Idea for those thinking of selling their sites or people looking for work.

[Paul Markham]

Well I think it's a good idea.

There are more and more people looking for an exit and people looking for work. So why not put the two together.

Rather than close your site or sell it for a few months turn over. Let one of the guys looking for work run it and spend a few hours or a few days keeping it up to date. Splitting the profits by what ever input the new person is putting into it.

Anyone looking for work, can make anyone looking to sell an offer to run the site for a split of the profits.

I'm pretty sure there are a few here who would love the chance to to get a few more years out of a site or some extra income.

Yes I'm open to offers.

[AllAboutCams]

i don't think i would trust just anyone with my sites

[bean-aid]

Good idea. I wonder if anybody is doing that? ;)

[Paul Markham]

Sorry had to go for breakfast. So will finish the post.

After 4 years of doing nothing much on our sites they're still taking money and will continue to do so for a while yet. For what ever someone would of offered 4 years ago, selling them off would of been a huge mistake.

Could Shap of made more money handing the sites over for someone to run on minimal work, rather than selling out? Don't know for sure and not in anyway criticising him, just saying selling it off for a one time sum isn't good long term. Especially with so many looking for work.

Obviously it can never be the same as it was, just asking if it's better than selling out?

And someone looking for work with the skills, maybe they could run a network of sites. Devoting a few hours to each or more.

This is only about maintaining the sites ticking over.

[Markul]

I think that in Shaps case, he made a TON of money when he sold. At least that's what I heard, but I'm a no-one in adult so wtf do I know.

Also some people might want to get out and raise capital to do something else, like something in mainstream. While they might be able to raise that cash by waiting X months, they might have an opportunity they need to move on right now. Guess only the sellers know why they sell really.

[bean-aid]

I'm not sure if you remember Sara Swirls site being down. It was 1 day from being *deleted*. Not put offline, erased. We just passed last year, year end, profit in july. It will be a lot more when both billing and some more keywords fall in place.

I have no idea why I am saying this to you. I actually have no idea what to do with your sites/content. Maybe a spoof of an old timer shooting porn and throwing in the old stuff for free. Kinda like a comedy spoof... Like fukt or something.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by xxxupdate

i don't think i would trust just anyone with my sites

Agree, it would need a lot of verifying to give someone the keys to the door. Thinking of that might be the part the owner should retain.

[LouiseLloyd]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Agree, it would need a lot of verifying to give someone the keys to the door. Thinking of that might be the part the owner should retain.

From an affiliate and small site owner looking to gain experience in managing a big network/site this would be a great way to gain experience, but the trust issues wouldn't be one sided, I 'd be concerned that after a few months years or hard work the owner would pull the plug own the domain and content, so it would only work if both parties knew/trusted each other or had some for of legally binding in place.

[lazycash]

Actually not a bad idea, but don't really see it happening much. Webmasters looking for work usually need cash soon and people that are selling sites are doing so because they need to cash out. A website that would match people on both ends based on verified credentials might work.

[Colmike9]

Who would cover the cost to run the site while a n00b is trying to run it?..
If they're trying to sell it, this might not be such a great alternative for the original site owner.

[Alice22]

Trust issues.
This is the main problem here.

[epitome]

LOL at Paul thinking Shap was sitting at home updating his sites and not that it took and entire company with an office of people to accomplish it. Shows out of touch with reality Paul is.

[mce]

Also, how do you know if your new "partner" is in the tank with your competition?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by beaner

Good idea. I wonder if anybody is doing that? ;)

I know a few people who are doing the same as me just putting their sites on auto pilot and letting them run. Some are cutting back on staff as well. Don't know of anyone who has adopted this idea though. Seems common sense and perhaps one person could build up a network of sites to run for the owners.

[B.Barnato]

I was at a festival earlier this summer and brought this up when someone was eating noodles and not a single other person in our campsite (9 of us total) had any idea what I was talking about.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Markul

I think that in Shaps case, he made a TON of money when he sold. At least that's what I heard, but I'm a no-one in adult so wtf do I know.

Also some people might want to get out and raise capital to do something else, like something in mainstream. While they might be able to raise that cash by waiting X months, they might have an opportunity they need to move on right now. Guess only the sellers know why they sell really.

I'll bet he never made what he would of leaving the sites on auto pilot for 4 years.

Of course this is a route for people who need fast cash. Only good for those like us who didn't and still don't. Which is strange for someone who was broke in 2004.

*************

Each site has different needs and ways it's run. Some like a Tube or advert related site might just need minimal work, some like like a paysite might need more work. Obviously this idea does not work for sites that still need a lot of investment to keep running. No more fresh content, or very little and just non exclusive. No major redesign or programming updates. Just the normal day to day running of a site that's already on the back burner. so the trust element is reduced to very low, the "worker" would not need access to servers or very limited.

I can only judge this from my experience and in the last four years we have done very little to www.paulmarkhamteens.com and www.astral-blue.com. I have some content I need to edit and put on Astral Blue, but in honesty can't be bothered. It would need very little "trust" for some one to do some work on keeping the sites running and up to date. And I think this applies to a lot of sites that are not surging forward or the owner is working on to keep it bringing in money.

Also as the content owner on a lot of paysites, I know what some of the offers are worth and the moment they discover the site doesn't include the content. The truth comes out, the sites are being sold for less the content is worth.

[alf6300]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Also as the content owner on a lot of paysites, I know what some of the offers are worth and the moment they discover the site doesn't include the content. The truth comes out, the sites are being sold for less the content is worth.

This has been brought up before.

If I understand what you are implying here, you basically say that you sold your content to site, say, "faponthis.com". Then faponthis gets sold, and because of this the license you granted to it expires.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect it depends on technicalities and it cannot be the general rule.

Say that you licensed to a legal entity called "Faponthis LTD". If Faponthis LTD gets new shareholders, this does not change the rights and liabilities of the company itself.

(It may be different if you licensed to a network of sites and then one site exits the network because of a sale, especially if your licence language takes into account that scenario. That's hardly the norm AFAIK, though)

[martinsc]

Originally Posted by Alice22

Trust issues.
This is the main problem here.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by alf6300

This has been brought up before.

If I understand what you are implying here, you basically say that you sold your content to site, say, "faponthis.com". Then faponthis gets sold, and because of this the license you granted to it expires.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect it depends on technicalities and it cannot be the general rule.

Say that you licensed to a legal entity called "Faponthis LTD". If Faponthis LTD gets new shareholders, this does not change the rights and liabilities of the company itself.

(It may be different if you licensed to a network of sites and then one site exits the network because of a sale, especially if your licence language takes into account that scenario. That's hardly the norm AFAIK, though)

Your theory fell apart in so many places.

Not a lawyer.

[TisMe]

Unlike Paul, Shap built something of real value; sites, a brand, great content and more.

For Paul to offer any comment at all while stating he knows nothing of the deal or how it was structured just goes to show the level of credibility Paul's posts should be given.

NONE.

[alf6300]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Your theory fell apart in so many places.

You may well be right, and I am genuinely interested to learn what I am missing here (no irony).

-->If I buy shares of a company X which has assets and liabilities, how would my shares be detached from some of such licenses?

In other words: If bank X buys bank Y, the Windows licenses of bank Y are still valid. Why your content licenses would be different?

[travs]

the guy's a genius...

[96ukssob]

Good idea in theory, but most people are thieves and will try and find a way to steal from you anyway you can.

My network was pulling in around $2k or so a month, but I didn't have time to work on it. Found a few people to work on certain sites and in return, I would help them build traffic to their sites and they would get a % of the revenue from mine. This was worth their time since my sites were already making money.

I was finding them doing everything from creating fake sites that sent redirects through my traffic script to placing their affiliate links on banners and links. I had to spend more time baby sitting than anything else.

Comes down to only YOU can make money for YOU

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by TisMe

Unlike Paul, Shap built something of real value; sites, a brand, great content and more.

For Paul to offer any comment at all while stating he knows nothing of the deal or how it was structured just goes to show the level of credibility Paul's posts should be given.

NONE.

And you know the structure of the deal?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by alf6300

You may well be right, and I am genuinely interested to learn what I am missing here (no irony).

-->If I buy shares of a company X which has assets and liabilities, how would my shares be detached from some of such licenses?

In other words: If bank X buys bank Y, the Windows licenses of bank Y are still valid. Why your content licenses would be different?

Can you name me one online porn company that has shares?

Apart from that minor detail your theory is solid.

[Colmike9]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Can you name me one online porn company that has shares?

Apart from that minor detail your theory is solid.

PLA
NOOF
LNET
PRVT
RICK
MLDS.PK
SCRH.OB
IBDI.OB

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Can you name me one online porn company that has shares?

Oh dear. Paul, it's totally cool you know nothing about online porn, but no need to advertise it over and over again!

[TisMe]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

And you know the structure of the deal?

No Paul, and unlike you, that stops me from commenting on if it was a good deal or not.

I try not to offer opinions based on zero information.

I'll leave that to you.



"Can you name me one online porn company that has shares? Apart from that minor detail your theory is solid. "

Once again Paul, you have no clue. Every corporation has shares. They may be privately held but can still be traded and sold.

[Rochard]

Paul is fucking brilliant.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by bossku69

Good idea in theory, but most people are thieves and will try and find a way to steal from you anyway you can.

My network was pulling in around $2k or so a month, but I didn't have time to work on it. Found a few people to work on certain sites and in return, I would help them build traffic to their sites and they would get a % of the revenue from mine. This was worth their time since my sites were already making money.

I was finding them doing everything from creating fake sites that sent redirects through my traffic script to placing their affiliate links on banners and links. I had to spend more time baby sitting than anything else.

Comes down to only YOU can make money for YOU

The thieves question has to be dealt with on an individual basis. As I said I wouldn't give people the keys to the shop without having absolute trust in them and that is hard to get. What would they need to keep the site running on a ticking over basis?

As for the work level, this is an alternative to selling off a site or just dropping it because it's not being worked on. If the people need baby sitting then what's the point?

Again, this is not an idea for people with sites they want to work on or are working on. It's an alternative to selling for a few months turn over.

No Paul, and unlike you, that stops me from commenting on if it was a good deal or not.

I try not to offer opinions based on zero information.

I'll leave that to you.

You said I didn't know. I said it probably wasn't what he would of made leaving it to run down over the years. Now unless he has a deal that includes a monthly payout, who do you think is probably right?

Once again Paul, you have no clue. Every corporation has shares. They may be privately held but can still be traded and sold.

Then the part of the license that bans transfer of the license comes into effect.

Why should someone buy an asset for their companyfor $30, that they can resell? If they want that, let them buy exclusive.

[jaYMan]

My stupid fucking precious

[alf6300]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Can you name me one online porn company that has shares?

Apart from that minor detail your theory is solid.

Paul, I'm confused (or, possibly, one of us is confused).

Besides the fact that some adult companies are publicly traded (as pointed out by Colmike7) the larger point is that basically EVERY FUCKING COMPANY has shares, not matter if they are public or not. The only exception being the sort of one-man operations with special statuses as "sole proprietorship" and the like, which in most legislations means that you are liable with your personal assets for the company fortunes.

You can't do business, let alone process payments or have a merchant account, if you don't have some type of business registration. Almost always, unless you are willing to risk your personal ass, this means that you have shares you can sell or buy.

Your theory fell apart in so many places.

It's possible, Paul. What above is not much of a theory, though, it's just how it works. I'm very much willing learn where I am wrong (no irony, it's something I have a practical interest in)

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by alf6300

Paul, I'm confused (or, possibly, one of us is confused).

Besides the fact that some adult companies are publicly traded (as pointed out by Colmike7) the larger point is that basically EVERY FUCKING COMPANY has shares, not matter if they are public or not. The only exception being the sort of one-man operations with special statuses as "sole proprietorship" and the like, which in most legislations means that you are liable with your personal assets for the company fortunes.

You can't do business, let alone process payments or have a merchant account, if you don't have some type of business registration. Almost always, unless you are willing to risk your personal ass, this means that you have shares you can sell or buy.


It's possible, Paul. What above is not much of a theory, though, it's just how it works. I'm very much willing learn where I am wrong (no irony, it's something I have a practical interest in)

Yes as I said before. Then the transfer of the license or company to another owner comes into place.

The license covers all the possibilities possible. It's intention is to license the buyer and stop him from selling the license, which is part of the companies assets, to other people. Otherwise it ends up as a huge mess.

I expect people to stick to the license they agreed to when the bought the license. All they have to do is get the new buyer to contact us for a new license and a small admin charge.

Maybe this explains it better.

Licensee agrees to pay to Licensor one-time lifetime fee for this Product(s). Of $0. The Licensor may (or will) revoke the license if any of the terms or conditions of this license are violated, if Licensee declares bankruptcy, sells or closes the business, obtains a refund of the product or fails to pay. Involuntary revocation of the license does not grant Licensee any refund of the payment made. This license is not transferable, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE LICENSOR. All sales are final and no refunds could be given unless Licensor will decide to give a refund. Licensee must provide a complete list of ten domains in which material is to be used. This list is to be returned to Licensor along with the license agreement.

GRANT OF LICENSE, GENERAL TERMS
The Licensor who owns and distributes the Product, named above. Grants in accordance with this agreement a Non Exclusive license to only show the images on the Internet sites listed below. Or from Thumbnail Post Galleries URLs that directly link to the site displaying the Product. This license for the above product, can and will be issued to other companies at Licensor's discretion.

UNACCEPTABLE USES OF LICENSED CONTENT
The Licensee does not have the right to resell, rent, lease, transfer, redistribute or re-license the product.

So even if the company is sold, the new owner needs to come back to me. 90% of the time the old owner doesn't even have the paperwork signed by us as he never returned it for signing or never gave it to the new owner. We find out later So all your objections are mute in these cases.

I hope that makes it clearer.

We are so heavy on members who don't abide to our licenses, sponsors who don't abide by their licenses, yet content providers don't get the same respect.

Thank you for diverting the thread.

[isteve]

Paul, if company A buys a content license and company B buys company A without closing the company, and puts it under its umbrella, then company A still holds the license of the content after being acquire. It works like that in Canada.

As for the shap deal. ... I know for a fact that manwin buys tube sites on 3 years of profit. Just imagine how much they paid for twisties....

Gaytube alone was making around 750k$ per month with 800k uniques daily. That site alone was worth 25 millions in manwin's eyes. ..

Paul, you are not in Shap 's shoes. You should not talk about things you have no idea about. ..

[The Porn Nerd]

You have nothing to do but post here Paul so why don't YOU run some sites and show us how great you are at turning around websites.

[alf6300]

Paul, I think I'll give up, it looks I can't make myself understood.

When you say in your license:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

UNACCEPTABLE USES OF LICENSED CONTENT
The Licensee does not have the right to resell, rent, lease, transfer, redistribute or re-license the product.

and

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

This license is not transferable, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE LICENSOR

... is IRRELEVANT in the case of a company share sale/ share transfer.

When you are licencing to Faponthis LTD, it's not the shareholders being licensed, it's Faponthis LTD.
Mr. Brown and Mr White, the shareholders of Faponthis, cannot use the content themselves, nor they can of course sublicence anything. That would be a violation of the license.

WHEN Mr. Red buys shares of Faponthis (1%, 10% or 100%, doesn't matter), it's STILL Faponthis the licensee, no matter who are the shareholders. Faponthis continues to operate its business. It does not need to buy new Windows licenses, or get a new rent contract, just because some shareholder has changed.

This is how it works in any area of business. Anything else would be crazy, because it would effectively make any company share trade impossible.

I don't know if you managed to put in your particular license any different clause. Certainly, the language that you are quoting from that license does NOT require any license repurchase just because some shareholders change.

If someone has lost the license papers, of course, it's a total different game. It does not invalidate what above. You can obviously exploit such sloppiness if you want to. It doesn't look to me like a business model that would bring you on top of the world, but good luck with it

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Colmike7

PLA
NOOF
LNET
PRVT
RICK
MLDS.PK
SCRH.OB
IBDI.OB

i may add DNXCORP

[alf6300]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i may add DNXCORP

Funny thing I was noticing while going through that list.

While those companies make money with porn, their corp site and investor relations paper, GO LONG WAYS to avoid mentioning adult too explicitly. "traffic generation", "internet marketing", "entertainment services" etc, are the keywords they tend to use.

If I float an adult company, mark my words, I want in the IPO white paper the language: "Over 100.000 people fap everyday on our sites"

[Bryan G]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Can you name me one online porn company that has shares?

Apart from that minor detail your theory is solid.

Please stick to your jigsaw puzzles you muppet.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by isteve

Paul, if company A buys a content license and company B buys company A without closing the company, and puts it under its umbrella, then company A still holds the license of the content after being acquire. It works like that in Canada.

if Licensee declares bankruptcy, sells or closes the business

so that part of the license doesn't work for you. Then please don't buy content from us.

As for the shap deal. ... I know for a fact that manwin buys tube sites on 3 years of profit. Just imagine how much they paid for twisties....

Gaytube alone was making around 750k$ per month with 800k uniques daily. That site alone was worth 25 millions in manwin's eyes. ..

Paul, you are not in Shap 's shoes. You should not talk about things you have no idea about. ..

Good we have someone who know what Shap got. Cane I quote you on this?

Nice to see so many people eager to ignore a license or the spirit of it.

[TisMe]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

so that part of the license doesn't work for you. Then please don't buy content from us.



Good we have someone who know what Shap got. Cane I quote you on this?

Nice to see so many people eager to ignore a license or the spirit of it.

Again Paul, you're not reading and comprehending. He said what they buy Tube sites for.

Tube sites.

Twistys was not a Tube.

[isteve]

Paul,what you seem to not understand is that in my example, the licence never got sold. An entity, in this case a business, not a business owner or a person bought the licence. Its none of your business to know who owns the business and if new share holders buys shares.


Please, re-read my post. I never said i knew how much Shap sold for.

However I know on how many months of profit manwin base their price and how much gaytube makes monthly. You can quote me on this.

[peterk]

ypu looking for work??

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Well I think it's a good idea.

There are more and more people looking for an exit and people looking for work. So why not put the two together.

Rather than close your site or sell it for a few months turn over. Let one of the guys looking for work run it and spend a few hours or a few days keeping it up to date. Splitting the profits by what ever input the new person is putting into it.

Anyone looking for work, can make anyone looking to sell an offer to run the site for a split of the profits.

I'm pretty sure there are a few here who would love the chance to to get a few more years out of a site or some extra income.

Yes I'm open to offers.

[peterk]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I know a few people who are doing the same as me just putting their sites on auto pilot and letting them run. Some are cutting back on staff as well. Don't know of anyone who has adopted this idea though. Seems common sense and perhaps one person could build up a network of sites to run for the owners.

auto pilot means 1 new sale a month and 10 rebills?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by isteve

Paul,what you seem to not understand is that in my example, the licence never got sold. An entity, in this case a business, not a business owner or a person bought the licence. Its none of your business to know who owns the business and if new share holders buys shares.

So selling the shares isn't selling the business. Got you.

The Licensor may (or will) revoke the license if any of the terms or conditions of this license are violated, if Licensee declares bankruptcy, sells or closes the business

Will need to rewrite this part to make the spirit of the license clearer to people who are looking for ways to ignore it.

Please, re-read my post. I never said i knew how much Shap sold for.

However I know on how many months of profit manwin base their price and how much gaytube makes monthly. You can quote me on this.

Great then all we do is quote you what Manwin paid for the Tube site alone. This idea would include Tube sites. 3 years profit on a Tube site seems a very good deal, more people should open them.

This idea was to give those without the option of having someone like Manwin offer them 3 years profit on any site, another option. Is that so bad?

4 years after stopping really working on Paul Markham Teens we made 4556 Euros in sign ups, yes I have a screen grab, but you'll shout Photoshop so won't bother to post it. Sorry wrong on that, it was only CCbill so add a few for Epoch. So selling out for 3-6 months turnover isn't worth the bother.

[peterk]

gaytube makes 750k for a month?? haha funny

Originally Posted by isteve

Paul, if company A buys a content license and company B buys company A without closing the company, and puts it under its umbrella, then company A still holds the license of the content after being acquire. It works like that in Canada.

As for the shap deal. ... I know for a fact that manwin buys tube sites on 3 years of profit. Just imagine how much they paid for twisties....

Gaytube alone was making around 750k$ per month with 800k uniques daily. That site alone was worth 25 millions in manwin's eyes. ..

Paul, you are not in Shap 's shoes. You should not talk about things you have no idea about. ..

[Shap]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

I'll bet he never made what he would of leaving the sites on auto pilot for 4 years.

Of course this is a route for people who need fast cash. Only good for those like us who didn't and still don't. Which is strange for someone who was broke in 2004.

*************

Each site has different needs and ways it's run. Some like a Tube or advert related site might just need minimal work, some like like a paysite might need more work. Obviously this idea does not work for sites that still need a lot of investment to keep running. No more fresh content, or very little and just non exclusive. No major redesign or programming updates. Just the normal day to day running of a site that's already on the back burner. so the trust element is reduced to very low, the "worker" would not need access to servers or very limited.

I can only judge this from my experience and in the last four years we have done very little to www.paulmarkhamteens.com and www.astral-blue.com. I have some content I need to edit and put on Astral Blue, but in honesty can't be bothered. It would need very little "trust" for some one to do some work on keeping the sites running and up to date. And I think this applies to a lot of sites that are not surging forward or the owner is working on to keep it bringing in money.

Also as the content owner on a lot of paysites, I know what some of the offers are worth and the moment they discover the site doesn't include the content. The truth comes out, the sites are being sold for less the content is worth.

I made more than what the sites would have made at their peak over 4 years. So i'm pretty sure that's more than they would have made on autopilot over 4 or even over 10 years.

[TisMe]

Shame on you Shap. Shame. You can't give Paul facts, how the hell can he be expected to pull crap advice and fantasy scenarios from his ass now?

I thought you were better than this Shap.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Shap

I made more than what the sites would have made at their peak over 4 years. So i'm pretty sure that's more than they would have made on autopilot over 4 or even over 10 years.

Well then you're not the norm from the offers we see every day here.

Good for you and you got a great deal then. It will need some awesome work by Manwin to return the profits needed.

Who knows where this business will be in 4 years.

I'm pleased for you and glad you could correct me.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by peterk

gaytube makes 750k for a month?? haha funny

the one thing you have to expect on GFY is loads of illogical facts being thrown around.

Obviously isteve is one of the elite who knows all the facts.

About isteve
Adult Industry Role
Software Programming

Join Date: 06-28-2012

And from this you can clearly see why he has this information to hand.

Gaytube alone was making around 750k$ per month with 800k uniques daily. That site alone was worth 25 millions in manwin's eyes. ..

Being a programmer Shap was sharing the value of the site and traffic info and Fabian told him what it was Manwin valued it at. Me I'm just a delusional fool who looks at things thinking logically. What has logic got to do with it.

isteve will be here any minute to explain why he is so well informed. And TisMe will tell me I'm a fool.

Personally if Manwin paid what they did. Good luck to Shap and lets hope the decline doesn't roll onto the big guys.