Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ
Somewhat true. I must of read AK's problem wrong or it's all just over my head. I was under the impression that Manwin was habitually stealing his (others) content and re-uploading after Manwin was warned over and over to stop as he ignored it because their was fuck all anyone could do about it, legally. As much as I admire any exploitation of a legal loophole, I was under the impression Manwin then took the next step and taunted AK. This is what caught my interest because I love a good David and Goliath fight, but now it looks like (how I understand it) that AK want's to start a competition tube - straight up or not?
|
Yes content owned by a UK company in which I have an interest was being repeatedly uploaded, removed, uploaded, removed. However I have been discussing Manwin with friends and peers for months before posting this thread. I may be the one posting but this is not an AdultKing show, I'm just playing spokesperson at this stage.
The original idea floated in the original post was simple, put a tube out of reach of Manwin that exploited only Manwin owned content. User uploaded of course, users being a room full of Indians with fast internet.
The threat of Manwin to sue me was an empty one, all that would be acheived by any attempt to do so would be a loss of money to lawyers for Manwin, there are problems of jurisdiction, applicable laws in specific countries that may be bases for such an operation, the fact that Nathan by his own words invited me to do it, the list goes on. Manwin's greatest weakness is that it has set a precedent for what is acceptable and a very good argument could be made that Manwin are trying to litigate against their own business model. If it got to court, if Manwin gained a default judgement, then they have a nice piece of paper in the form of a court order that is completely unenforceable.
An invitation was made to Nathan to come to the table to discuss options and he has done so in this thread. He has already indicated they use fingerprinting technology for content control and also admitted there is some kind of review process of uploads. This again presents Manwin a problem, it is a weakness that can be exploited by insisting that if uploads are screened for bad stuff then they can also be screened for infringement. The onus is on Manwin not to infringe on other parties rights, it is not the onus of the aggrieved party to tell Manwin they have infringed IP rights.
The next step was an offer to provide an industry based solution to remove content *instantly* that was infringing, Nathan has, on Manwin's behalf, committed in principle to such a scheme with conditions.
Now it's a case of building the scheme from the ground up, however there are several contingency plans if Manwin refuses to play ball.
I have made it clear through this thread I have no personal grievance toward Nathan, for better or worse he has been a contributor of note to this industry and is a very clever man. However most would agree Manwin needs to clean up it's act, as do many other tube operators - unfortunately for Manwin it is the test case for this issue. Manwin has set itself up as the new golden child of porn and is therefore an appropriate target for trialling methods to make infringements of the rights of others something which has real consequences.
It is up to this industry to stop what the tubes are doing, there are many creative ideas that will be floated soon. If you have an idea to stop tubes raping rights holders, then express it clearly, become involved in stopping this grubby trade of stolen content.
In the meantime, later today a website will be set up to take registrations of interest from content owners who wish to participate in an industry based solution, if enough people step up to the plate then it will be game on.
The scheme as I see it should be phased in. First with a register of content that rights holders explicitly forbid Manwin to host on their sites. It will then be up to Manwin to remove it, very fast. If they don't then they risk the consequences of not doing so, whatever they may be in practice. Then the second stage should be to automate the system with fingerprinting. Meaning that a system will be in place that will zap a video the minute it is uploaded if it's on the exclusion list via software API's provided to Manwin. As Manwin is the primary offender in this exercise, it will need to provide a significant contribution financially to keep the scheme afloat, again if it chooses not to then there are other options.
Of course all this is open for discussion between those members of the industry who wish to participate, many have already expressed a desire to have this issue dealt with, so it's time to take real action.
For those people who think that I am just pissing into the wind, that's your right to hold your opinion but there are a group of people in the background with significant resources to ensure that the issue of content theft assisted by Manwin ceases.