic to the main site.

No, I do not. If they did, you would see more people mentioning this in the past, across this board, in any number of a thousand tube posts other than me. I've obviously done it. Both sides of the issue to be exact in regards to Google, and DMCA'd according to the other tactics I have mentioned. I am not doing your GFY armchair quarterbacking of DMCA opinion.

When you have experience with the process, you come and let us know.

That said, they can be re-included (of you actually read the link that is) once they remove the offending, DMCA'd, material.

Unless you know what you are talking about in this regard, I prolly would keep the :2 cents: to myself.

No offense chief.

This is true.

if the fucking Jew mainstream entertainment mafia can't take down content sharing, porn tards don't stand a chance.

I doubt the surfers really care or ever stop to think about whether or not the content is stolen or licensed or anything else....they just care if it gets them off.

Picposts couldn't stop the linklists, linklists couldn't stop the TGP, TGP's can't stop the tubes, and the tubes won't be able to stop whatever comes next.

Similar logic to Karl Marx' 'historical dialectic': slave societies couldn't stop monarchies, monarchies couldn't stop capitalists, capitalists couldn't stop the Communist future.

Oh wait.... :1orglaugh

Just messing with you, Lenny. I get your point :thumbsup On the whole, you're right. It's the evolution of promotional strategies on the Internet. No one can really control the push-pull factors of content availability, social sharing, and technology. The key is to monetize it regardless of how it evolves.

The arguments that are being used against tubes are the exact same ones that were used against all of the other forms of free sites I mentioned earlier.
"Theft" seems to be the watchword with tubes, but this "theft" has existed on free sites from the beginning, it's just easier to spot now because tubes are so much easier to surf and see what content they have.
Plus I guess you couldn't really blame the link list owner or TGP owner if a site/gallery submitter was using stolen content, even if they knew the content was stolen and looked the other way, whereas the tube owner is hosting the content himself.
Other than that distinction the only difference really is the amount of content being given away for free. The reason free content was limited in the past though, was the expense of bandwidth, not the morals or business sense of free site owners.
$5/mbit bandwidth vs $150/mbit bandwidth is why people are giving away 30 minute movies instead of 10 crappy pics. :2 cents:

I remember posting movie galleries to The Hun a long time ago and being told on the boards that I was "ruining the industry" and "giving away the store" and "teaching the surfer that he can get movies from free" so now those surfers "will never join a paysite because they already jizzed all over their keyboards" because of the content on my gallery....and this was over a gallery that had 4 x 10 second clips 150 pixels on the longest side.

People who think surfers only buy memberships because they "can't get it for free" are mistaken. Everyone knows about limewire or rapidshare but Itunes has still sold 6 billion downloads.

FWIW, buying a membership isn't always the greatest way to get porn. I signed up for some sites recently as an experiment and it's a good way to get alot of charges crammed onto your card in very sneaky ways and you end up in members areas that don't have alot of content and are harder to surf than the average tube site.
Membership sites like those are a far bigger threat to our industry than copyright infringement, and that's a fact. Yet webmasters still send joins to those programs by the thousands while bitching about the tube sites.

Go figure.

HHHHmmm.

Thanks for telling me what I do and don't know about. I haven't seen Google remove an entire site just for DMCA only the offending content URL. That is just my experience that I was sharing but you know all obviously and I'm just a noob.

Ease back toots.

1. I answered your question. No. I do not think a lot know about it.

2. I explained I have done it. Both sides. So I know how it works, and doesn't.

3. Thanks for letting us know you have actually filed the DMCA, and know the process.

4. For the record, Google removes the main site's url from the index. Others remove only the link... Rapidshare, Youtube, etc..

5. To address your question of why some could be, or are, still listed ASSuming they were DMCA'd I explained re-inclusion is possibe, as provided by the link.

6. I did not claim I know all. Explained from experience.

7. I did not call you a noob.

Let's stick to the facts. Thank you.