Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Robbie I can break it down for you easily with one single legal word that is the basis for everything in this thread:

Liability.

IF Pornhub (or any other tube) took down even ONE "illegally pirated video" (as in the naughty America example you posted) the tube would then ACKNOWLEDGE they have the ability to discern pirated videos, thus opening up the floodgates. It's called liability and it's the #1 issue large companies care about.

If someone sends a DMCA they respond but barring an actual, official, 100% "legal" DMCA request, the videos MUST stay up even if the tube owners know 100% the video is pirated. Taking it down without a DMCA opens up the tubesite to all kinds of legal messes. The LAW says this so that's what the tubes follow.

As has been said MANY times here on GFY: If we don't like it, change the DMCA law. This is why I always call for lobbyists in Washington. Nothing else will change jack shit. Sorry.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I think the bigger point is that reviewing every single video negates the safe harbor defense, which is the argument that you don't and can't review every single video. If there is no safe harbor, DMCAs aren't relevant. (i think?)

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Robbie I can break it down for you easily with one single legal word that is the basis for everything in this thread:

Liability.

IF Pornhub (or any other tube) took down even ONE "illegally pirated video" (as in the naughty America example you posted) the tube would then ACKNOWLEDGE they have the ability to discern pirated videos, thus opening up the floodgates. It's called liability and it's the #1 issue large companies care about.

If someone sends a DMCA they respond but barring an actual, official, 100% "legal" DMCA request, the videos MUST stay up even if the tube owners know 100% the video is pirated. Taking it down without a DMCA opens up the tubesite to all kinds of legal messes. The LAW says this so that's what the tubes follow.

As has been said MANY times here on GFY: If we don't like it, change the DMCA law. This is why I always call for lobbyists in Washington. Nothing else will change jack shit. Sorry.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Well I think that's the sticking point here. It's a bit of a grey area. If a website is reviewing all videos can it have safe harbor? I think YES - as long as they are ONLY screening for "illegal" material (CP, blood, etc) and not "copyrighted" material (which as has been pointed out is difficult to 100% identify).

This is my understanding but I do not run a tube site (yet). LOL

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Knowledge (legal construct) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

....

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Is there something you didn't understand?

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck -- it is a fucking duck ...

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Maybe in Poland. LOL

"Knowledge" is a debatable thing.

Originally Posted by AdultKing

Someone with "integrity" wouldn't keep repeating this outright lie you keep trotting out. Nobody owns me or my opinions. Your assertion that anyone can "buy me" is a stupid lie.

You don't have integrity, you have an ego and a big mouth which bypasses your brain preventing you from availing yourself of both fact and logic.

DMCA does not break down because a user submitted content site weeds out content, if that were the case then YouTube would have disappeared years ago.

The DMCA is a very flawed piece of legislation, it puts the problem into the hands of rights holders and rarely provides them benefit. Large tubes know this, they play the game very well and for the most part play it according to the law.

For the situation to change the laws need to change, until that happens I don't foresee modification in the behaviour of any large tube site being a likely outcome.

Originally Posted by mikesouth

out right lie huh....you gonna state here publicly that you never accepted money from fabian? or any MindGeek company? I seem to recall your price was 10k a month. If you state you didn't you are a lying mother fucker and we both, as well as others here know it.

Originally Posted by AdultKing

You're wrong.

Copy Control (the stop file lockers project) was supported by several people and companies in the industry. I volunteered 2 years of my time to the project and never saw one cent.

Let me repeat that for your doltish, thick headed, half-witted brain of yours. I did not receive one cent from anyone, in fact at the end of the project I was out of pocket thousands of dollars.

Nobody can buy me, or my opinions. I have my own mind and will say things as I see them, like it or not.

The fact is that screening content uploaded to a user submitted content site to weed out content that is illegal does not invalidate DMCA. They are two completely different issues. One is related to the matter of the content, the other is related to the owner of the content.

The matter of the content is easily determined, therefore clearly illegal content can be put in the bin and it won't have any effect on the safe harbour afforded the service provider under the DMCA.

If you don't like the DMCA, and I don't, then change the law.

Originally Posted by AdultKing

You're all fucking stupid [/thread]

Seriously, read the fucking legislation and understand the concept of safe harbour.

Screening out subject matter is different from making a determination about copyright or ownership.

I don't understand why some of you are so fucking thick that you can't wrap your heads around that concept.

Originally Posted by astronaut x

....and yet, there are still sooooo many on this board who are going to protect all the other bogus shit going on in the industry. Mindgeek is just the poster child.

The real enabler is rooted much deeper, and lives in the majority of the individuals and people who choose to look the other way in this industry, because they know it means potential empty pockets.

Originally Posted by plaster

What is really strange is how Adultking went on a 2 year binger to protect rights holders via fighting file lockers and is now calling same rights holders retarded because said rights holders feel like tubes are the problem, not file lockers.

Originally Posted by plaster

What is really strange is how Adultking went on a 2 year binger to protect rights holders via fighting file lockers and is now calling same rights holders retarded because said rights holders feel like tubes are the problem, not file lockers.

Originally Posted by MaDalton

this discussion is about 7 years late.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Robbie I can break it down for you easily with one single legal word that is the basis for everything in this thread:

Liability.

IF Pornhub (or any other tube) took down even ONE "illegally pirated video" (as in the naughty America example you posted) the tube would then ACKNOWLEDGE they have the ability to discern pirated videos, thus opening up the floodgates. It's called liability and it's the #1 issue large companies care about.

If someone sends a DMCA they respond but barring an actual, official, 100% "legal" DMCA request, the videos MUST stay up even if the tube owners know 100% the video is pirated. Taking it down without a DMCA opens up the tubesite to all kinds of legal messes. The LAW says this so that's what the tubes follow.

As has been said MANY times here on GFY: If we don't like it, change the DMCA law. This is why I always call for lobbyists in Washington. Nothing else will change jack shit. Sorry.

Originally Posted by plaster

But Hush has an active lawsuit. Are they stupid and their attorney's ak? Is it your professional recommendation for them to withdraw lawsuit because they don't understand...

THE LAW?

Originally Posted by AdultKing

I'm not calling rights holders anything, I'm calling the mostly nameless or useless idiots in this thread stupid.

I have the utmost sympathy for rights-holders but it's not individuals to blame in this scenario, it's the law. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is flawed and companies are legally exploiting those flaws, just as companies legally exploit loopholes in other laws.

If you want to fix this problem once and for all then change the law, because until that happens everyone is just blowing smoke.

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Robbie I can break it down for you easily with one single legal word that is the basis for everything in this thread:

Liability.

IF Pornhub (or any other tube) took down even ONE "illegally pirated video" (as in the naughty America example you posted) the tube would then ACKNOWLEDGE they have the ability to discern pirated videos, thus opening up the floodgates. It's called liability and it's the #1 issue large companies care about.

If someone sends a DMCA they respond but barring an actual, official, 100% "legal" DMCA request, the videos MUST stay up even if the tube owners know 100% the video is pirated. Taking it down without a DMCA opens up the tubesite to all kinds of legal messes. The LAW says this so that's what the tubes follow.

As has been said MANY times here on GFY: If we don't like it, change the DMCA law. This is why I always call for lobbyists in Washington. Nothing else will change jack shit. Sorry.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I think the bigger point is that reviewing every single video negates the safe harbor defense, which is the argument that you don't and can't review every single video. If there is no safe harbor, DMCAs aren't relevant. (i think?)

Originally Posted by astronaut x

I could go on, but then again, who is going to listen to a "nobody" who has a low post count and doesn't fly a sig or flash my bro pass.

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

You can see this sort of silliness all the time in court, with defendants failing to produce bank records and then claiming they have no access to them, or lost them. You or I would say, "can't you log on and ..." but the judge can't say that, and people are rarely penalized. By simply stating blankly that they can't do something, they create a burden that can't be passed without concrete evidence, even in a civil case.

Originally Posted by Biggy

^^- I don't want people to get the wrong idea. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. You go get sued and try pulling that shit against a capable lawyer and watch what happens. The federal judges I have received decisions from, don't appear to be born yesterday.

News flash. People get sued when they knowingly are doing hurtful or illegal acts. It really does take a lot for someone to want to sue you, think about it. And when those people committing the acts get sued, they think they can pull some sort of bullshit like you wrote above. They think they can get squirelly, and play stupid, and somehow its all going to work out in the end. Most times, it blows up in their face, especially when they act transparently stupid. Federal law suits are not a cake walk, especially when the facts are against you.

Originally Posted by Biggy

^^- I don't want people to get the wrong idea. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. You go get sued and try pulling that shit against a capable lawyer and watch what happens. The federal judges I have received decisions from, don't appear to be born yesterday.

News flash. People get sued when they knowingly are doing hurtful or illegal acts. It really does take a lot for someone to want to sue you, think about it. And when those people committing the acts get sued, they think they can pull some sort of bullshit like you wrote above. They think they can get squirelly, and play stupid, and somehow its all going to work out in the end. Most times, it blows up in their face, especially when they act transparently stupid. Federal law suits are not a cake walk, especially when the facts are against you.

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/bu...html?ref=enron
He got off by dying ...

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

The "smokiest" gun would be employees uploading videos. I have never heard anyone come forward with that, though it must be the case for some other company tube sites.

Brad

Originally Posted by dgraves

Oddly enough when a DMCA is complied with and the content is removed, nothing happens to the so-called "User" who uploaded the video.

Is a thief allowed back into the store after they get caught shop lifting?

Originally Posted by mikesouth

its been brought up many times but the consensus is that they are paying "upload monkeys" to do it as Independent Contractors, I believe many were in the Philippines and I have in fact had people claiming that MindGeek paid the to do exactly that over the years, the problem is no way to verify it, no checks, nothing with manwins name on it was ever produced, do I believe that it was true, yes, but contrary to popular belief I need a bit more than that

I do believe that this guys info was worth millions, literally, to Hush.

Originally Posted by mikesouth

The guys at Hush just got handed a HUGE present. whether the reader comes forward or not this time they named names....The reader has expressed to me that he will help Hush (and anyone else) if done through me.

The full story on MikeSouth.Com

I'll bet they are preparing subpoenas as I write this


MindGeek Employee Speaks â?? Reader Mail
By MikeSouth
February 5th, 2016

I have written extensively about this but this time I think the email speaks for itself, None of what you will read here is new, but this is the first time that a Manwin/MindGeek Employee has come forward on the recordâ?¦read onâ?¦.This info will be very valuable for HushHush.

I have worked for Mindgeek for many years.

I knew the company had been breaking DMCA laws since my first day on the job as a â??redacted job titleâ?�. My role quickly evolved into screening videos like the rest of the Department did and still does.
Every single video posted on any Mindgeek tubesite is screened by a person from start to finish and the employee who doesnâ??t actually view the whole thing can get in trouble! Soâ?¦ trust me when I say they are 100% aware of every-single-video that goes up on their siteâ?¦ I used to work on another website that was a DMCA takedowns magnet, so I feel like I know a thing or two about the DMCA and how a website can claim safe harbor. Not only that, but they also have a compliance department whose job is to screen all the tubesites in hopes that they find little slip-ups (by Slip-ups I mean.. human error is still a factor here, a â??gatekeeperâ?� might let a bad video through once in a while) before anyone else in order to avoid fines.

I know that Mindgeek wants people to believe they are protected under Safe Harbor but they have a whole department of around 30 employees that pretty much directly denies them of safe harbor AND a separate compliance department to make sure they donâ??t mess up. The reason for this is that they make a LOT of money through VISA but Visa has very strict rules on the kind of content they will allow to be associated with! They donâ??t mind copyright infringing material BUT they do mind other common illegal content such as child porn etc .. I donâ??t think I need to tell you what I mean by â??common illegal contentâ?�.

Why not just make money off of ads and let any type of content through and let the community flag the bad stuff and actually be stress free since all you have to do is comply with DMCA and take videos down as the requests come and thatâ??s it? Well, as it turns out, Pornhub makes over 175,000$ a month off of their deal with Visa but can get fined up to 200,000$ for every non-compliant video by Visa, which has happened in the past. And that is how â??Gatekeepersâ?� or something like that started being a thingâ?¦Mindgeek can be creative with how they hide the fact that people screen the videos but make no mistake, there is a full department of people whose full time jobs are to review AND queue the videos for release onto the front page.

But you know what other source of money is quite important? Well.. their videosâ?¦obviously haha.

I have been personally instructed, along with most employees of the tubes department, to let copyright infringing material hit front page on the site because â??By the time it gets taken down, weâ??ve made the moneyâ?� With the millions of views they get on videos every day, every video counts right? It could be the difference between making an extra few thousand dollars in a day, you knowâ?¦ Gotta keep the money coming in! Somebody has to come up with the money so Feras and his friends can keep buying those Porsches and Ferraris hahaha.

At the end of the day, they need to keep the copyright infringing contentâ??s generated revenue until takedown + the Visa money because actually following the law and only living off of millions made from infringing contentâ??s generated revenue until taken is not enough �� , Oh and I donâ??t think I need to specify that this applies to all their websites.. soâ?¦ Millions multiplied by Youporn/Redtubeâ?¦Iâ??d mention all the other sites of the network but we all know those other tubesites they own donâ??t generate anywhere near as much as those big 3 do.

I donâ??t know how helpful my email might be but since I read on your blog that Mindgeek is currently being sued by HushHushâ?¦ I assume that Mindgeek is claiming that they are in compliance with the DMCA and saying that they arenâ??t aware of the illegal material on their site and do their best to take it all down upon requested hahaâ?¦What a joke

Hereâ??s the question HushHush should be asking: Feras, you mean to tell me that you have two separate departments with two completely different sets of people who are smart enough to catch most of the (Iâ??d say 99.99% but who is gonna pull out that stat anyway?) illegal sex content such as Snuff and Children but not smart enough to recognize copyrighted content? Thatâ??s odd. You donâ??t recognize content your own company makes with actors your own company employs?

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

The "smokiest" gun would be employees uploading videos. I have never heard anyone come forward with that, though it must be the case for some other company tube sites.

Brad

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

You can see this sort of silliness all the time in court, with defendants failing to produce bank records and then claiming they have no access to them, or lost them. You or I would say, "can't you log on and ..." but the judge can't say that, and people are rarely penalized. By simply stating blankly that they can't do something, they create a burden that can't be passed without concrete evidence, even in a civil case.

Originally Posted by Biggy

You go get sued and try pulling that shit against a capable lawyer and watch what happens. The federal judges I have received decisions from, don't appear to be born yesterday.

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

That is absolutely incorrect. In fact, frivolous lawsuits are the bane of the court system, and have been subject to new laws because they are a national problem. I don't know what your personal experience has been, but mine has been what I wrote. If you'd like we can dig up stats on prosecution or contempt resulting from behavior in a federal court, but I already know the facts.

Frivolous suits are lodged all the time, and litigants frequently fail to meet required filing and response dates with no penalty whatsoever. Federal courts are over worked (by their own admission) and seldom pursue penalties.

Originally Posted by dgraves

Oddly enough when a DMCA is complied with and the content is removed, nothing happens to the so-called "User" who uploaded the video.

Is a thief allowed back into the store after they get caught shop lifting?