Blacklists, ahoy! PROTECT IP Act sails on to Senate floor - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Redrob · 05-28-2011, 08:17 PM

If I remember correctly, the copyright holders fought Sony over the introduction of VCRs that resulted in the Betamax case giving rise to the right to time shift television shows.

The copyright holders then fought the VHS video stores over the right to rent the movies on VHS tapes that the stores purchased with the resulting decision establishing the "First Sale Doctrine."

In both cases, new rights were established by those who opposed the perceived rights of the original copyright holders: ie. time-shifting and right to rent.

gideongallery · 05-28-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

Pretty sure that law only applies to someone taping something from a source they originally paid for or had rights to. I can't tap into my neighbours cable and "backup" what's coming through his signal, well I can, but it's not legal.

we are talking about using the torrents as a timeshifting device

the modern day equivalent of borrowing your next door neighbours copy of k night rider because the power went out on your vcr

Quote:

If letting 500 people watch a DVD I purchased is illegal, then why is it okay to share it with 500 strangers on the internet?

the only difference between the two is that instead of having a million 1:1 transactions

you have a million people in the same swarm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

Betamax is inferior to torrents on a technology scale, gideon. Just to clear that up. It's the decades, not the argument.

not based on the arguement you just made

betamax cassette can be used for timeshifting

while the superior torrent can't be.

That the point i am making

gideongallery · 05-28-2011, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

If I remember correctly, the copyright holders fought Sony over the introduction of VCRs that resulted in the Betamax case giving rise to the right to time shift television shows.

The copyright holders then fought the VHS video stores over the right to rent the movies on VHS tapes that the stores purchased with the resulting decision establishing the "First Sale Doctrine."

In both cases, new rights were established by those who opposed the perceived rights of the original copyright holders: ie. time-shifting and right to rent.

that the point those new rights have been established

and copyright holders are trying to deny those rights for the technology of torrents.

with bs arguements like sock just tried to make.

Socks · 05-28-2011, 08:36 PM

What's your first language gideon?

Redrob · 05-28-2011, 08:47 PM

Yes, new rights were established BY THE COURTS. Until that final decision was made, the violators were just thieving as the torrents are now.

If each torrent could only be accessed by the individual uploader, the time shift argument might be valid. However, the current paradigm does not support the time shifting argument due to the public availability of the torrent.

It is just thieving in my opinion.

Socks · 05-28-2011, 08:56 PM

Yeah I mean this whole ongoing never ending discussion with you centers around one thing:

You know that current laws about recording things are in place that give you rights to use torrents as an unlimited backup device.

Clearly the use of PVR devices backs up that argument, as well as all these sites staying online.

We're arguing that the changes in the landscape since those laws were enacted are so immense that the laws are no longer suitable and clearly aren't working as was intended when they were enacted.

You hope that never happens, while we hope that we can make some money again some day.

gideongallery · 05-29-2011, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Yes, new rights were established BY THE COURTS. Until that final decision was made, the violators were just thieving as the torrents are now.

but we are not talking about new right just the same right for new technology

what your doing by calling tv torrenters theives is like trying to argue that pvr are illegal because they didn't establish timeshifting rights all over again

Quote:

If each torrent could only be accessed by the individual uploader, the time shift argument might be valid. However, the current paradigm does not support the time shifting argument due to the public availability of the torrent.

It is just thieving in my opinion.

oh really

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

you might want to reread the supreme court decision then

this cloud included the public internet.

the swarm is just another form of a cloud.

gideongallery · 05-29-2011, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

Yeah I mean this whole ongoing never ending discussion with you centers around one thing:

You know that current laws about recording things are in place that give you rights to use torrents as an unlimited backup device.

Clearly the use of PVR devices backs up that argument, as well as all these sites staying online.

exactly

Quote:

We're arguing that the changes in the landscape since those laws were enacted are so immense that the laws are no longer suitable and clearly aren't working as was intended when they were enacted.

You hope that never happens, while we hope that we can make some money again some day.

except the solution is not in taking away fair use rights but in comming up with a put your shit on the cassettes solution for the technology

topnotch, standup guy · 05-29-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

...the solution is not in taking away fair use rights but in comming up with a put your shit on the cassettes solution for the technology

You're not gonna start droning on about "branding bugs" now are you?

.

BlackCrayon · 05-29-2011, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odin

Ever notice how you hardly get any spam in your inbox now days?

Lawsuits didn't stop spam, laws didn't stop spam, technology did.

If you idiots would spend half as much time developing automated anti-piracy technology (which when it exists mind you is technically a requirement of the DMCA for sites to allow/implement) as you did whining piracy would not be an issue.

There are a few companies that actually do proactively protect their content through all the automated systems available to them - and you won't find their content anywhere on the tubes/torrents/etc.

It's a technical challenge, not a legal one - but half of you idiots make your living running piece of shit websites and despite operating online business, barely scrape by on the technical side.

So because of your incompetence and laziness you pray for the day Governments around the world take complete control of the internet... sad.

very true but there are also people out there with 10 years of downloaded content. technology won't stop them but would definitly stop any future stealing.

Nathan · 05-29-2011, 09:06 AM

gideon, your points are all great and fine... but the problem with torrent sites is that they are not used as VCRs, and you yourself know this very well.. They might be used as VCRs by SOME of it's users, but its obvious that its not the case for most of them!

I think that is the big problem we are facing, that we need to try to find a way to make the illegal use impossible or very hard while the legal use of the technology remains.

But you yourself know that if someone downloads a torrent of a screener, this is CLEARLY not VCR-like use. The content could not have been recorded by the previous owner anyway..

The online VCR companies btw that exist, do it where if you do not tell them to record something BEFORE it starts, you can not download it or at least you can not unlock it... That makes it OBVIOUSLY VCR-like and thus fully legal...

I just think torrents are very different... and clearly are so in many many cases. How do we stop those uses of torrents?

gideongallery · 05-29-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

gideon, your points are all great and fine... but the problem with torrent sites is that they are not used as VCRs, and you yourself know this very well.. They might be used as VCRs by SOME of it's users, but its obvious that its not the case for most of them!

1. again more then 50% of all torrent traffic is tv show so by DEFINITION most people ARE using it like a VCR.

Quote:

I think that is the big problem we are facing, that we need to try to find a way to make the illegal use impossible or very hard while the legal use of the technology remains.

we didn't ban the vcr because people could use them to make bootleg copies of shit, the companies adapted to the medium change and created a new revenue stream to replace the one that was lost

compare that with trying to fix the problem by changing the laws, the DMCA was designed to replace the long complicated process of getting a court order to get content taken down with a simple takedown process, now you guys are complaining because that new process is "flawed".

the pattern is guarrenteed to repeat itself, you just need to choose the pattern you want to repeat, one that leads to new revenue, or one that simple leads to another problem "flaw"

Quote:

But you yourself know that if someone downloads a torrent of a screener, this is CLEARLY not VCR-like use. The content could not have been recorded by the previous owner anyway..

so what, torrent can be used for all kinds of fair use including ones that have not been established yet by the courts

WE are on the verge of a new fair use being founded, access shifting is just as legitimate as timeshifting

and demanding that i watch a movie at a specific location is just as much of an abuse as demanding that i watch a movie/tv show on a specific day, at a specific time.

Quote:

The online VCR companies btw that exist, do it where if you do not tell them to record something BEFORE it starts, you can not download it or at least you can not unlock it... That makes it OBVIOUSLY VCR-like and thus fully legal...

I just think torrents are very different... and clearly are so in many many cases. How do we stop those uses of torrents?

but that the point technologically torrents are superior to those offering because they combine all the benefits of multiple fair uses with the network effect.

backup/recovery/timeshifting all combine together to make an infinite sized hard drive pvr

i can wait until the season is ended and timeshift all the episodes at the end, i can timeshift content i paid for but didn't realize was something i would like (like supernatural for me)

all because other fans of the show act as a redundant backup for my POTENTIAL viewing habits.

problems in the current model which would normally prevent me from getting access (supernatual not advertising how like buffy/b5 they were for example) .

choice is expanded by allow the technology to move forward naturally, rather then looking backwards and trying to make an online version of an outdate technology.

Socks · 05-29-2011, 11:20 AM

They just need to make giving away the same as selling. If someone was selling tapes with copyright materials on them in North America, they're just asking to go to jail. Yet if you give away a small portion of that tape several thousand times to people on the internet for free, you've done no wrong?

AtlantisCash · 05-29-2011, 12:01 PM

Since i m not an American feel free to say My opinion does not matter, but if any content producer thinks it's a good thing, then i won't laugh but, wonder how such foolish people are able to serv until now.

to make afew bucks more for a while You think this is something good, but don't You think You also ask trouble for Yourself?

when you go and cry gov to watch Your dumb ass, don't you also give them right to tell you how to run Your business?

if internet wasn't such a volantary community, we wouldn't have those great opportunities to sell porn and other stuff world wide.

if Your shit is stolen, it's Your responsibility to take care of it.

there are bunch of technologies, don't tell me these pirates got more brains than you do.

there is no way You can stop someone changing dns and get the same shit one way or an other.

with supporting this, You are only shooting Yourself in the foot, however you are unaware of it

Robbie · 05-29-2011, 12:09 PM

You have a good point Atlantis Cash.

But the problem is that it is the govt. who made the law that has the loophole in it because it was written by people who at the time didn't understand the internet.

It's outdated and needs to be re-written to keep up with the times.

I hate the fucking govt.
But I have to live by the laws they already have in place. And that law is killing honest people's business in many industries. It needs to be re-written to reflect today's technology.

I don't think that would be handing over the internet to the govt. al all. I think it's something necessary to stop the brazen stealing that thieves are doing right to our face.

I don't need the govt. to do anything for me. But they did something TO me with the DMCA laws as they stand. All I need is an even playing field and then guys like Fabian will be back to mowing my yard and not making millions off of the work of other people.

Nathan · 05-29-2011, 12:16 PM

Giddeon, I agree, for TV again its fine... but you can hardly argue that a movie that is only available in theaters should be legally trade-able.. that just seems ridiculous. Why make theaters at that point? Again, I see no problem with TV and torrents, as you said, its basically just a VCR at that point. Or at least its similar.

Robbie,
tell me where exactly the DMCA law has a loophole and how you suggest you fix it. What would you change in the law to make it "good"?
I mean, actually EXPLAIN to me what change you would do in the logic of the law, how would you make what tube sites do illegal?

(someone tell Robbie to read my post)

AtlantisCash · 05-29-2011, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You have a good point Atlantis Cash.

But the problem is that it is the govt. who made the law that has the loophole in it because it was written by people who at the time didn't understand the internet.

It's outdated and needs to be re-written to keep up with the times.

I hate the fucking govt.
But I have to live by the laws they already have in place. And that law is killing honest people's business in many industries. It needs to be re-written to reflect today's technology.

I don't think that would be handing over the internet to the govt. al all. I think it's something necessary to stop the brazen stealing that thieves are doing right to our face.

I don't need the govt. to do anything for me. But they did something TO me with the DMCA laws as they stand. All I need is an even playing field and then guys like Fabian will be back to mowing my yard and not making millions off of the work of other people.

Ok they didn't understand how internet worked x years ago, do You think did they get it for today?

Burocrats and Politisions are mostly thick headed, don't expect them to perform solutions but new problems.

Robbie · 05-29-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantisCash

Ok they didn't understand how internet worked x years ago, do You think did they get it for today?

Burocrats and Politisions are mostly thick headed, don't expect them to perform solutions but new problems.

Politicians are out for themselves in my opinion.
But there is too much money being lost by legitimate mainstream businesses online for them to ignore this problem. The people putting money in their pockets are demanding that it be corrected.

And I do believe that "yes" the companies affected do understand how it works and are actively working on shaping the legislation and treaties that govt.'s are moving towards.

Thieves have been using the DMCA law in a perverted way to STEAL and profit off of others. As I said earlier...just look at Pornhub. Millions of people visit that site everyday. Take away all the content that doesn't belong to them? That site would be a ghost town.

Something has to be done or the internet will cease to be a place to do viable business for people creating their own content. I think that much has already been shown just by looking at how many companies went out of business already and how many are struggling.

And yes, some will say: "They just couldn't adapt"

"Adapt" means one of two things: Profit off of stolen content like Manwin, Pirate Bay, fileshare sites.....or protect your content and spend time and effort fighting to survive while the Manwins of the world laugh at you.

Neither one is acceptable. The only solution is for the loophole in the DMCA law to be closed and copyright to actually mean something again.

Redrob · 05-29-2011, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Something has to be done or the internet will cease to be a place to do viable business for people creating their own content. I think that much has already been shown just by looking at how many companies went out of business already and how many are struggling.

And yes, some will say: "They just couldn't adapt"

"Adapt" means one of two things: Profit off of stolen content like Manwin, Pirate Bay, fileshare sites.....or protect your content and spend time and effort fighting to survive while the Manwins of the world laugh at you.

Neither one is acceptable. The only solution is for the loophole in the DMCA law to be closed and copyright to actually mean something again

Well said, Robbie.

marlboroack · 05-29-2011, 01:37 PM

Not going to happen in America.

CrkMStanz · 05-29-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Robbie,
tell me where exactly the DMCA law has a loophole and how you suggest you fix it. What would you change in the law to make it "good"?
I mean, actually EXPLAIN to me what change you would do in the logic of the law, how would you make what tube sites do illegal?

(someone tell Robbie to read my post)

from my point of view..

1 - any site can upload any copyright-abuse digital thing it wants, claiming 'user submitted' (even if the site owners either do it themselves or pay others to do it for them) and profit from advertising or selling traffic. If they have to take down content - it can be immediatly re-upped.

2 - the copyright owner must FIND the infringers, and who can moniter every possible infringing site? After 'finding' the infringing site the owner must submit the DMCA, it must be in the correct format or it can be 'rejected' by the infringing site, ultimatly some sites can just 'ignore' DMCA notices with little or no penalty, and continue to profit.

DMCA is only a mechanism to remove content after discovery - a way to deal with something after the fact, it is not a tool to stop "infringement practice" and impose actual penalties on repeat offenders / sites

DMCA needs to be replaced by Laws such as the "PROTECT IP" bills being proposed - putting the onus on the infringer - an emphasis to not do it in the first place - instead of putting the onus on the content producer / copyright holder to have to 'FIND" the infringer.

digital product needs to be protected under the same governances as physical product - DMCA does not satisfy that.

and IMHO - 'Backups' should only be classified as such if they are private - if they can NOT be obtained publically - either by public torrent or by a public link to a 'file locker'

also IMO - digital piracy should not be looked at solely as 'theft', but also counterfieting

and giddyboy... there are TONS of torrents out there with only 1 seeder - therefore if I take a copy I am not entitled to then I may be breaking the law - but that seeder is too, even if his torrent is a legit 'backup' to him - he is feeding me the whole copy- your whole argument for ONLY going after the non-entitled downloader is bullshit.

.

Nathan · 05-29-2011, 02:02 PM

CrkMStanz,

1) PROTECT IP says sites following DMCA do not fall under sites that could be seized according to PROTECT IP. So I do not think you actually mean replacing DMCA with PROTECT IP would solve your issue.

2) You are also basically saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that you want all sites that allow user submitted content to be shut down and made illegal? Meaning, facebook needs to stop allowing user uploaded items, all the image hosts out there that let you manage your photos and share them need to be closed, all of flickr.com basically is illegal, twitter can not be allowed to let people link to content...

3) You also seem to want the definition of "hosting service" to be changed. But I am not sure to what, how do you define what is a hosting service and what is not? Since you clearly do not want a HOST liable for what its users upload, right? IE, you are a user of your host, your host is thus a user submitted content service. And if you upload illegal content, your host would be liable without DMCA. How do you fix that?

And please, give me answers to 2) and 3) which are not short ones, actually define HOW you want to fix it. Suggest how to define each...

gideongallery · 05-29-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

but you can hardly argue that a movie that is only available in theaters should be legally trade-able.. that just seems ridiculous. Why make theaters at that point?

think about it for a second
the current model of granting exclusivity to a venue is killing innovation

imagine what theaters would do to compete if dvd/ppv/television got the movie on the same day.

They would have no choice but to use technology that only cost effective at the theater level to make the viewing experience valuable enough to justify the inconvience.

6 spectrum color/ autoscopic 3d/ ofactory triggers/

that technology would perculate down to home market.

All that technology is being held back because of the access shifting abuse.

Take a look at the technologies that can be traced back to the commercialization of solid state disk (after diamond rio gave us the format shifting fair use)

that what we are losing so that movie producers can make an extra $3-4 per showing.

gideongallery · 05-29-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

and giddyboy... there are TONS of torrents out there with only 1 seeder - therefore if I take a copy I am not entitled to then I may be breaking the law - but that seeder is too, even if his torrent is a legit 'backup' to him - he is feeding me the whole copy- your whole argument for ONLY going after the non-entitled downloader is bullshit.

.

except if you have a million seeders and you taked a copy your not entitled to you breaking the law

the point isn't how many people you take it from

btw look at the law again

seeder is not liable for the actions of the other person/ he has no way of knowing if the person has a right or not

he trust that they do, and isn't liable if they lied to him/her

the parallel to your own business is clearly

every one of you KNOW that little johnny COULD steal his daddy credit card to get access to porn

your not liable IF that happens.

same basic principle in this case.

Redrob · 05-29-2011, 02:35 PM

Daddy's credit card has an authorization security code that only Daddy knows. False analogy here in my opinion.

However, making an unauthorized upload is the same as making as making an unauthorized purchase on a credit card in the fact that both are stealing from the true owners of the property.

gideongallery · 05-29-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Daddy's credit card has an authorization security code that only Daddy knows. False analogy here in my opinion.

which is on the back of the credit card

Quote:

However, making an unauthorized upload is the same as making as making an unauthorized purchase on a credit card in the fact that both are stealing from the true owners of the property.

ok let say your right in special case where there is only 1 seeder and the only person in the entire world who wants that content is not authorized to get it

the seeder would be distributing the content without autohorization

how exactly would you catch that person, the second an authorized person participated in that swarm (agent of the copyright holder) the 1:1 relationship would be broken and you would have the no whole copy situation

the senerio your trying to use to justify your position is impossible to exist

the only way 1:1 relationship can exist AND have the evidence necessary to convict is if the leacher is an authorized agent of the copyright holder, and therefore has a right to download the content.

BTW
you still haven't explained why little johnny stealing the credit card should gives you a pass on the crime of selling porn to minors when similar lack of knowledge shouldn't give a pass to seeder

$5 submissions · 05-29-2011, 03:15 PM

You guys missed the most important part of that legislation: ?private right of action?

This gives any struggling lawyer a new way to make cheddar.

If you thought ambulance chasing was rough on the respondents, wait till you see this in action

CrkMStanz · 05-29-2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

CrkMStanz,

1) PROTECT IP says sites following DMCA do not fall under sites that could be seized according to PROTECT IP. So I do not think you actually mean replacing DMCA with PROTECT IP would solve your issue.

yes, we need to get away from the 'content owner must find the infringing sites and politely ask if they would kindly take it down' way of doing things, to replace DMCA the new laws would have to absorb it as a way of tracking repeat offenders - submit the DMCA to not only the site but to some kind of registry to track repeat offenders.

we both know that existing 'infringing' sites already monitor their 'user uploads' for some stuff (CP, banned studios, beastiality, or ANYTHING that doesn't fit the motif of their site) - there should be no problem in requiring all 'upload sites' to expand that list at the request of any content owner / copyright holder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

2) You are also basically saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that you want all sites that allow user submitted content to be shut down and made illegal? Meaning, facebook needs to stop allowing user uploaded items, all the image hosts out there that let you manage your photos and share them need to be closed, all of flickr.com basically is illegal, twitter can not be allowed to let people link to content...

Don't pull the giddyboy twist on words here - you are smarter than that. It isn't black or white. I am saying they need to be responsible for what they make available - user submitted content is supposed to be content that the owner made or owns, content they have a right to post for the world - If Matt and Trey want their full episodes of South Park up onYouTube, then they can post it, postings by anyone other than them (or the studio, or whoever actually owns the right to post) should have some real ramifications, to both the uploaders, and to the site that allows it.

simply put - make your own dam videos and post them on YouTube (or anywhere else)

If you absolutly just have to start a "discussion" on someone elses work, post the trailer/promo - or better yet, post a video of YOU, clearly using your right to Free Speech, actually talking about the content - and link to the content OWNERS site for the full version - thats some real 'Free Speech' in action right there

its not the 'user submitted' sites that need to be made 'illegal', its the allowance of the current practices that needs to be addressed - and SOMEONE has to be held accountable (the submitter) and SOMEONE has to be responsible (Site Owners).

pawn shop owners are responsible for what comes in to their stores - in fact, in some way every business is responsible for what they take in and in turn offer to the public
- diamonds from banned countries
- automotive parts obtained from chop shops
- food from reputable sources
- news services and their sources
I could go on and on with this list... there is NO reason that 'user submitted' sites shouldn't be held accountable for their sources of 'input'

The fix is to get to a place where digital is treated the same as physical in the eyes of the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

3) You also seem to want the definition of "hosting service" to be changed. But I am not sure to what, how do you define what is a hosting service and what is not? Since you clearly do not want a HOST liable for what its users upload, right? IE, you are a user of your host, your host is thus a user submitted content service. And if you upload illegal content, your host would be liable without DMCA. How do you fix that?

Didn't think I went there but, yes... At some point in the chain it would become apparent that some 'Hosts' are dealing in a large volume of infringing sites, and just as the individual sites should be responsible for their own 'uploaders', Hosts should be responsible for their individual sites, and ISPs should be responsible for their individual hosts. If you continue to allow Infringement on the site/host you own, you should be accountable, you should risk losing your site, or having your hosting services shut down.

I am not saying 'MONITOR EVERYTHING' - I am saying that when it becomes apparent there needs to be repercussions - right now there are none - everyone is free to carry on infringing and only take something down if they are 'caught' - thats all well and good but the next step is to tally how many times they are caught, and then take appropriate action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

And please, give me answers to 2) and 3) which are not short ones, actually define HOW you want to fix it. Suggest how to define each...

it is, of course too complex to answer without a gideon style novel

NONE of this deprives anyone of their 'Free Speech' - it would still allow you to

.

gideongallery · 05-29-2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

If you absolutly just have to start a "discussion" on someone elses work, post the trailer/promo - or better yet, post a video of YOU, clearly using your right to Free Speech, actually talking about the content - and link to the content OWNERS site for the full version - thats some real 'Free Speech' in action right there

ok care to explain who documentaries like "this film is not yet rated" could ever be made then

Quote:

This Film Is Not Yet Rated uses clips from several films to illustrate its criticisms of the MPAA ratings board. Dick had originally planned to license these clips from their studio owners but discovered that studio licensing agreements would have prohibited him from using this material to criticize the entertainment industry. This prompted him to invoke the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material to provide analysis and criticism of published works. The film's success has spurred interest in fair use, especially amongst other documentary filmmakers

Robbie · 05-29-2011, 04:27 PM

I got your answer Fabian...since you have said repeatedly over and over that the tube sites are a small, small part of Manwin's business...

Then do the RIGHT thing. Remove user upload, and then remove all content that you don't own.

No big loss for you there since you claim to be a genius at business and the tube sites are so small to Manwin.

If you did that there would be no need for you to worry about DMCA since you would own all the content...you know, like a REAL site is supposed to.

But you won't and you can't. Your bosses (the real owners) bought the company because they want all the money being generated by those tube sites...which of course is why you guys just went on a buying spree and bought a bunch more big tube sites.

ALL of that traffic and money from those tube sites is generated off of the work of others.

Yet you play hide and seek with the DMCA law and then try to act like you are a bigshot. You are a clown.

gideongallery · 05-29-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I got your answer Fabian...since you have said repeatedly over and over that the tube sites are a small, small part of Manwin's business...

Then do the RIGHT thing. Remove user upload, and then remove all content that you don't own.

No big loss for you there since you claim to be a genius at business and the tube sites are so small to Manwin.

If you did that there would be no need for you to worry about DMCA since you would own all the content...you know, like a REAL site is supposed to.

But you won't and you can't. Your bosses (the real owners) bought the company because they want all the money being generated by those tube sites...which of course is why you guys just went on a buying spree and bought a bunch more big tube sites.

ALL of that traffic and money from those tube sites is generated off of the work of others.

Yet you play hide and seek with the DMCA law and then try to act like you are a bigshot. You are a clown.

wow free speach only if you accept the licience of the copyright holder

there is a hell of a lot of free speach that is going to be censored by that interpretation of the law

Nathan · 05-30-2011, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

yes, we need to get away from the 'content owner must find the infringing sites and politely ask if they would kindly take it down' way of doing things, to replace DMCA the new laws would have to absorb it as a way of tracking repeat offenders - submit the DMCA to not only the site but to some kind of registry to track repeat offenders.

we both know that existing 'infringing' sites already monitor their 'user uploads' for some stuff (CP, banned studios, beastiality, or ANYTHING that doesn't fit the motif of their site) - there should be no problem in requiring all 'upload sites' to expand that list at the request of any content owner / copyright holder

Don't pull the giddyboy twist on words here - you are smarter than that. It isn't black or white. I am saying they need to be responsible for what they make available - user submitted content is supposed to be content that the owner made or owns, content they have a right to post for the world - If Matt and Trey want their full episodes of South Park up onYouTube, then they can post it, postings by anyone other than them (or the studio, or whoever actually owns the right to post) should have some real ramifications, to both the uploaders, and to the site that allows it.

simply put - make your own dam videos and post them on YouTube (or anywhere else)

If you absolutly just have to start a "discussion" on someone elses work, post the trailer/promo - or better yet, post a video of YOU, clearly using your right to Free Speech, actually talking about the content - and link to the content OWNERS site for the full version - thats some real 'Free Speech' in action right there

its not the 'user submitted' sites that need to be made 'illegal', its the allowance of the current practices that needs to be addressed - and SOMEONE has to be held accountable (the submitter) and SOMEONE has to be responsible (Site Owners).

pawn shop owners are responsible for what comes in to their stores - in fact, in some way every business is responsible for what they take in and in turn offer to the public
- diamonds from banned countries
- automotive parts obtained from chop shops
- food from reputable sources
- news services and their sources
I could go on and on with this list... there is NO reason that 'user submitted' sites shouldn't be held accountable for their sources of 'input'

The fix is to get to a place where digital is treated the same as physical in the eyes of the law.

Didn't think I went there but, yes... At some point in the chain it would become apparent that some 'Hosts' are dealing in a large volume of infringing sites, and just as the individual sites should be responsible for their own 'uploaders', Hosts should be responsible for their individual sites, and ISPs should be responsible for their individual hosts. If you continue to allow Infringement on the site/host you own, you should be accountable, you should risk losing your site, or having your hosting services shut down.

I am not saying 'MONITOR EVERYTHING' - I am saying that when it becomes apparent there needs to be repercussions - right now there are none - everyone is free to carry on infringing and only take something down if they are 'caught' - thats all well and good but the next step is to tally how many times they are caught, and then take appropriate action.

it is, of course too complex to answer without a gideon style novel

NONE of this deprives anyone of their 'Free Speech' - it would still allow you to

.

I never said this has anything to do with Free Speech or anything like that...

Your answers do not really say how you expect to do the things you want...

I am not twisting words, you are not answering my questions till the end.

1) You say only south park makers or studio or "whoever" has the rights to the video may upload it to youtube. How does youtube verify this? you expect them to check chain of title on each video? Do you expect facebook to do that on each image?? Facebook gets MILLIONS of images each day. It would take them more than 100 man-years to verify chain of title.
Thus I said you expect user submitted conent to disappear on the web, since it clearly is impossible to check the chain of title on each one.

2) The submitted already today is liable for what he uploads.

3) My comment about Hosts was regarding the fact that based on 1) above, you will clearly see that any host is somewhat of a user-submitted content service. You get an account and upload content. If you do not own that content, the host can not be held liable. That is because of DMCA, and nothing else... Thus DMCA is clearly needed unless you think the host should be liable if one out of 100 customers uploads stolen content that the host CLEARLY could not know about.

Nathan · 05-30-2011, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I got your answer Fabian...since you have said repeatedly over and over that the tube sites are a small, small part of Manwin's business...

Then do the RIGHT thing. Remove user upload, and then remove all content that you don't own.

No big loss for you there since you claim to be a genius at business and the tube sites are so small to Manwin.

If you did that there would be no need for you to worry about DMCA since you would own all the content...you know, like a REAL site is supposed to.

But you won't and you can't. Your bosses (the real owners) bought the company because they want all the money being generated by those tube sites...which of course is why you guys just went on a buying spree and bought a bunch more big tube sites.

ALL of that traffic and money from those tube sites is generated off of the work of others.

Yet you play hide and seek with the DMCA law and then try to act like you are a bigshot. You are a clown.

Removing User-Uploaded content means removing all content submitted by third parties, which means removing promo videos and everything else that any studio ever uploaded, thus taking away all revenue generation on our tubes from all studios. This obviously includes your videos of claudia marie that you uploaded. Which you likely do not care about since you do not understand the branding value those videos have created for you.

Do you still think removing user uploaded videos is a good idea?

Robbie · 05-30-2011, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Removing User-Uploaded content means removing all content submitted by third parties, which means removing promo videos and everything else that any studio ever uploaded, thus taking away all revenue generation on our tubes from all studios. This obviously includes your videos of claudia marie that you uploaded. Which you likely do not care about since you do not understand the branding value those videos have created for you.

Do you still think removing user uploaded videos is a good idea?

Dumb. I already took down those videos. They were useless to me. And removing your user upload does NOT mean removing promo vids. Having a PRIVATE user upload for affiliate programs is an entirely different business model.

Clown.

Nathan · 05-30-2011, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Dumb. I already took down those videos. They were useless to me. And removing your user upload does NOT mean removing promo vids. Having a PRIVATE user upload for affiliate programs is an entirely different business model.

Clown.

Robbie,

it does not matter if its a different business model. It's still uploaded files from 3rd parties. Which means we can never be 100% sure they are legal. You could get an account and upload a PRVT video. How should we know its not one of yours?! Explain that to me.

Thus, it still requires DMCA law.

My questions, also, were not about how we should change our business model. It was about changing the DMCA law you all say is full of "loopholes" without actually understanding it 100%. But when I ask for what you would change to remove those loopholes, you can not actually give me anything, all you say is I should stop allowing user uploaded content... that's just a brainless answer.

It would be awesome if at any point in time you would actually have the dignity to truly discuss this subject without calling me names, but I guess that is not possible for you to do... I'll survive... I am actually trying to discuss this to understand what you would suggest, but if you have no actual suggestions, so be it.

gideongallery · 05-30-2011, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Robbie,

it does not matter if its a different business model. It's still uploaded files from 3rd parties. Which means we can never be 100% sure they are legal. You could get an account and upload a PRVT video. How should we know its not one of yours?! Explain that to me.

Thus, it still requires DMCA law.

My questions, also, were not about how we should change our business model. It was about changing the DMCA law you all say is full of "loopholes" without actually understanding it 100%. But when I ask for what you would change to remove those loopholes, you can not actually give me anything, all you say is I should stop allowing user uploaded content... that's just a brainless answer.

It would be awesome if at any point in time you would actually have the dignity to truly discuss this subject without calling me names, but I guess that is not possible for you to do... I'll survive... I am actually trying to discuss this to understand what you would suggest, but if you have no actual suggestions, so be it.

robbie problem is that anything that limits the absolute monopoly of the copyright act is a loophole

he argued that the only way to have a fair use right to use his content (for parody) is not to use his content at all

he has argued that supreme court explict declaration that copyright is a monopoly is not legally legitimate

he doesn't understand that the safe harbor provision was the balance to a takedown process that bypasses the court systems.

he doesn't want to go backwards, he wants the benefits without any balance and he doesn't realize the censorship that would cause.

Robbie · 05-30-2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Robbie,

it does not matter if its a different business model. It's still uploaded files from 3rd parties. Which means we can never be 100% sure they are legal. You could get an account and upload a PRVT video. How should we know its not one of yours?! Explain that to me.

Thus, it still requires DMCA law.

My questions, also, were not about how we should change our business model. It was about changing the DMCA law you all say is full of "loopholes" without actually understanding it 100%. But when I ask for what you would change to remove those loopholes, you can not actually give me anything, all you say is I should stop allowing user uploaded content... that's just a brainless answer.

It would be awesome if at any point in time you would actually have the dignity to truly discuss this subject without calling me names, but I guess that is not possible for you to do... I'll survive... I am actually trying to discuss this to understand what you would suggest, but if you have no actual suggestions, so be it.

The reason I call you names is because you are either deliberately acting stupid or you are. Either way it makes you look incredible inept to me.

I'll explain this to you slowly...Since 1996 I ran TGP's.
Around 2001 I stopped taking submissions because my traffic was too valuable and I made a lot more money off of hosted galleries.

I signed up for over 400 programs and ran their galleries.

THAT is what I would do with your tubes. I would sign up for all those programs, then I would go to each one and ASK for some of their older vids...perhaps ones that were already on Pornhub in the past.

Then I would set up trusted accounts for paysite owners only. Then I would CAREFULLY set up the page templates for their videos based on the niche of their sites. Keeping the pre-paid shit less "spammy" looking so the page actually makes some sense and has the ability to sell something for the pre-paid sponsor AND the video owner.

And finally I would look at each vid uploaded. And I would personally decide which ones went up each day.

Just like a TGP operated.

No need for DMCA or stealing.

And I'd set this all up while the current Pornhub was still live. Once everything was in place I'd flip the switch and change you from being a hated thief into being the biggest and most profitable affiliate in the world.

That good enough for you? I was willing to come to see you personally and map this out.

Why? Because you're my bestest friend in the world?
No.
Because I believe that if I could make Manwin enough money doing things the right way, that it could be an industry changer and help raise up many of these paysites from the dead. Which would increase production across the board and make the entire industry healthier.

If the biggest tubes in the world (Manwin's) followed this plan and were successful, then others would naturally fall in line. Just like they fell in line naturally with the current fucked up system.

There you go Fabian.

Nathan · 05-30-2011, 11:15 AM

Robbie,

great, lovely suggestion, three problems I see with it:

1) We have tested and tested and tested and I do not think your version of the site would make any more money.

2) I have no time to personally decide which video goes up each day, so I need to trust employees to make the right choice, which is not TRULY an issue, just something I wanted to mention.

3) This logic would still require DMCA since again, "trusted" accounts or not, it would still mean that people can upload content that is not theirs to upload. This is what DMCA is for. Just accept that one little fact...

You have not shown how to change DMCA to remove the loopholes, you have again just told me how you would change PornHub in some magical way that will make me "millions more each month" (as you said in another thread)... It won't.

YouPorn uses a similar approach, except that we still do not upload the content, "trusted" accounts do. That does NOT mean they do not need DMCA!

Robbie · 05-30-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Robbie,

great, lovely suggestion, three problems I see with it:

1) We have tested and tested and tested and I do not think your version of the site would make any more money.

2) I have no time to personally decide which video goes up each day, so I need to trust employees to make the right choice, which is not TRULY an issue, just something I wanted to mention.

3) This logic would still require DMCA since again, "trusted" accounts or not, it would still mean that people can upload content that is not theirs to upload. This is what DMCA is for. Just accept that one little fact...

1. I only have to look at any page on pornhub to KNOW it can make a LOT more money.

2. I have spent years making relationships with companies. Not one of them has any reason to want to upload a competitors video and risk losing their account and the accompanying traffic and sales. Which is also why I would be the one personally selecting which vids went up on which day. It would be a very carefully thought out and executed daily procedure. Nobodies vid goes up without ME choosing it for that day.
Just like they didn't make hosted galleries that broke the rules because I CHECKED all of them by the thousands.

3. See "2"

DMCA was never needed for any free site promoting sponsors. The only thing DMCA is needed for is for you to make money off of other people's work.
But MY way would make much more money and everyone would be happy.

The only difference is it would actually require someone to WORK (that being me), and it would require your "team" to do something other than answer DMCA's

And quite frankly...I don't even need to give a sponsor an upload account. I can just do it the way I do it now on my tubes... ask them for the vids. Get them myself when they give them to me and put them in myself. No DMCA, no hatred, just making money.

digitaldivas · 05-30-2011, 11:30 AM

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which goes in tandem with DMCA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs and/or sites a safe harbor from liability to their users upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing.

Maybe have a post upload agreement from the surfers stating that they accept liability if the video is in fact infringing before going on your network. Imho, Robbie does have a good idea for separate affiliate and surfer upload pages. I think many independent producers, myself included would jump at this chance if given the opportunity.

I also agree with the upload my hand approach. I do the same thing Robbie does with tube-erotique, although my tube is much, much smaller.

Nathan · 05-30-2011, 11:33 AM

Robbie, it's great that you are so proud and think so highly of yourself and think so little of everyone else that you feel you are just better than anyone.

I think letting studios upload the content is an important part of the way a tube site works, and I do not honestly care if you think nobody has a reason to upload a competitors video. This has nothing to do with possibilities, simply with covering your ass, and anything is possible.

Who knows, maybe after testing YouPorn long enough in-house we will come to the conclusion that turning off user uploaded content is a good way to go, but we are simply not there yet. The problem with DMCA is that you lose out on the safe harbor if you control too much. So, IF another studio wanted to hurt us, it would be much easier by uploading someone else's content and getting us sued if we somehow screen user upload accounts to somehow verify they are "industry players".

That is a simple business concern and risk which I need to weigh in when I look at DMCA regulations. Losing the safe harbor is not a good idea.

I understand that many people hate what we do, I also know many many others do not. I also know that we offer technical means to make sure your content never even gets up on our tubes. If you feel there is some other technical feature we should be adding which we do not have currently, feel free to suggest it. But do not suggest that losing safe harbor under DMCA is a good and wise business decision since it simply is not.

Nathan · 05-30-2011, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitaldivas

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which goes in tandem with DMCA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs and/or sites a safe harbor from liability to their users upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing.

Maybe have a post upload agreement from the surfers stating that they accept liability if the video is in fact infringing before going on your network. Imho, Robbie does have a good idea for separate affiliate and surfer upload pages. I think many independent producers, myself included would jump at this chance if given the opportunity.

I also agree with the upload my hand approach. I do the same thing Robbie does with tube-erotique, although my tube is much, much smaller.

We follow counter nofitifaction rules as well as all other things in DMCA or related to it.

We also tell uploaders that they are liable for videos they upload that they have no rights to.

Robbie · 05-30-2011, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitaldivas

separate affiliate and surfer upload pages. I think many independent producers, myself included would jump at this chance if given the opportunity.

Pornhub already has such a thing. I tried it for many months.

It didn't work for anything except getting Pornhub traffic. The second part of the equation: making Pornhub money off of sales to the site...didn't happen because the page isn't set up correctly and is too spammy with pre-paid ad spots.
I'm sure I made a few sales that were type ins from it. But Pornhub made shit on it.

No, the page templates would have to be set up individually for each sponsors paysite. It would take some work and (as I did) the tube script would have to be hacked up a bit and the admin tweaked out to make it possible to set up each paysites page with the proper corresponding banner...and I'd also do the same with the pre-paid spots.

If it's a big tits vid...the pre-paid AFF ad would go to the AFF search page for big tits.

Little tweaks like that can mean a huge increase in income. But it takes somebody with experience and a non-stop work ethic to do it. You can't just put the tube site on auto-pilot and do nothing but answer DMCA to truly monetize it to it's maximum potential.

Robbie · 05-30-2011, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Robbie, it's great that you are so proud and think so highly of yourself and think so little of everyone else that you feel you are just better than anyone..

Somebody has to be better and faster and smarter. That's how I've made my money. 99% of the people aren't all that clever.

Nathan · 05-30-2011, 11:40 AM

Robbie, I totally agree, that's why we have a big team working on the tubes constantly changing how they work and optimizing them...

Robbie · 05-30-2011, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Robbie, I totally agree, that's why we have a big team working on the tubes constantly changing how they work and optimizing them...

I don't doubt that you have a good team of workers.

What you need now is a guy who knows where to aim them and have them doing the right things.

You asked me to engage you in a conversation without name calling. I did so.

The things your team are doing to optimize are the wrong things.

Analogize it to music: A lot of guys can copy Van Halen's guitar licks note for note...great technical players. But they will never be the expressive player that Eddie Van Halen is.

Or sports: The NFL is full of quarterback coaches who know more about throwing a football than anyone...but they are not and never will be a great quarterback on the field.

Your team may or may not have someone with both technical skills AND "right side" of the brain creativity.
You yourself, as a former programmer, are probably a strong left side of the brain thinker.

I suspect you have a lot of that same type of technical, analytical thinkers on your team.

What they need is someone in there with real good right side artistic thinking to combine with their more technical skills.

DangerX !!! · 05-30-2011, 12:00 PM

Another retarded law that won't change a damn thing when it comes to piracy and copyright infringement but yet the same time it will be abused thousands of times to fight off freedom of speech at the web. Congrats to those of you who are happy knowing shit about the reality.
__________________

Nathan · 05-30-2011, 12:14 PM

Robbie, none of the things you have mentioned are things we have not looked into, tested or are still testing today...

I am the last one to say that the way we monetize our sites is perfect, but it is far better than you think it is.

Thanks for the real discussion btw.

Robbie · 05-30-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Robbie, none of the things you have mentioned are things we have not looked into, tested or are still testing today...

I am the last one to say that the way we monetize our sites is perfect, but it is far better than you think it is.

Thanks for the real discussion btw.

Oh, I'm sure you make more money on your Streamate White Label in a month than I make in a year. But you know what I'm saying.

Pornhub and all of your tube sites have missed the boat on paysite sales and optimizing individual pages to specific paysites.

Saying that you are making great money with a rumored 10 million uniques a day is a given.
But I made a LOT of money on my TGP's with 1.2 million uniques a day a few years back. I know things are different now because of sites like Pornhub giving away full scenes.

BUT...if you took the bull by the horns you could turn that thing around.
Stop the user-upload. Continue on with full scenes, but NOT the newest full scenes from a site's members area. Let that be the value of the membership.

You would still have a site full of free porn, 10 million people coming there, and your pre-paid ads and whitelabel and "premium" all in place.

But the difference is...no more DMCA to fuck with, extra revenue coming in, a place at the table in this industry instead of being one of the most hated, and one less legal problem (copyright and trademark infringements) to deal with.

Fabian, I've had video clips on my free sites for years. And tube sites for 3 years. I've never had one DMCA notice. I run my site. Nothing is going up that I don't do myself.

I understand the DMCA law...but it doesn't apply unless you are in that user upload game. And that just isn't necessary. There is a better way.

gideongallery · 05-30-2011, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

The reason I call you names is because you are either deliberately acting stupid or you are. Either way it makes you look incredible inept to me.

I'll explain this to you slowly...Since 1996 I ran TGP's.
Around 2001 I stopped taking submissions because my traffic was too valuable and I made a lot more money off of hosted galleries.

I signed up for over 400 programs and ran their galleries.

THAT is what I would do with your tubes. I would sign up for all those programs, then I would go to each one and ASK for some of their older vids...perhaps ones that were already on Pornhub in the past.

Then I would set up trusted accounts for paysite owners only. Then I would CAREFULLY set up the page templates for their videos based on the niche of their sites. Keeping the pre-paid shit less "spammy" looking so the page actually makes some sense and has the ability to sell something for the pre-paid sponsor AND the video owner.

your a moron

that would be the quickest way to kill the value of the tube site

think about
porn hub would consist of only old videos

how long do you think it would be before people jumped to another tube site

look at how quickly people jumped to alternative file lockers when the biggest player in the industry decided to play ball with mpaa.

thank god manwin true owners didn't listen to you

Quote:

And finally I would look at each vid uploaded. And I would personally decide which ones went up each day.

Just like a TGP operated.

No need for DMCA or stealing.

moron tgp link to content hosted somewhere else
tube sites HOST THE CONTENT ON THEIR SITE

what you are talking about creates a massive liablity
approve one single video that in dispute in any way shape or form and your fucked

and don't say every paysite has perfect control over the content they sell

because there have been dozens of bitch fest where a content shooter complains about not getting paid for his work, or paysite going beyond the liciencee rights granted by the actual content producer.

that happens once under your system and manwin would be co defendants in such a suit

hell with the big pockets cases which would not have a chance in hell of being profitable would suddenly make buckets of cash.

Quote:

And I'd set this all up while the current Pornhub was still live. Once everything was in place I'd flip the switch and change you from being a hated thief into being the biggest and most profitable affiliate in the world.

That good enough for you? I was willing to come to see you personally and map this out.

Why? Because you're my bestest friend in the world?
No.
Because I believe that if I could make Manwin enough money doing things the right way, that it could be an industry changer and help raise up many of these paysites from the dead. Which would increase production across the board and make the entire industry healthier.

If the biggest tubes in the world (Manwin's) followed this plan and were successful, then others would naturally fall in line. Just like they fell in line naturally with the current fucked up system.

There you go Fabian.

please all you would do would run the manwin properties into the ground

you would mininova pornhub

and a dozen other smaller tube sites would get a boost in traffic as people started using them instead

the pattern is clear

it happened with torrent sites
it happened with file lockers

the industry won't copy the idiot trying to go backwards they will gooble up the traffic as the users leave in droves.

05-29-2011, 09:06 AM	#61
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	gideon, your points are all great and fine... but the problem with torrent sites is that they are not used as VCRs, and you yourself know this very well.. They might be used as VCRs by SOME of it's users, but its obvious that its not the case for most of them! I think that is the big problem we are facing, that we need to try to find a way to make the illegal use impossible or very hard while the legal use of the technology remains. But you yourself know that if someone downloads a torrent of a screener, this is CLEARLY not VCR-like use. The content could not have been recorded by the previous owner anyway.. The online VCR companies btw that exist, do it where if you do not tell them to record something BEFORE it starts, you can not download it or at least you can not unlock it... That makes it OBVIOUSLY VCR-like and thus fully legal... I just think torrents are very different... and clearly are so in many many cases. How do we stop those uses of torrents? __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

05-29-2011, 12:01 PM	#64
AtlantisCash Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Istanbul - Turkiye Posts: 3,179	Since i m not an American feel free to say My opinion does not matter, but if any content producer thinks it's a good thing, then i won't laugh but, wonder how such foolish people are able to serv until now. to make afew bucks more for a while You think this is something good, but don't You think You also ask trouble for Yourself? when you go and cry gov to watch Your dumb ass, don't you also give them right to tell you how to run Your business? if internet wasn't such a volantary community, we wouldn't have those great opportunities to sell porn and other stuff world wide. if Your shit is stolen, it's Your responsibility to take care of it. there are bunch of technologies, don't tell me these pirates got more brains than you do. there is no way You can stop someone changing dns and get the same shit one way or an other. with supporting this, You are only shooting Yourself in the foot, however you are unaware of it Last edited by AtlantisCash; 05-29-2011 at 12:07 PM..

05-29-2011, 12:09 PM	#65
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	You have a good point Atlantis Cash. But the problem is that it is the govt. who made the law that has the loophole in it because it was written by people who at the time didn't understand the internet. It's outdated and needs to be re-written to keep up with the times. I hate the fucking govt. But I have to live by the laws they already have in place. And that law is killing honest people's business in many industries. It needs to be re-written to reflect today's technology. I don't think that would be handing over the internet to the govt. al all. I think it's something necessary to stop the brazen stealing that thieves are doing right to our face. I don't need the govt. to do anything for me. But they did something TO me with the DMCA laws as they stand. All I need is an even playing field and then guys like Fabian will be back to mowing my yard and not making millions off of the work of other people. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com Last edited by Robbie; 05-29-2011 at 12:23 PM..

05-29-2011, 12:16 PM	#66
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Giddeon, I agree, for TV again its fine... but you can hardly argue that a movie that is only available in theaters should be legally trade-able.. that just seems ridiculous. Why make theaters at that point? Again, I see no problem with TV and torrents, as you said, its basically just a VCR at that point. Or at least its similar. Robbie, tell me where exactly the DMCA law has a loophole and how you suggest you fix it. What would you change in the law to make it "good"? I mean, actually EXPLAIN to me what change you would do in the logic of the law, how would you make what tube sites do illegal? (someone tell Robbie to read my post) __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

05-29-2011, 02:02 PM	#72
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	CrkMStanz, 1) PROTECT IP says sites following DMCA do not fall under sites that could be seized according to PROTECT IP. So I do not think you actually mean replacing DMCA with PROTECT IP would solve your issue. 2) You are also basically saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that you want all sites that allow user submitted content to be shut down and made illegal? Meaning, facebook needs to stop allowing user uploaded items, all the image hosts out there that let you manage your photos and share them need to be closed, all of flickr.com basically is illegal, twitter can not be allowed to let people link to content... 3) You also seem to want the definition of "hosting service" to be changed. But I am not sure to what, how do you define what is a hosting service and what is not? Since you clearly do not want a HOST liable for what its users upload, right? IE, you are a user of your host, your host is thus a user submitted content service. And if you upload illegal content, your host would be liable without DMCA. How do you fix that? And please, give me answers to 2) and 3) which are not short ones, actually define HOW you want to fix it. Suggest how to define each... __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

05-28-2011, 08:17 PM	#51
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	If I remember correctly, the copyright holders fought Sony over the introduction of VCRs that resulted in the Betamax case giving rise to the right to time shift television shows. The copyright holders then fought the VHS video stores over the right to rent the movies on VHS tapes that the stores purchased with the resulting decision establishing the "First Sale Doctrine." In both cases, new rights were established by those who opposed the perceived rights of the original copyright holders: ie. time-shifting and right to rent.

05-28-2011, 08:36 PM	#54
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	What's your first language gideon?

05-28-2011, 08:47 PM	#55
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	Yes, new rights were established BY THE COURTS. Until that final decision was made, the violators were just thieving as the torrents are now. If each torrent could only be accessed by the individual uploader, the time shift argument might be valid. However, the current paradigm does not support the time shifting argument due to the public availability of the torrent. It is just thieving in my opinion.

05-28-2011, 08:56 PM	#56
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Yeah I mean this whole ongoing never ending discussion with you centers around one thing: You know that current laws about recording things are in place that give you rights to use torrents as an unlimited backup device. Clearly the use of PVR devices backs up that argument, as well as all these sites staying online. We're arguing that the changes in the landscape since those laws were enacted are so immense that the laws are no longer suitable and clearly aren't working as was intended when they were enacted. You hope that never happens, while we hope that we can make some money again some day.

05-29-2011, 11:20 AM	#63
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	They just need to make giving away the same as selling. If someone was selling tapes with copyright materials on them in North America, they're just asking to go to jail. Yet if you give away a small portion of that tape several thousand times to people on the internet for free, you've done no wrong?

05-29-2011, 01:37 PM	#70
marlboroack So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ☣ Posts: 9,327	Not going to happen in America.

05-29-2011, 02:35 PM	#75
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	Daddy's credit card has an authorization security code that only Daddy knows. False analogy here in my opinion. However, making an unauthorized upload is the same as making as making an unauthorized purchase on a credit card in the fact that both are stealing from the true owners of the property. Last edited by Redrob; 05-29-2011 at 02:39 PM..

05-29-2011, 03:15 PM	#77
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	You guys missed the most important part of that legislation: ?private right of action? This gives any struggling lawyer a new way to make cheddar. If you thought ambulance chasing was rough on the respondents, wait till you see this in action __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

05-29-2011, 04:27 PM	#80
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I got your answer Fabian...since you have said repeatedly over and over that the tube sites are a small, small part of Manwin's business... Then do the RIGHT thing. Remove user upload, and then remove all content that you don't own. No big loss for you there since you claim to be a genius at business and the tube sites are so small to Manwin. If you did that there would be no need for you to worry about DMCA since you would own all the content...you know, like a REAL site is supposed to. But you won't and you can't. Your bosses (the real owners) bought the company because they want all the money being generated by those tube sites...which of course is why you guys just went on a buying spree and bought a bunch more big tube sites. ALL of that traffic and money from those tube sites is generated off of the work of others. Yet you play hide and seek with the DMCA law and then try to act like you are a bigshot. You are a clown. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

05-30-2011, 11:15 AM	#88
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Robbie, great, lovely suggestion, three problems I see with it: 1) We have tested and tested and tested and I do not think your version of the site would make any more money. 2) I have no time to personally decide which video goes up each day, so I need to trust employees to make the right choice, which is not TRULY an issue, just something I wanted to mention. 3) This logic would still require DMCA since again, "trusted" accounts or not, it would still mean that people can upload content that is not theirs to upload. This is what DMCA is for. Just accept that one little fact... You have not shown how to change DMCA to remove the loopholes, you have again just told me how you would change PornHub in some magical way that will make me "millions more each month" (as you said in another thread)... It won't. YouPorn uses a similar approach, except that we still do not upload the content, "trusted" accounts do. That does NOT mean they do not need DMCA! __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

05-30-2011, 11:30 AM	#90
digitaldivas ..I Heart Cannibal Corpse Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: California Posts: 4,328	The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which goes in tandem with DMCA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs and/or sites a safe harbor from liability to their users upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. Maybe have a post upload agreement from the surfers stating that they accept liability if the video is in fact infringing before going on your network. Imho, Robbie does have a good idea for separate affiliate and surfer upload pages. I think many independent producers, myself included would jump at this chance if given the opportunity. I also agree with the upload my hand approach. I do the same thing Robbie does with tube-erotique, although my tube is much, much smaller. __________________ ... Last edited by digitaldivas; 05-30-2011 at 11:32 AM..

05-30-2011, 11:33 AM	#91
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Robbie, it's great that you are so proud and think so highly of yourself and think so little of everyone else that you feel you are just better than anyone. I think letting studios upload the content is an important part of the way a tube site works, and I do not honestly care if you think nobody has a reason to upload a competitors video. This has nothing to do with possibilities, simply with covering your ass, and anything is possible. Who knows, maybe after testing YouPorn long enough in-house we will come to the conclusion that turning off user uploaded content is a good way to go, but we are simply not there yet. The problem with DMCA is that you lose out on the safe harbor if you control too much. So, IF another studio wanted to hurt us, it would be much easier by uploading someone else's content and getting us sued if we somehow screen user upload accounts to somehow verify they are "industry players". That is a simple business concern and risk which I need to weigh in when I look at DMCA regulations. Losing the safe harbor is not a good idea. I understand that many people hate what we do, I also know many many others do not. I also know that we offer technical means to make sure your content never even gets up on our tubes. If you feel there is some other technical feature we should be adding which we do not have currently, feel free to suggest it. But do not suggest that losing safe harbor under DMCA is a good and wise business decision since it simply is not. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

05-30-2011, 11:40 AM	#95
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Robbie, I totally agree, that's why we have a big team working on the tubes constantly changing how they work and optimizing them... __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

05-30-2011, 12:00 PM	#97
DangerX !!! Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: La Isla Bonita Power Level: ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ Posts: 886	Another retarded law that won't change a damn thing when it comes to piracy and copyright infringement but yet the same time it will be abused thousands of times to fight off freedom of speech at the web. Congrats to those of you who are happy knowing shit about the reality. __________________

05-30-2011, 12:14 PM	#98
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Robbie, none of the things you have mentioned are things we have not looked into, tested or are still testing today... I am the last one to say that the way we monetize our sites is perfect, but it is far better than you think it is. Thanks for the real discussion btw. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger