Why do you put banners on illegal content sites?? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 02-15-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveHardeman

I suppose anything is possible but a sponsor can only get out so many links on their own. I just can't see a sponsor surviving without the support of affiliates. Again, just my two cents. I could be wrong.

ah you don't understand process monitezation. got it.

GUNNER · 02-15-2009, 10:06 AM

We're taking more/less the same approach as SteveHardeman. It'll be a bloody battle for the immediate future, and there'll be some casualties. However, I think it's a war worth fighting... and rolling over now, giving up, and allowing the "illegal" tubes/torrents, etc. to dictate the future isn't the answer.

BTW SteveHardeman, since I really like your site and agree with your ethics on this issue, please hit me up about trading some traffic if you're interested.

Zorgman · 02-15-2009, 10:28 AM

Personally I don't see laws really changing in this area for atleast 5 years. To the law makers this is perfect how it is. Which it's not, but they don't see the loss of income from this.

If a law maker had shared in an adult company then im sure it would be a different story.

tony286 · 02-15-2009, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveHardeman

I suppose anything is possible but a sponsor can only get out so many links on their own. I just can't see a sponsor surviving without the support of affiliates. Again, just my two cents. I could be wrong.

Great posts Steve and I dont see the affiliate model going anywhere.It just going to have to be based in reality like it is in mainstream.

SteveHardeman · 02-15-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorgman

Personally I don't see laws really changing in this area for atleast 5 years. To the law makers this is perfect how it is. Which it's not, but they don't see the loss of income from this.

If a law maker had shared in an adult company then im sure it would be a different story.

I respectfully disagree here but lemme splain why. The lawmakers couldn't care less about what's going on. Fully agree with you there. It's the mainstream entertainment industry that most certainly cares. And I believe it is the representatives of the mainstream industry who will file lawsuits and set entertainment precedents that will apply to ALL digital entertainment available on the internet. Not just mainstream. Rather than placing the burden of proof on the owner of content to find and then file paperwork to have it removed, I believe we will soon see the day when it is the obligation of a site owner to ensure the content on their site is not stolen BEFORE they offer it. And when that happens, we'll all be better off.

If I had the cash to sue some of these stolen content sites, I'd do it. But I don't. So, in the meantime, I'll sit and wait for the mainstream guys to do my work for me. I really have little choice in the matter.

SteveHardeman · 02-15-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Great posts Steve and I dont see the affiliate model going anywhere.It just going to have to be based in reality like it is in mainstream.

Great post Tony. Anyone who agrees with me is obviously a brilliant person. :-)

WarChild · 02-15-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveHardeman

I respectfully disagree here but lemme splain why. The lawmakers couldn't care less about what's going on. Fully agree with you there. It's the mainstream entertainment industry that most certainly cares. And I believe it is the representatives of the mainstream industry who will file lawsuits and set entertainment precedents that will apply to ALL digital entertainment available on the internet. Not just mainstream. Rather than placing the burden of proof on the owner of content to find and then file paperwork to have it removed, I believe we will soon see the day when it is the obligation of a site owner to ensure the content on their site is not stolen BEFORE they offer it. And when that happens, we'll all be better off.

If I had the cash to sue some of these stolen content sites, I'd do it. But I don't. So, in the meantime, I'll sit and wait for the mainstream guys to do my work for me. I really have little choice in the matter.

Isn't this more or less what Viacom vs. Youtube is all about?

What happens if Youtube (Google), who must have pretty deep pockets for legal fees, wins and sets precedent the other way? Then it will be open season on content.

The way I see it is that DMCA does not complete the task it was intended to. It needs to be rewritten and the law changed to be more relevant to today's technologies as oposed to hoping a court will interpret the existing laws in a favorable way.

gideongallery · 02-15-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveHardeman

Rather than placing the burden of proof on the owner of content to find and then file paperwork to have it removed, I believe we will soon see the day when it is the obligation of a site owner to ensure the content on their site is not stolen BEFORE they offer it. And when that happens, we'll all be better off.

never going to happen under the current law
the original act specifically designed your exclusive right not to be an absolute monopoly.
Such a ruling would grant copyright holders sherman anti trust level monopoly and would not survive appeal process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Isn't this more or less what Viacom vs. Youtube is all about?

What happens if Youtube (Google), who must have pretty deep pockets for legal fees, wins and sets precedent the other way? Then it will be open season on content.

The way I see it is that DMCA does not complete the task it was intended to. It needs to be rewritten and the law changed to be more relevant to today's technologies as oposed to hoping a court will interpret the existing laws in a favorable way.

DMCA is balanced if not overly pro copyright holder now
there is 2.2 trillion dollars of the US economy that is dependent on fair use staying exactly where it is.
And higher laws like sherman anti trust act, can overturn a bad law like that if it was passed.

02-15-2009, 10:06 AM	#52
GUNNER Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,098	We're taking more/less the same approach as SteveHardeman. It'll be a bloody battle for the immediate future, and there'll be some casualties. However, I think it's a war worth fighting... and rolling over now, giving up, and allowing the "illegal" tubes/torrents, etc. to dictate the future isn't the answer. BTW SteveHardeman, since I really like your site and agree with your ethics on this issue, please hit me up about trading some traffic if you're interested. __________________ gunner @tutamail.com 25 years in the jizz biz

02-15-2009, 10:28 AM	#53
Zorgman Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 6,103	Personally I don't see laws really changing in this area for atleast 5 years. To the law makers this is perfect how it is. Which it's not, but they don't see the loss of income from this. If a law maker had shared in an adult company then im sure it would be a different story. __________________ ---