GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Manwin and Pink Visual Answer Your Digital Finger Printing/Filtering Questions

robwod · 10-08-2010, 11:23 AM

Although I have no horse in this race, I have been in this business an awfully long time and frankly, what I see happening is this (realistically or otherwise, it is the perception by many at this point):

A system that is basically asking content producers to pay for the privilege of not having their content stolen -- by the same people stealing it.
A system of pay us (FSC) if you want us to protect you from theft -- but only if you join us.
A system us pay us a monthly fee to monitor an extremely small number of your video content on an extremely limited amount of sources

The bigger producers probably will just jump on board, but this will likely have a negative impact on smaller producers and in general, provide a seriously negative attitude towards TopBucks, Pink Visual, Manwin, and the FSC in particular.

Prior to this, PinkVisual was damn near put on a pedestal for championing a cause closely regarded by many as one of the most serious to face content producers in a long time. Many were hopeful of PinkVisual following through such that a precedent could be set. Thus, for many, the settlement has already tarnished that reputation somewhat, and certainly disappointed many. Granted, it is not PV's job to set a precedent, but it was indeed hoped by many that PV would be the one to finally do it. Thus, that's probably a big reason why so much negativity right now around this as it as it pertains to PV. The FSC has long been a topic of credibility, or lack thereof, in this business, so no surprise there.

One thing I do find interesting though is the idea of swapping an advertised video of 20+ minutes for a 2 minute trailer. Personally I think this is going to backfire. In fact, it's likely going to be the fuel to create numerous "illegal" tubes who refuse to get on board with this "protection scheme". Once that happens, and I think it very much will, surfers will simply go to where they're not jerked around. They'll just migrate to other tubes that give them whatever they click on and continue to hide behind the DMCA. Anyone willing to bet money that some of those tubes operating under this scheme will also create illegal ones under aliases in order to capture that crowd too. If so, then its just business as usual, but now with added revenue stream from those who pay the monthly protection fees.

And then if that happens, and surfers migrate, the "FSC associated tubes" will see lower page views and ultimately lower ad revenues. How long before changes are made then?

It'll certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out. My gut feeling is that this is not a solution at all. The real solution, in my opinion, would have been for the FSC to instead focus on some actual legal work, such as addressing the loopholes being exploited in the DMCA.

10-08-2010, 11:23 AM
robwod Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,539	Although I have no horse in this race, I have been in this business an awfully long time and frankly, what I see happening is this (realistically or otherwise, it is the perception by many at this point): A system that is basically asking content producers to pay for the privilege of not having their content stolen -- by the same people stealing it. A system of pay us (FSC) if you want us to protect you from theft -- but only if you join us. A system us pay us a monthly fee to monitor an extremely small number of your video content on an extremely limited amount of sources The bigger producers probably will just jump on board, but this will likely have a negative impact on smaller producers and in general, provide a seriously negative attitude towards TopBucks, Pink Visual, Manwin, and the FSC in particular. Prior to this, PinkVisual was damn near put on a pedestal for championing a cause closely regarded by many as one of the most serious to face content producers in a long time. Many were hopeful of PinkVisual following through such that a precedent could be set. Thus, for many, the settlement has already tarnished that reputation somewhat, and certainly disappointed many. Granted, it is not PV's job to set a precedent, but it was indeed hoped by many that PV would be the one to finally do it. Thus, that's probably a big reason why so much negativity right now around this as it as it pertains to PV. The FSC has long been a topic of credibility, or lack thereof, in this business, so no surprise there. One thing I do find interesting though is the idea of swapping an advertised video of 20+ minutes for a 2 minute trailer. Personally I think this is going to backfire. In fact, it's likely going to be the fuel to create numerous "illegal" tubes who refuse to get on board with this "protection scheme". Once that happens, and I think it very much will, surfers will simply go to where they're not jerked around. They'll just migrate to other tubes that give them whatever they click on and continue to hide behind the DMCA. Anyone willing to bet money that some of those tubes operating under this scheme will also create illegal ones under aliases in order to capture that crowd too. If so, then its just business as usual, but now with added revenue stream from those who pay the monthly protection fees. And then if that happens, and surfers migrate, the "FSC associated tubes" will see lower page views and ultimately lower ad revenues. How long before changes are made then? It'll certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out. My gut feeling is that this is not a solution at all. The real solution, in my opinion, would have been for the FSC to instead focus on some actual legal work, such as addressing the loopholes being exploited in the DMCA. Last edited by robwod; 10-08-2010 at 11:28 AM..