Manwin and Pink Visual Answer Your Digital Finger Printing/Filtering Questions - Page 10 - GoFuckYourself.com

JFK · 10-09-2010, 07:35 PM

4FITTFY answers

robwod · 10-09-2010, 07:51 PM

I am not entirely sure if this whole collaboration is represented thoroughly, or perhaps I am just not fully understanding it. I would like for anyone involved to just correct me, and others, on any of the following statements, please:

Content producers are being asked to pay a fee to protect 10 of their videos from being displayed by the same tubes currently displaying them in an unauthorized fashion, and in full length.
With only 10 videos protected, participating tubes still have the ability to display the rest of a producer's entire library without authorization, unless DMCA'ed, at which point they have to remove that specific link to that specific video.
You must be a member of the FSC for the privilege of paying $450 to have 10 of your videos protected against the people displaying them. Anything else in your library is still fair game unless DMCA'ed.
Anyone can start a tube, create fake users (or hire remote users), visit the torrent and forums that are very rampant with piracy to grab content, then upload the content to your own tube, put a DMCA provision in place to protect yourself, and then join in the protection scheme to be paid to protect content owners, and without any upfront costs to implement the protection software.
The foundation of this system is one of bait and switch, whereby a full length video is detected and switched for a shorter one that is authorized.
The FSC has effectively given up on doing anything to close DMCA loopholes through legal channels and are instead using a technology to address an issue for which they themselves have little to no experience with, and using this technology as a way to bolster membership.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but this thread has certainly caused me to have questions. If I am mistaken on any of the above, by all means I'd appreciate the clarification.

Nathan · 10-09-2010, 07:53 PM

Robbie,

So, Allison tells me, she wants certain content to remain up until they can test the fingerprinting with it, and we comply with her request and that somehow makes me a bad person again? You guys are hilarious...

DWB, I wonder, although I think it is impossible, what would it need for you to believe that I actually bought the assets? I do not particularly care if you believe it or not, but it might convince others too...

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-09-2010, 07:54 PM

The fact that Fabian has stated that even if a user uploads 2000+ copyrighted videos he won't do JACK SHIT about it unless he gets 2000+ DMCA notices (which he hopes to come under the guise of the APAP/FSC finger print revshare dicksuck program)...well that pretty much shows you how honest this guy is. This is why we don't believe he has ANY intentions whatsoever to clean up piracy. And PV and the FSC are putting out press releases like we're all supposed to jizz in our pants because this cocksucker company claims they're gonna join up. In the words of Winston Wolf - Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet. All this means is that they'll have some bullshit defense to trot out in court should anyone else ever sue them. So all that PV and the FSC have done is given Manwich cover so that they are untouchable in lawsuits.

Great job guys! Why don't we just stop calling it a settlement and call it what it really was for PV....a big fat LOSS! And for Manwich a big christmas present with a very VISUAL PINK bow on top.

Nathan · 10-09-2010, 08:02 PM

Half man, if or if not we delete the rest of the videos I can not say for sure right now... And if we will change that policy, whatever it is, I can not say either right now. I do not make decisions on GFY. I make them with legal and business advisors...

Allison · 10-09-2010, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwod

I am not entirely sure if this whole collaboration is represented thoroughly, or perhaps I am just not fully understanding it. I would like for anyone involved to just correct me, and others, on any of the following statements, please:

Content producers are being asked to pay a fee to protect 10 of their videos from being displayed by the same tubes currently displaying them in an unauthorized fashion, and in full length.
With only 10 videos protected, participating tubes still have the ability to display the rest of a producer's entire library without authorization, unless DMCA'ed, at which point they have to remove that specific link to that specific video.
You must be a member of the FSC for the privilege of paying $450 to have 10 of your videos protected against the people displaying them. Anything else in your library is still fair game unless DMCA'ed.
Anyone can start a tube, create fake users (or hire remote users), visit the torrent and forums that are very rampant with piracy to grab content, then upload the content to your own tube, put a DMCA provision in place to protect yourself, and then join in the protection scheme to be paid to protect content owners, and without any upfront costs to implement the protection software.
The foundation of this system is one of bait and switch, whereby a full length video is detected and switched for a shorter one that is authorized.
The FSC has effectively given up on doing anything to close DMCA loopholes through legal channels and are instead using a technology to address an issue for which they themselves have little to no experience with, and using this technology as a way to bolster membership.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but this thread has certainly caused me to have questions. If I am mistaken on any of the above, by all means I'd appreciate the clarification.

1) No. There are 2 programs. There's a program called "Media Wise" which does not have a monthly fee. This program works with the participating tubes & prevents users from uploading your content by replacing it with advertising content that you select. There's a completely seperate program called "Video Tracker" which is a tool that is used to track your digital finger prints on the participating tubes AND 16+ other tubes (and more as they add them). It's a tool for sending DMCA notices, tracking, data collection and legal evidence collection. This tool costs $450 per month. There is bulk pricing for tracking more than 10 titles per month. You can participate in just "Media Wise", in just "Video Tracker", or both. I've pointed out that the "Media Wise" program is the no brainer, as participating studios now do not have to even worry about finding and DMCA'ing their content on 8 tube sites, instead by simply getting a digital finger print (which is very simple and help is provided) they can replace attempted uploads with advertisements for their sites on the fly.

2) No. See 1. You were overlooking the "Media Wise" program and instead referencing the "Video Tracker".

3) Yes, the program is limited to FSC members. See DDuke's response as to why as she explains it best. The FSC membership rates are based on a corporation's size, so you can contact the FSC for the exact rates.

4) Correct. In that case they make a distinction between past liability and current liability.

5) All of that is decided by the content owner. I have a feeling content owners will get very creative in figuring out ways to best appeal to a tube surfer.

6) There's no point in the FSC making attempts to clarify or change the laws behind DMCA because it's a waste of money for many reasons. First, is the fact that there has already been plenty of case law established when it comes to DMCA and copyright law. Second, is the fact that because larger industries are impacted by this like music and Hollywood, they are fronting the money to make headway in creating new case law (although some times that backfires too). And lastly, is the fact that it's more likely Congress would make a decision that would impact copyright law and DMCA more severely then any case law would.

I will definitely admit that I'm not an attorney, but I've been through a handful of litigations and have been advised by both in-house counsel and top of the line, experienced copyright law attorneys and I can say with confidence that digital finger printing and filtering is a solid and thorough remedy awarded by the courts.

In fact, while this technology was in its infancy (2001), it was a court ordered remedy in the Napster case:

http://news.cnet.com/Napster-to-add-..._3-267997.html

Since then, it's use has only grown and improved in the mainstream

Nathan · 10-09-2010, 11:59 PM

One remark regarding 4)
If anyone did a tube that way, ie downloaded content from torrents and such and put it up, OR even if they just scraped other tubes in an automated way, they are NOT protected by DMCA!

Implementing the fingerprinting tech at that point does not help them either.

vittle · 10-10-2010, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Option 1 allows you to set rules like "any finger print matches over 3 minutes replace with this 30 second promo video and add an overlay". In other cases the rule might be to have the uploaded content removed completely. So nothing you don't want up would stay up.

Lets say Pornhub has one of our 40 minute long vids - your service can replace that 40 minute video with a 30 sec. promo vid? I don't see how you could replace one video for another on a tube site you have no control over.

Nathan · 10-10-2010, 02:17 AM

Vittle, because we are actively working with FSC's APAP and are committed to it. The least that will happen is for us to remove content which is fingerprinted and the vobile biz settings for it say not to allow it.

robwod · 10-10-2010, 05:05 AM

Allison: thanks a lot for the clarification on the above-noted points. The media wise program seems to have been overshadowed/forgotten while the tracking aspect (the one with the fees attached) has been the primary focus -- at least on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

One remark regarding 4)
If anyone did a tube that way, ie downloaded content from torrents and such and put it up, OR even if they just scraped other tubes in an automated way, they are NOT protected by DMCA!

Implementing the fingerprinting tech at that point does not help them either.

Well, the person doing this would certainly never admit to uploading the videos. But to not recognize this is happening with a lot of tubes I think would be naive at best. Between remote uploaders, proxies, foreign IP's attached to inhouse user accounts, and other assorted methods, to insulate themselves against claims that would remove them from DMCA protection. Thus, "claiming" it was user uploads would put the burden of proof back on the person claiming the infringement.

As a result, it seems as though one could certainly start a tube in this manner, gain some marketshare, join the protection scheme, claim they are going legit, and then get paid to protect content producers as a supplementary revenue stream.

Granted, I have no intention of tossing my hat into the tube ring anytime soon. But it seems to me that this protection scheme provides a financial incentive, beyond advertising revenues and traffic sales, for people to start tubes en masse using unauthorized content with the ultimate goal of getting paid to protect content owners from themselves.

It's an interesting scenario.

Nathan · 10-10-2010, 05:17 AM

robwod,

considering scripts like mechbunny have actual SCRAPER PLUGINs to allow for easy scraping... just gotta find out if the app is active in the code.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-10-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vittle

Lets say Pornhub has one of our 40 minute long vids - your service can replace that 40 minute video with a 30 sec. promo vid? I don't see how you could replace one video for another on a tube site you have no control over.

Fabian says that yes they can apparently easily replace a 40 minute video with a 30 second one. However, deleting all the videos a user has uploaded....well that is SUPER DIFFICULT MAN.

Hmmmmm.

Nathan · 10-10-2010, 08:18 AM

Half man, it is sad to watch how hard it seems to be for you to read.

Allison has explained the problem, as have I, if you do not understand it, go talk to a lawyer about it if you actually have the money to pay for one.

artwilliams · 10-10-2010, 08:22 AM

This whole scheme depends on thieves acting honorably -- an oxymoron in my book.

Choker · 10-10-2010, 08:58 AM

I don't understand why Manwin is going to all this trouble. If I wanted to right now today I could buy 50k full length videos licensed for tube sites for $5 a pop. Content guys are desperate, hell i was paying $5 a pop 4 years ago, could prolly get them cheaper now. Seems they are attempting to share the wealth, yet most are upset about this?

Ron Bennett · 10-10-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

Fabian says that yes they can apparently easily replace a 40 minute video with a 30 second one. However, deleting all the videos a user has uploaded....well that is SUPER DIFFICULT MAN.

Hmmmmm.

Hmmmmm is right!

Many paid webhosts will terminate and "delete" (remove from public view) all content of accounts that get too many DMCA complaints ... so a paid service can do it, but a free service can't? This is not making sense ...

Bottom line is that the "we can't delete everything" is nonsense - the tubes certainly can, but choose not to. End of story.

Ron

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-10-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Half man, it is sad to watch how hard it seems to be for you to read.

Allison has explained the problem, as have I, if you do not understand it, go talk to a lawyer about it if you actually have the money to pay for one.

It's sad to watch how hard it seems for you to do one honest thing.

Go talk to an honest human being...you'll have to go outside the Manwin circle of thieves to find one though.

DDuke · 10-10-2010, 04:48 PM

Robbie, I did not attend a seminar. I never said that I attended a seminar. What I said is that, over the course of 18 months, FSC brought together experts. We brought together experts from mainstream entertainment, experts from the legal community, experts from the world of software, and most importantly, experts from within our membership - John Stagliano, Christian Mann, Michael Klein, Steve Hirsh, Bruce Lehay and Keith Webb, Bob Johnson and Bruce Whitney, Rob Novinger and Tony Rios, Ali Joone, Steve Orenstein and many more.

To oversee the program FSC contracted with Gill Sperlein arguably one of the most successful copyright infringement attorneys in the industry. Gill was the staff attorney who successfully guided Titan Studios though many groundbreaking copyright infringement cases-Gill is a well established ?expert?.
The aforementioned group recognized that tubesites were a reality of business in the digital age. It was clear that our goal was not to legitimize tubesites, but rather to force tubesites into a legitimate business model. The resulting APAP program takes a stick and a carrot approach to copyright infringement.

Most of what I have read on this thread is based on a complete misunderstanding of what APAP is. For those of you who are interested in understanding the program?
First, the stick?TRACKING AND ENFORCEMENT In this approach APAP participants are given a copyright analysis of their content by Attorney Gill Sperlein who also assists the content providers in developing a plan for making sure their content is properly copyrighted. Businesses participating in the tracker component of APAP have their content tracked every two hours on 16 selected tubesites with state-of-the-art technology. Tubesites are selected by their Alexa rating (highest -trafficked sites) and through participant input.

APAP technology gathers information and develops an evidence packet of materials for each infringement. This information saves a great deal of attorney time and expense for those companies who choose to litigate. Once an infringement is found, DMCA takedown notices are sent out and tracked every two hours to determine time and level of compliance. There is a great deal more to the software--if you are interested contact me at FSC and we can set up a demo.

FSC APAP maintains statistics for infringing locations by compiling information and tracking notices sent to any given site, thus locating the biggest violators and then documenting how sites respond to takedown notices. Then finally, APAP works with subscribers to determine an individualized approach for each infringing site; identify subscribers, when appropriate, who wish to engage in litigation and match them with others to form litigation groups.

Through a coordinated effort in APAP?s Tracking and Enforcement phase, participants pressure tubesites to adopt Mediawise--the carrot. Mediawise software uses audio-video-metadata fingerprints to STOP content from being uploaded. Instead of a title going up, the software applies the business rule the content provider wants for that title and either truncates the content or provides an overlay that takes the viewer to the content provider?s site. Content providers fingerprint their entire library and their content DOES NOT GO UP unless the content provider wants it to. With this approach, the content provider not only blocks stolen content from being uploaded, but also realizes a potential new revenue stream

So what does all this cost?
Tracking and Enforcement ($400/month)
To participate in this phase of APAP, there is a minimum tracking of 10 titles or 1500 minutes. The cost is $400/month (NOT $450). There are bulk rates and less frequent tracking options at much lower costs available for those who wish to track large portions of their libraries. There is a one-time $450 registration fee. The program is month-to-month; you will NEVER be forced to continue with the program if you are not satisfied.

Mediawise/Monetization (FREE repeat, FREE!)
This costs the content provider absolutely nothing. The content provider fingerprints his/her entire library with assistance from our software professionals. The content is identified with Vobile?s Mediawise software and instead of the content going up, it is truncated or replaced with a trailer that takes the viewer to the content provider?s site. If a purchase is made, then a portion of the purchase goes back to FSC who pays the host site and Vobile (the software company). Here is the breakdown:

If the content provider is participating in the Tracking** and Enforcement phase the breakdown is*:
Content Provider 60%
Host Site 15%
Vobile 15%
FSC & Gill 10%
*Percentage of net ? after billing fees and chargebacks
**These providers have a higher percentage of the rev share than non-participants as we rely on these companies to continue pressure on the tubsites to join the program.

If the content provider is NOT participating in the Tracking and Enforcement phase the breakdown is*:
Content Provider 55%
Host Site 15%
Vobile 17.5%
FSC & Gill Sperlein 12.5%
*Percentage of net ? after billing fees and chargebacks

If you have any questions or would like to set up a demo, shoot me an email.

Redrob · 10-10-2010, 05:12 PM

Diane, thank you for the clarification.

Robbie · 10-10-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDuke

Robbie, I did not attend a seminar. I never said that I attended a seminar. What I said is that, over the course of 18 months, FSC brought together experts. We brought together experts from mainstream entertainment, experts from the legal community, experts from the world of software, and most importantly, experts from within our membership - John Stagliano, Christian Mann, Michael Klein, Steve Hirsh, Bruce Lehay and Keith Webb, Bob Johnson and Bruce Whitney, Rob Novinger and Tony Rios, Ali Joone, Steve Orenstein and many more.

You are 100% right. I totally took that out of context. And applied the word "seminar" to it because you had speakers giving talks like a seminar. But the way it looked when I typed it made it appear that you went to some show and sat in the audience...when the reality is that you hosted these speakers yourself to learn something.

My one question on that would be this: Acknowledging my ignorance of what Mainstream is or isn't doing...did you get any real experts from adult in there? As much as I very much respect the list from your membership...I don't see any names there that are really known for their prowess or success on the internet...much less in combating piracy.

I know that when you launched this idea...you really didn't know WHO were the "experts" that were already doing it. But I'm assuming you do now.
Have you reached out to any of them? John Stagliano is a legend and a giant in our business and knowing his reputation...I'm betting he has educated himself pretty damn well on this...BUT having said that, does he have a database of pirate sites? Do any of those people on your list of experts know who, how, and what to do for over 10,000 pirate sites?

Well, there are some folks who were already doing it back when you had that group get together. It would have probably been pretty damn beneficial to bring in those people to show y'all how it's done and get you on the right track and eliminate the learning curve.

That was sort of my point. You guys just appear to be fish out of water on this thing. Not saying you can't pull it up to speed real quickly. I'm sure you're smart enough to do that.

Anyway, that was my point. I've never played quarterback on an NFL team. But if I suddenly decided to invest my money and buy my way into the game...I'd definitely bring in the best strength trainers, coaches, etc. to try and get me ready. I wouldn't bring in the best Team owners or the best guys on the board of the NFL. They might be the best at what they do...but it wouldn't do me any good at what I was trying to achieve.

See what I'm saying?

Redrob · 10-10-2010, 05:47 PM

As Vobile developed the technology and has experience in using the software to initiate copyright enforcement actions, I imagine you could say they are experts. It seems to me that other anti-piracy efforts in our industry are not using the same technology.

Alexa will point to the major offenders for monitoring.

Just saying......Vobile is probably considered expert in their game and the sites are in plain view.

Robbie, who would you recommend and what would they "bring to the table?"

Robbie · 10-10-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

As Vobile developed the technology and has experience in using the software to initiate copyright enforcement actions, I imagine you could say they are experts.

Alexa will point to the major offenders for monitoring.

Just saying......Vobile is probably considered expert in their game and the sites are in plain view.

That's true to a great extent. Vobile is the expert at their software. How much expertise they have in follow through with said software is totally unknown.

And just looking at Alexa isn't going to tell you jack. If you think that will do the trick then go round up a few thousand pirate site url's off of there...see what I mean?

And that doesn't count the mother lode: Surfer forums.

And does Vobile have that data base ready with the proper email address for each DMCA to be sent AND a working uneasy relationship with the guy responsible for pulling shit down so that when you make a dmca request to him it doesn't sit on the shelf for a few weeks?

I'm doubting that very, very much. And that's just a small part of what I'm talking about here. There is a LOT more to this than just a fancy software that is a bit overpriced for the results it brings.

I think I said it best in one of my replies here...this software is like having a bazooka and not having a target or even knowing how to properly fire it yet.

Robbie · 10-10-2010, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Robbie, who would you recommend and what would they "bring to the table?"

The only one I could recommend are the ones I use. RemoveYourContent.Com

Anything else that I or anyone else says would not be based on experience. I have used them for a few years now. I know what they can do.

Anybody that has not used any kind of service like that is only theorizing and guessing.

It would be nice to have seen what the FSC is trying to do coordinated with the guys who pioneered anti-piracy in adult. But they didn't. Probably because at the time...they simply didn't know any better. Thus that list of "experts" in anti-piracy that DDuke listed above.

Some of the best in our business in that list...at other things. I'll say it again, if I need pests exterminated I hire a professional exterminator...not the owner of a company that does something else.

Redrob · 10-10-2010, 06:14 PM

People who know me know that I have been preaching anti-piracy for years and years.

I am good friends with Nate and kind of motivated Ai3rk get the "Content Producers Summit" going back in 2007 which I flew from Texas and attended.

Back around 2004, I personally flew to LA and visited every major company in the Valley and spoke to the owners/webmasters/sales reps about how piracy was going to ruin our businesses.

I appreciate your passion and respect anybody who is trying to affect "change".

I do not consider myself an anti-piracy expert....just an activist. I have seen piracy's effects on my business.

Robbie · 10-10-2010, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

I do not consider myself an anti-piracy expert....just an activist. I have seen its effects on my business.

I would say that I am the same. The only extra thing I did was to make sure the we had a backend script in place that keeps our new updates from being stolen out of our members area to begin with.

That was the greatest single thing I ever did to increase my sales and stop the blood flow.

All the rest of this "anti-piracy" is just chasing your content. Locking it down is job 1.

But of course to this very day I'll have people on GFY try to tell me it "won't work" and it will be "hacked" etc., etc. after a little over 2 years of it working
lol

I don't think that what I have done sucessfully as far as protecting my content and keeping it down to a dull roar and then having removeyourcontent work on taking care of the rest ( a VERY effective and cheap one-two punch ) is something that the powers that be want to have discussed at the upcoming "Anti-Piracy Summit"

There's no profit in it for anybody. It just keeps the rightful owner of the content in a lot more control of what's happening. So it only profits the one person who SHOULD be profiting : The Content Owner. Not the FSC, and definitely NOT the pirate site.

Redrob · 10-10-2010, 06:29 PM

Robbie,
I'm going to be coming to Vegas next month for a scuba diving trade show around the 18th or 20th. Would you like to get a bite to eat and exchange some ideas? Treats on me.

Alprazolam · 10-10-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Robbie,
I'm going to be coming to Vegas next month for a scuba diving trade show around the 18th or 20th. Would you like to get a bite to eat and exchange some ideas? Treats on me.

lol.

translation: robbie lets eat and break bread and bro out so we become buddies and you stop making great points in our thread when we're trying to make money.

squeeky wheel gets the free lunch.

Robbie · 10-10-2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Robbie,
I'm going to be coming to Vegas next month for a scuba diving trade show around the 18th or 20th. Would you like to get a bite to eat and exchange some ideas? Treats on me.

Definitely get in touch when you're here. I'll bring you over to Robbie Manor and show you some things that really work well on piracy and help you in any way that I can.

Redrob · 10-10-2010, 07:28 PM

Dialog is a good thing....it is how I learn.

Keep making the points. They are food for thought.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-10-2010, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alprazolam

lol.

translation: robbie lets eat and break bread and bro out so we become buddies and you stop making great points in our thread when we're trying to make money.

squeeky wheel gets the free lunch.

Waaaaay off base Alprazolam. If this were Fabian saying it, I'd agree with you. However I've known "Redrob" for many years and he's about as stand up a guy as you'll ever meet. He doesn't screw anyone over and the work that he's done for free speech (especially fighting the fight in the incredibly difficult state of Texas) is tremendous.

Dirty Dane · 10-10-2010, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Dirty Dane, as I have said in a previous post I am not yet 100% sure what happens, and we are checking with legal also if removing it would cause us problems...

And you simply do not understand what selecting content is. Youtube not allowing porn is not selecting content, Us not allowing non-porn or illegal content is not selecting content either.

I do know what selecting content in this context is. It's the reason for removing it. There will always be a real reason, but DMCA doesn't force you to give a reason. You can remove non-porn, you can remove illegal content and report it to the police without giving the user a reason. You already stated that in your TOS: "...at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, with or without notice." Removing all content of a banned user won't cause you problems if the reason is violation of terms/contract.

Robbie · 10-10-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

I do know what selecting content in this context is. It's the reason for removing it. There will always be a real reason, but DMCA doesn't force you to give a reason. You can remove non-porn, you can remove illegal content and report it to the police without giving the user a reason. You already stated that in your TOS: "...at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, with or without notice." Removing all content of a banned user won't cause you problems if the reason is violation of terms/contract.

<fabian> I'll get back to you on that. I don't really know. Matter of fact, I don't know much about the site at all. My company is too big. I'll have to ask someone. But first I'll have to ask my lawyer</fabian>

DWB · 10-11-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDuke

What I said is that, over the course of 18 months, FSC brought together experts - John Stagliano, Christian Mann, Michael Klein, Steve Hirsh, Bruce Lehay and Keith Webb, Bob Johnson and Bruce Whitney, Rob Novinger and Tony Rios, Ali Joone, Steve Orenstein and many more.

I would just like to point out that not one of those guys, while they may be DVD giants, know jack about online piracy. Nada. Nothing. Waste of a meeting for everyone.

You need to be picking the brains of guys like Corbin Fisher. That guy is kicking ass and taking names, along with their assets. He seems to be the Rambo of the industry but I don't see him on your list of experts. I've never seen someone's content so locked down as Robbie's is, he isn't on the list. Borked is a programmer with so many ideas on how to curb piracy and ways to stop it, he should get a Nobel Peach Prize, but he is not on your list of experts either.

Last I heard, none of them were asked to speak at the Piracy Retreat coming up either. What DVD giants and useless attorneys will be speaking there in place of real experts? Any idea? I do... If there is a God and she has a sense of humor, it would be Fabian from Manwin. The sad part is, I COULD SEE HIM SPEAKING and telling all the DVD companies why they need to pay for this service to stop him from stealing it. I bet he was asked by the FSC or Top Bucks, but he said he will not be speaking. Shame. That would be epic.

You need to be talking to people who are actually protecting their content and stopping piracy in real life. You need to be talking to programmers who are stopping pirates with their methods already or have ideas on how to do it. You need real life industry experts, not DVD kings or FSC members who contribute large amounts of money to you. Hardly any of these guys even know how to make a website let alone know the true scope of online piracy, which is mostly OUTSIDE of the tubes.

This is why people, other than the DVD guys and very large and out of touch internet companies, do not have much faith in the FSC. When you have meetings of "experts" with guys who don't know anything about online piracy (or even how to make money online), you sort of disqualify yourself as an organization who is on top of things.

DWB · 10-11-2010, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

I kind of motivated Ai3rk get the "Content Producers Summit" going back in 2007 which I flew from Texas and attended.

I was there for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Robbie,
I'm going to be coming to Vegas next month for a scuba diving trade show around the 18th or 20th. Would you like to get a bite to eat and exchange some ideas? Treats on me.

Robbie has it together in terms of protecting his content and doing a good job of it. He has been ahead of the curve for a while. It would be a wise meeting. He has helped me tremendously and my latest site is hardly having any piracy issues at all. I know it will come in time, but we're keeping it under control, and owe much of that to Robbie, Borked, and StickyFingers (he has some good ideas too, even though he gets a lot of hate).

Paul Markham · 10-11-2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

OK here's a few questions for you and Alison to answer.

User; http://www.pornhub.com/users/bryanc

Public Videos (1045)

Joined: 1 year ago
Last Login: 3 weeks ago
Videos Watched: 94
People have watched bryanc videos: 17,797,701 times

He's got a whole load of Back Seat Bangers videos, owned by Top Buck, 23 full length scenes. Of the 1045 videos this guy uploaded.

So does he work for you and uploading your licensed content, work for Top Bucks and uploading their licensed content or neither?

If Top Bucks are allowing this video on your site, where is the link to their site. OR do they sell the license of their content to be used on Tube sites?

And if he works for Top Bucks are the other 1022 videos he's uploaded all their content?

And if he works for you do you own the license to the other 1022 videos?

I made this post Saturday. I emailed links to Fabian and Allison over the weekend. The Top Bucks content was identified as being pirated and on Allison's "list" for a take down. Yet it's still there. I would think seeing as it was posted on GFY they would of both worked a bit faster to remove it.

But, let's give Fabian the benefit of the doubt. His whole office staff are only working their sites Monday to Friday 9-5.

His reply to whether the rest of this users content is also interesting.

"Paul, I have not said I will not do it, I said I need to discuss it with my lawyers. Which will happen tuesday."

Let's guess what his "Lawyers" will say. "No don't take down the content of someone breaking the copyright laws, it might lead you open to being sued."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

And yet another one. http://www.pornhub.com/users/crispocolis

Joined: 1 month ago
Last Login: 2 hours ago
Videos Watched: 156
People have watched crispocolis videos: 7851 times

He has 42 videos from Public Invasion. A BangBros site. It has in total just under 190 videos on the site. So are BangBros giving away around 22% of their site for free?

Of course if the answer is yes it's licensed content from both sponsors it begs another and even bigger question.

Why should an affiliate promote sites who allow their content to be given away for free in such vast numbers?

As for Brazzers content. His reply on that was even funnier.

"It's not licensed, and if BangBros wants to remove it they can, we work very closely with BangBros. We know each other personally and on a friendly basis. We upload brazzers content on their own tube, they upload content on our own tube.

I am not going to check each user you send me personally. Sorry."

I wonder if he works closely enough with Brazzers to inform them this content is on his Tubes?

I emailed Bangbros and waiting for a reply. Anyone got better contact with them, because I doubt Fabian will tell them.

Paul Markham · 10-11-2010, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robwod

[*]Anyone can start a tube, create fake users (or hire remote users), visit the torrent and forums that are very rampant with piracy to grab content, then upload the content to your own tube, put a DMCA provision in place to protect yourself, and then join in the protection scheme to be paid to protect content owners, and without any upfront costs to implement the protection software.

A search on Pornhub and then searching for the content on Torrents shows very quickly a lot of what's on Tubes is on Torrents. What came first is up for grabs.

Fabian's reply to this shows how serious he is. Like a Tube is going to tell people that's where they got the content from. He insults us with that reply.

Nathan · 10-11-2010, 10:23 AM

Paul, why are you mixing up Brazzers and BangBros?

Robbie · 10-11-2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Paul, why are you mixing up Brazzers and BangBros?

He didn't. He pointed out that BangBros stolen stuff is on YOUR site.

Paul Markham · 10-11-2010, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Paul, why are you mixing up Brazzers and BangBros?

Because I told you about both Bangbros and Top Bucks content, via eamail. You acknowledged it was not licensed, said you are friends with Bangbros and will not take the content down until notified.

Your reply to my email.

Quote:

It's not licensed, and if BangBros wants to remove it they can, we work very closely with BangBros. We know each other personally and on a friendly basis. We upload brazzers content on their own tube, they upload content on our own tube.

I am not going to check each user you send me personally. Sorry.

While you're so busy here trolling, have you asked your friends you know personally and work with, that their content is on your site and may be pirated?

Nathan · 10-11-2010, 11:34 AM

Nope, have not, I asked someone else to tell them though... holiday in north america of course, so who knows if anything happens today or not.

Nathan · 10-11-2010, 11:36 AM

BTW, reason I was confused before with Brazzers / BangBros is because you said stuff like "As for Brazzers content. His reply on that was even funnier." .. So that did not really fit.

DamianJ · 10-11-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Paul, why are you mixing up Brazzers and BangBros?

He is old. He gets confused very easily.

Allison · 10-11-2010, 03:48 PM

Paul and others,

I understand your intentions on some of your points here and the history of tube sites.

Moving on from that and looking at the near future realities, a reasonable time frame will be the main factor. Later this week we'll be sending in our DMCA's & reserving about 50 live urls for us to test against the finger print filtering once that is live. And later on, once Manwin announces that the digital finger print filtering is 100% live, you can see the results on all the studios who have their content finger printed (see bottom of http://www.fscapap.com/content.html)

So later this week/early next, look for Pink Visual removals. And after Manwin has completed the digital finger print filtering, I'd be happy to share the results of the 50 test urls.

I'm looking forward to the day that a studio like Pink Visual doesn't have to worry so much or spend so much effort in finding content on tubes & sending DMCA's & then checking on removals. And that day should be near given the APAP solution & the various tubes already committing to integrate & the others now considering it. This for me is a more realistic solution than debating every tube (and most aren't on the boards willing to interact with GFYers) about their repeat infringer policy, which for the record, we obviously advocate stricter policies rather than loose ones.

In the mean time, the FSC APAP solutions remains simple. The more studios that get their finger prints done, the more content will be filtered out and even monetized the way the studio wants.

http://www.fscapap.com

DWB · 10-12-2010, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Nope, have not, I asked someone else to tell them though... holiday in north america of course, so who knows if anything happens today or not.

I've been gone so long I have no idea what holiday is happening right now.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-13-2010, 08:49 PM

Just some food for thought here:

When you go to Pornhub and click the "Categories" tab you get a breakdown by category of all their videos. Beside each category is a number showing the total number of videos in that category. If one were so inclined one could add them all together. I am so inclined. It comes out to around 150,000 videos. However, when you upload a video to Pornhub you are prompted to select 3 categories your video could fall under, so in reality, the total number of videos on Pornhub is probably more like 50,000 (not sure if their private videos are included in their totals or not).

The user I pointed out in the "other" thread started by DirtyWhiteBoy was a user going by the name of jj09. (http://www.pornhub.com/users/jj09) He had uploaded 2,209 videos and we all identified quite a few infringing ones on his first page of uploads, certainly enough to qualify him as a repeat offender. In fact just the fact that ONE of his uploads is infringing constitutes a violation of the PornHub TOS since before you can upload anything you must agree that:

"By clicking "Upload Video", you are representing that this video does not violate Pornhub's Terms of Use and that you own all copyrights in this video or have authorization to upload it."

Were Pornhub to enforce their TOS and remove jj09's account and ALL the videos he's uploaded it would result in the removal of 2200+ vids or about 5% of the total videos on Pornhub. Sound like a cost effective solution to anyone else?

But I hear ya...5% isn't enough. Well lucky for us jj09 uses his blog on pornhub to tell us about the other "hard working uploaders here". Let's look at their profiles shall we?

http://www.pornhub.com/users/amsterdamxxx - 2036 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/drsweary -540 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/tinalovesv -2393 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/alphaporn - 246 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/great-gonzo - 171 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/KevDaMacDaddyMac -106 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/kev1mac - 113 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/DragonGold - 446 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/nightvisions - 112 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/ivannicta - 540 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/drkhalf2 - 355 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/jakkups - 458 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/MRFREAKYD - 596 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/fooker79 - 232 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/kb24 - 451 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/KeV08 - 312 videos

This is just from jj09's little circle of friends. 11,316 videos and I'll betcha nearly all of them are copyright infringing. What do you guys think, would you like to see almost 22% of Pornhub's videos removed by just them enforcing their TOS? What if the FSC had pressured Manwich to just enforce their TOS?

Oh and here's a comment on the profile of corey999 (http://www.pornhub.com/users/corey999):
"jj was telling me you deal with vid uploads iwas just wondering if its the norm for the hub to pimp ur vids i was quite happy with the few watching them and sum of them now have crazy amounts of veiws just wonderd thats all cheers "

Apparently corey999 works for Pornhub as he puts out notifications of updates and also seems to be friends with .... wait for it... jj09! http://www.pornhub.com/users/corey99...ndships&page=4

Apparently corey999 is friends with ALMOST ALL of the uploaders I mentioned above. They come to his profile and tell him how much they appreciate him and everything! And it looks like maybe he gives preferential placement to his buds on there. Sounds like being selective to me? Hey Fabian...doesn't that mean you lose your Safe Harbor protection? Go ask your lawyers...we'll see ya in a few months when you come back to evade the question again.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-14-2010, 02:51 PM

wow....silence is deafening on this one.

Rui · 10-17-2010, 09:51 AM

Gone dead all of sudden eh..

DWB · 10-17-2010, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

Just some food for thought here:

When you go to Pornhub and click the "Categories" tab you get a breakdown by category of all their videos. Beside each category is a number showing the total number of videos in that category. If one were so inclined one could add them all together. I am so inclined. It comes out to around 150,000 videos. However, when you upload a video to Pornhub you are prompted to select 3 categories your video could fall under, so in reality, the total number of videos on Pornhub is probably more like 50,000 (not sure if their private videos are included in their totals or not).

The user I pointed out in the "other" thread started by DirtyWhiteBoy was a user going by the name of jj09. (http://www.pornhub.com/users/jj09) He had uploaded 2,209 videos and we all identified quite a few infringing ones on his first page of uploads, certainly enough to qualify him as a repeat offender. In fact just the fact that ONE of his uploads is infringing constitutes a violation of the PornHub TOS since before you can upload anything you must agree that:

"By clicking "Upload Video", you are representing that this video does not violate Pornhub's Terms of Use and that you own all copyrights in this video or have authorization to upload it."

Were Pornhub to enforce their TOS and remove jj09's account and ALL the videos he's uploaded it would result in the removal of 2200+ vids or about 5% of the total videos on Pornhub. Sound like a cost effective solution to anyone else?

But I hear ya...5% isn't enough. Well lucky for us jj09 uses his blog on pornhub to tell us about the other "hard working uploaders here". Let's look at their profiles shall we?

http://www.pornhub.com/users/amsterdamxxx - 2036 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/drsweary -540 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/tinalovesv -2393 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/alphaporn - 246 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/great-gonzo - 171 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/KevDaMacDaddyMac -106 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/kev1mac - 113 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/DragonGold - 446 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/nightvisions - 112 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/ivannicta - 540 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/drkhalf2 - 355 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/jakkups - 458 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/MRFREAKYD - 596 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/fooker79 - 232 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/kb24 - 451 videos
http://www.pornhub.com/users/KeV08 - 312 videos

This is just from jj09's little circle of friends. 11,316 videos and I'll betcha nearly all of them are copyright infringing. What do you guys think, would you like to see almost 22% of Pornhub's videos removed by just them enforcing their TOS? What if the FSC had pressured Manwich to just enforce their TOS?

Oh and here's a comment on the profile of corey999 (http://www.pornhub.com/users/corey999):
"jj was telling me you deal with vid uploads iwas just wondering if its the norm for the hub to pimp ur vids i was quite happy with the few watching them and sum of them now have crazy amounts of veiws just wonderd thats all cheers "

Apparently corey999 works for Pornhub as he puts out notifications of updates and also seems to be friends with .... wait for it... jj09! http://www.pornhub.com/users/corey99...ndships&page=4

Apparently corey999 is friends with ALMOST ALL of the uploaders I mentioned above. They come to his profile and tell him how much they appreciate him and everything! And it looks like maybe he gives preferential placement to his buds on there. Sounds like being selective to me? Hey Fabian...doesn't that mean you lose your Safe Harbor protection? Go ask your lawyers...we'll see ya in a few months when you come back to evade the question again.

Manwin pre-made responses. Please select the answer that best suits you:

a) Programming bug.

b) You don't understand DMCA or the law.

c) I have to check with my attorney and get back to you.

BlacksOnBlondes · 10-20-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Yes we can, it's called repeat infringer policy. And currently, it falls shut as soon as the user uploads (I think, would have to verify to be sure) 3 videos that get DMCAd. The account is then shutdown.

If you think this is not correct, do let me know of a user where you feel this is not the case, so I can investigate myself.

All of this obviously only applies to post March 1st 2010.

Nathan:
This guy has been uploading tons of our movies- http://www.pornhub.com/users/bong/
We have sent you dozens of DMCA's on this guy AFTER March 1st 2010. Why is he still an active user? Over 500,000 people have watched these movies so far.

Please advise.

Matyko · 10-20-2010, 11:59 AM

How did I miss this great thread?!?!?!

10-09-2010, 07:35 PM	#451
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,382	4FITTFY answers __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

10-09-2010, 07:51 PM	#452
robwod Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,539	I am not entirely sure if this whole collaboration is represented thoroughly, or perhaps I am just not fully understanding it. I would like for anyone involved to just correct me, and others, on any of the following statements, please: Content producers are being asked to pay a fee to protect 10 of their videos from being displayed by the same tubes currently displaying them in an unauthorized fashion, and in full length. With only 10 videos protected, participating tubes still have the ability to display the rest of a producer's entire library without authorization, unless DMCA'ed, at which point they have to remove that specific link to that specific video. You must be a member of the FSC for the privilege of paying $450 to have 10 of your videos protected against the people displaying them. Anything else in your library is still fair game unless DMCA'ed. Anyone can start a tube, create fake users (or hire remote users), visit the torrent and forums that are very rampant with piracy to grab content, then upload the content to your own tube, put a DMCA provision in place to protect yourself, and then join in the protection scheme to be paid to protect content owners, and without any upfront costs to implement the protection software. The foundation of this system is one of bait and switch, whereby a full length video is detected and switched for a shorter one that is authorized. The FSC has effectively given up on doing anything to close DMCA loopholes through legal channels and are instead using a technology to address an issue for which they themselves have little to no experience with, and using this technology as a way to bolster membership. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but this thread has certainly caused me to have questions. If I am mistaken on any of the above, by all means I'd appreciate the clarification. Last edited by robwod; 10-09-2010 at 07:54 PM..

10-09-2010, 07:53 PM	#453
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Robbie, So, Allison tells me, she wants certain content to remain up until they can test the fingerprinting with it, and we comply with her request and that somehow makes me a bad person again? You guys are hilarious... DWB, I wonder, although I think it is impossible, what would it need for you to believe that I actually bought the assets? I do not particularly care if you believe it or not, but it might convince others too... __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-09-2010, 07:54 PM	#454
Half man, Half Amazing Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Capital Wasteland, DC Posts: 372	The fact that Fabian has stated that even if a user uploads 2000+ copyrighted videos he won't do JACK SHIT about it unless he gets 2000+ DMCA notices (which he hopes to come under the guise of the APAP/FSC finger print revshare dicksuck program)...well that pretty much shows you how honest this guy is. This is why we don't believe he has ANY intentions whatsoever to clean up piracy. And PV and the FSC are putting out press releases like we're all supposed to jizz in our pants because this cocksucker company claims they're gonna join up. In the words of Winston Wolf - Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet. All this means is that they'll have some bullshit defense to trot out in court should anyone else ever sue them. So all that PV and the FSC have done is given Manwich cover so that they are untouchable in lawsuits. Great job guys! Why don't we just stop calling it a settlement and call it what it really was for PV....a big fat LOSS! And for Manwich a big christmas present with a very VISUAL PINK bow on top. Last edited by Half man, Half Amazing; 10-09-2010 at 07:56 PM..

10-09-2010, 08:02 PM	#455
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Half man, if or if not we delete the rest of the videos I can not say for sure right now... And if we will change that policy, whatever it is, I can not say either right now. I do not make decisions on GFY. I make them with legal and business advisors... __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-09-2010, 11:59 PM	#457
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	One remark regarding 4) If anyone did a tube that way, ie downloaded content from torrents and such and put it up, OR even if they just scraped other tubes in an automated way, they are NOT protected by DMCA! Implementing the fingerprinting tech at that point does not help them either. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-10-2010, 02:17 AM	#459
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Vittle, because we are actively working with FSC's APAP and are committed to it. The least that will happen is for us to remove content which is fingerprinted and the vobile biz settings for it say not to allow it. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-10-2010, 05:17 AM	#461
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	robwod, considering scripts like mechbunny have actual SCRAPER PLUGINs to allow for easy scraping... just gotta find out if the app is active in the code. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-10-2010, 08:18 AM	#463
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Half man, it is sad to watch how hard it seems to be for you to read. Allison has explained the problem, as have I, if you do not understand it, go talk to a lawyer about it if you actually have the money to pay for one. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-10-2010, 08:22 AM	#464
artwilliams Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 252	This whole scheme depends on thieves acting honorably -- an oxymoron in my book.

10-10-2010, 08:58 AM	#465
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	I don't understand why Manwin is going to all this trouble. If I wanted to right now today I could buy 50k full length videos licensed for tube sites for $5 a pop. Content guys are desperate, hell i was paying $5 a pop 4 years ago, could prolly get them cheaper now. Seems they are attempting to share the wealth, yet most are upset about this? __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o Last edited by Choker; 10-10-2010 at 09:09 AM..

10-10-2010, 04:48 PM	#468
DDuke Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 16	Robbie, I did not attend a seminar. I never said that I attended a seminar. What I said is that, over the course of 18 months, FSC brought together experts. We brought together experts from mainstream entertainment, experts from the legal community, experts from the world of software, and most importantly, experts from within our membership - John Stagliano, Christian Mann, Michael Klein, Steve Hirsh, Bruce Lehay and Keith Webb, Bob Johnson and Bruce Whitney, Rob Novinger and Tony Rios, Ali Joone, Steve Orenstein and many more. To oversee the program FSC contracted with Gill Sperlein arguably one of the most successful copyright infringement attorneys in the industry. Gill was the staff attorney who successfully guided Titan Studios though many groundbreaking copyright infringement cases-Gill is a well established ?expert?. The aforementioned group recognized that tubesites were a reality of business in the digital age. It was clear that our goal was not to legitimize tubesites, but rather to force tubesites into a legitimate business model. The resulting APAP program takes a stick and a carrot approach to copyright infringement. Most of what I have read on this thread is based on a complete misunderstanding of what APAP is. For those of you who are interested in understanding the program? First, the stick?TRACKING AND ENFORCEMENT In this approach APAP participants are given a copyright analysis of their content by Attorney Gill Sperlein who also assists the content providers in developing a plan for making sure their content is properly copyrighted. Businesses participating in the tracker component of APAP have their content tracked every two hours on 16 selected tubesites with state-of-the-art technology. Tubesites are selected by their Alexa rating (highest -trafficked sites) and through participant input. APAP technology gathers information and develops an evidence packet of materials for each infringement. This information saves a great deal of attorney time and expense for those companies who choose to litigate. Once an infringement is found, DMCA takedown notices are sent out and tracked every two hours to determine time and level of compliance. There is a great deal more to the software--if you are interested contact me at FSC and we can set up a demo. FSC APAP maintains statistics for infringing locations by compiling information and tracking notices sent to any given site, thus locating the biggest violators and then documenting how sites respond to takedown notices. Then finally, APAP works with subscribers to determine an individualized approach for each infringing site; identify subscribers, when appropriate, who wish to engage in litigation and match them with others to form litigation groups. Through a coordinated effort in APAP?s Tracking and Enforcement phase, participants pressure tubesites to adopt Mediawise--the carrot. Mediawise software uses audio-video-metadata fingerprints to STOP content from being uploaded. Instead of a title going up, the software applies the business rule the content provider wants for that title and either truncates the content or provides an overlay that takes the viewer to the content provider?s site. Content providers fingerprint their entire library and their content DOES NOT GO UP unless the content provider wants it to. With this approach, the content provider not only blocks stolen content from being uploaded, but also realizes a potential new revenue stream So what does all this cost? Tracking and Enforcement ($400/month) To participate in this phase of APAP, there is a minimum tracking of 10 titles or 1500 minutes. The cost is $400/month (NOT $450). There are bulk rates and less frequent tracking options at much lower costs available for those who wish to track large portions of their libraries. There is a one-time $450 registration fee. The program is month-to-month; you will NEVER be forced to continue with the program if you are not satisfied. Mediawise/Monetization (FREE repeat, FREE!) This costs the content provider absolutely nothing. The content provider fingerprints his/her entire library with assistance from our software professionals. The content is identified with Vobile?s Mediawise software and instead of the content going up, it is truncated or replaced with a trailer that takes the viewer to the content provider?s site. If a purchase is made, then a portion of the purchase goes back to FSC who pays the host site and Vobile (the software company). Here is the breakdown: If the content provider is participating in the Tracking** and Enforcement phase the breakdown is: Content Provider 60% Host Site 15% Vobile 15% FSC & Gill 10% Percentage of net ? after billing fees and chargebacks *These providers have a higher percentage of the rev share than non-participants as we rely on these companies to continue pressure on the tubsites to join the program. If the content provider is NOT participating in the Tracking and Enforcement phase the breakdown is: Content Provider 55% Host Site 15% Vobile 17.5% FSC & Gill Sperlein 12.5% *Percentage of net ? after billing fees and chargebacks If you have any questions or would like to set up a demo, shoot me an email. __________________ Diane Duke FSC, Executive Director [email protected]

10-10-2010, 05:12 PM	#469
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	Diane, thank you for the clarification.

10-10-2010, 05:47 PM	#471
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	As Vobile developed the technology and has experience in using the software to initiate copyright enforcement actions, I imagine you could say they are experts. It seems to me that other anti-piracy efforts in our industry are not using the same technology. Alexa will point to the major offenders for monitoring. Just saying......Vobile is probably considered expert in their game and the sites are in plain view. Robbie, who would you recommend and what would they "bring to the table?" Last edited by Redrob; 10-10-2010 at 05:53 PM..

10-10-2010, 06:14 PM	#474
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	People who know me know that I have been preaching anti-piracy for years and years. I am good friends with Nate and kind of motivated Ai3rk get the "Content Producers Summit" going back in 2007 which I flew from Texas and attended. Back around 2004, I personally flew to LA and visited every major company in the Valley and spoke to the owners/webmasters/sales reps about how piracy was going to ruin our businesses. I appreciate your passion and respect anybody who is trying to affect "change". I do not consider myself an anti-piracy expert....just an activist. I have seen piracy's effects on my business. Last edited by Redrob; 10-10-2010 at 06:16 PM..

10-10-2010, 06:29 PM	#476
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	Robbie, I'm going to be coming to Vegas next month for a scuba diving trade show around the 18th or 20th. Would you like to get a bite to eat and exchange some ideas? Treats on me.

10-10-2010, 07:28 PM	#479
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	Dialog is a good thing....it is how I learn. Keep making the points. They are food for thought.

10-11-2010, 10:23 AM	#487
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Paul, why are you mixing up Brazzers and BangBros? __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-11-2010, 11:34 AM	#490
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Nope, have not, I asked someone else to tell them though... holiday in north america of course, so who knows if anything happens today or not. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-11-2010, 11:36 AM	#491
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	BTW, reason I was confused before with Brazzers / BangBros is because you said stuff like "As for Brazzers content. His reply on that was even funnier." .. So that did not really fit. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-11-2010, 03:48 PM	#493
Allison Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: http://www.topbucks.com Posts: 2,068	Paul and others, I understand your intentions on some of your points here and the history of tube sites. Moving on from that and looking at the near future realities, a reasonable time frame will be the main factor. Later this week we'll be sending in our DMCA's & reserving about 50 live urls for us to test against the finger print filtering once that is live. And later on, once Manwin announces that the digital finger print filtering is 100% live, you can see the results on all the studios who have their content finger printed (see bottom of http://www.fscapap.com/content.html) So later this week/early next, look for Pink Visual removals. And after Manwin has completed the digital finger print filtering, I'd be happy to share the results of the 50 test urls. I'm looking forward to the day that a studio like Pink Visual doesn't have to worry so much or spend so much effort in finding content on tubes & sending DMCA's & then checking on removals. And that day should be near given the APAP solution & the various tubes already committing to integrate & the others now considering it. This for me is a more realistic solution than debating every tube (and most aren't on the boards willing to interact with GFYers) about their repeat infringer policy, which for the record, we obviously advocate stricter policies rather than loose ones. In the mean time, the FSC APAP solutions remains simple. The more studios that get their finger prints done, the more content will be filtered out and even monetized the way the studio wants. http://www.fscapap.com __________________ Allison President TopBucks.com\| PinkVisual.com\| [email protected] Follow Me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli ICQ: 120353154 Check out PVLocker.com

10-13-2010, 08:49 PM	#495
Half man, Half Amazing Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Capital Wasteland, DC Posts: 372	Just some food for thought here: When you go to Pornhub and click the "Categories" tab you get a breakdown by category of all their videos. Beside each category is a number showing the total number of videos in that category. If one were so inclined one could add them all together. I am so inclined. It comes out to around 150,000 videos. However, when you upload a video to Pornhub you are prompted to select 3 categories your video could fall under, so in reality, the total number of videos on Pornhub is probably more like 50,000 (not sure if their private videos are included in their totals or not). The user I pointed out in the "other" thread started by DirtyWhiteBoy was a user going by the name of jj09. (http://www.pornhub.com/users/jj09) He had uploaded 2,209 videos and we all identified quite a few infringing ones on his first page of uploads, certainly enough to qualify him as a repeat offender. In fact just the fact that ONE of his uploads is infringing constitutes a violation of the PornHub TOS since before you can upload anything you must agree that: "By clicking "Upload Video", you are representing that this video does not violate Pornhub's Terms of Use and that you own all copyrights in this video or have authorization to upload it." Were Pornhub to enforce their TOS and remove jj09's account and ALL the videos he's uploaded it would result in the removal of 2200+ vids or about 5% of the total videos on Pornhub. Sound like a cost effective solution to anyone else? But I hear ya...5% isn't enough. Well lucky for us jj09 uses his blog on pornhub to tell us about the other "hard working uploaders here". Let's look at their profiles shall we? http://www.pornhub.com/users/amsterdamxxx - 2036 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/drsweary -540 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/tinalovesv -2393 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/alphaporn - 246 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/great-gonzo - 171 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/KevDaMacDaddyMac -106 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/kev1mac - 113 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/DragonGold - 446 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/nightvisions - 112 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/ivannicta - 540 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/drkhalf2 - 355 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/jakkups - 458 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/MRFREAKYD - 596 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/fooker79 - 232 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/kb24 - 451 videos http://www.pornhub.com/users/KeV08 - 312 videos This is just from jj09's little circle of friends. 11,316 videos and I'll betcha nearly all of them are copyright infringing. What do you guys think, would you like to see almost 22% of Pornhub's videos removed by just them enforcing their TOS? What if the FSC had pressured Manwich to just enforce their TOS? Oh and here's a comment on the profile of corey999 (http://www.pornhub.com/users/corey999): "jj was telling me you deal with vid uploads iwas just wondering if its the norm for the hub to pimp ur vids i was quite happy with the few watching them and sum of them now have crazy amounts of veiws just wonderd thats all cheers " Apparently corey999 works for Pornhub as he puts out notifications of updates and also seems to be friends with .... wait for it... jj09! http://www.pornhub.com/users/corey99...ndships&page=4 Apparently corey999 is friends with ALMOST ALL of the uploaders I mentioned above. They come to his profile and tell him how much they appreciate him and everything! And it looks like maybe he gives preferential placement to his buds on there. Sounds like being selective to me? Hey Fabian...doesn't that mean you lose your Safe Harbor protection? Go ask your lawyers...we'll see ya in a few months when you come back to evade the question again. Last edited by Half man, Half Amazing; 10-13-2010 at 08:56 PM..

10-14-2010, 02:51 PM	#496
Half man, Half Amazing Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Capital Wasteland, DC Posts: 372	wow....silence is deafening on this one.

10-17-2010, 09:51 AM	#497
Rui web Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: On icq: 85-483-060 Posts: 9,533	Gone dead all of sudden eh..

10-20-2010, 11:59 AM	#500
Matyko PsyHead Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 8,664	How did I miss this great thread?!?!?! __________________ -=- Register with our ref link and we help you with the setup! -=- AdSpyglass.com - Double your profit from brokers