Manwin and Pink Visual Answer Your Digital Finger Printing/Filtering Questions - Page 6 - GoFuckYourself.com

Nautilus · 10-06-2010, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luscious Media

Then you DMCA us, we take it down, it gets loaded again, you DMCA us, we take it down, it gets loaded again, you DMCA us, we take it down, it gets loaded again, you DMCA us, we take it down, it gets loaded again...

Sound familiar?

Damn, that surely sounds familiar

RycEric · 10-06-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

BTW, love your avatar, very creative

Mossberg tactical with hollow point slugs.. one of many tools

DWB · 10-06-2010, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Here are some images I was given permission representing the technical components a bit more. This may seem overwhelming for some so I will add our experience. We've created digital finger prints with a couple different providers. With one provider it took us a month, with the APAP system it took us 3 days with minimal human intervention because their system was so well automated.

Here's the Finger Print Process:

OK, that much makes sense then, thanks for posting that.

So then the question becomes, how easy will it be for pirates to strip out this meta data that is being added to the video? I would think if someone can break DRM or remove EXIF tags from photos, it may not take long to strip the videos of this. I'm sure this was already taken into consideration, but it seems like something that may be easy to defeat with a little know-how.

Another question is, if it's a finger print, does the printing take into consideration a video that may be scaled up/down or have the ratio change to try to elude the system?

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

OK, that much makes sense then, thanks for posting that.

So then the question becomes, how easy will it be for pirates to strip out this meta data that is being added to the video? I would think if someone can break DRM or remove EXIF tags from photos, it may not take long to strip the videos of this. I'm sure this was already taken into consideration, but it seems like something that may be easy to defeat with a little know-how.

Another question is, if it's a finger print, does the printing take into consideration a video that may be scaled up/down or have the ratio change to try to elude the system?

DWB, the meta data is not stored in the video, its in the VideoDNA database at Vobile. Vobile reports it back to the tube (in case of a match) with the match result. Nothing is stored in the video.

And yes, it takes into consideration scaling, quality and cropping.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-06-2010, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Let's keep this thread actually productive and get back to people getting asking questions regarding finger prints please.

Several companies have hit me up personally to get information and I welcome that if anyone prefer not to post.

Unproductive comments, complaints, or opinions I don't have time for, but I'll continue to be happy to respond to any person willing to take action to realistically curb piracy.

So here would be an interesting test of this system:

Let the GFY Community know when say all the Couples Seduce Teens or Teens For Cash videos have been fingerprinted and when Manwich is using those fingerprints on all their tube sites. Then challenge the GFY Community to find any of those videos on the Manwich Network for The Advancement of Copyright Infringement family of tube sites. If we find a CST or TFC then we know that something isn't right.

Mainly
Assisting
iN
Willfully
Infringing
Copyright
Holders

DWB · 10-06-2010, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Nautilus, we can add it and you take a partner account. If not, to only red flag if email is different is too complicated, sorry.

Nathan,
Two questions:

1) If someone creates a partner account with you, what can you do to keep others from uploading content from the same site you have a partnership with? I'd hate to get into bed with the devil, but if it meant it could stop everyone else from uploading my content, I would.

2) Creating an email white list should be easy-peasy. That would solve a LOT of problems. Why not do that?

DWB · 10-06-2010, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

DWB, the meta data is not stored in the video, its in the VideoDNA database at Vobile. Vobile reports it back to the tube (in case of a match) with the match result. Nothing is stored in the video.

Something has to go into the video itself, no?

DWB · 10-06-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RycEric

Mossberg tactical with hollow point slugs.. one of many tools

I used to have one of those back when I lived in the Midwest, got stolen.

Far as I see it, for home protection, doesn't get any better than a tactical shot gun. Though I had buckshot for the first 4 shots (to make sure I hit them and took them down) and then slugs after that.

Allison · 10-06-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

So here would be an interesting test of this system:

Let the GFY Community know when say all the Couples Seduce Teens or Teens For Cash videos have been fingerprinted and when Manwich is using those fingerprints on all their tube sites. Then challenge the GFY Community to find any of those videos on the Manwich Network for The Advancement of Copyright Infringement family of tube sites. If we find a CST or TFC then we know that something isn't right.

Mainly
Assisting
iN
Willfully
Infringing
Copyright
Holders

All of our content is already digitally finger printed. Fabian mentioned they are already beta testing the finger print filtering only the complete removal portion. I believe the tests are going well.

So the answer to your question is yes, once all is integrated it will be easily to see how it impacts Pink Visual content currently on the tube sites & future attempted uploads.

Allison · 10-06-2010, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Something has to go into the video itself, no?

No. Nothing goes in the video. Imagine when you go to actually have your finger prints of your actual fingers taken.

They map the lines of your finger with the print. The police or whomever, are left with a print & you are left with your finger as it was before (not with anything added).

Now just being absurd for this example say, someone goes to upload your finger, well the tube site takes a quick finger print as well & asks the police if it matches their files. If they say yes, they either remove it or send back a recommendation (set by you as the finger owner) as to how to handle it.

~Alli

DWB · 10-06-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

No. Nothing goes in the video. Imagine when you go to actually have your finger prints of your actual fingers taken.

They map the lines of your finger with the print. The police or whomever, are left with a print & you are left with your finger as it was before (not with anything added).

Now just being absurd for this example say, someone goes to upload your finger, well the tube site takes a quick finger print as well & asks the police if it matches their files. If they say yes, they either remove it or send back a recommendation (set by you as the finger owner) as to how to handle it.

~Alli

I understand, thank you.

So in theory, HAL or Jaguar or whatever you call this system, watches the movie and during that time "finger prints" every frame of it. Makes sense.

Allison · 10-06-2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

I understand, thank you.

So in theory, HAL or Jaguar or whatever you call this system, watches the movie and during that time "finger prints" every frame of it. Makes sense.

Yup, it also takes audio finger prints too as a side note. And it reports back any time of match from a 10% match to a 100% match. Where a 10% match would mean that say only 1 minute of a 10 minute clip had a match to your piece of content. So it can help you find people who compile clips.

Allison · 10-06-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luscious Media

Ain't DMCA grand? As long as we can lay blame on "someone ELSE" for creating and uploading it we're all set. Awesome!

Then you DMCA us, we take it down, it gets loaded again, you DMCA us, we take it down, it gets loaded again, you DMCA us, we take it down, it gets loaded again, you DMCA us, we take it down, it gets loaded again...

Sound familiar?

That's what this is all about. Many courts have decided that digital finger printing and filtering is a viable remedy for both tube sites (or User Generated Content sites) to prevent infringement & a viable remedy for copyright holders to minimize the burden of tracking & sending DMCA notices.

Many GFYers here seem to let emotions run hard & think there is a magical legal recourse that exists which causes tube or torrent sites to be shut down completely and prevented from ever operating again and that is just not a realistic scenario in most situations.

If you don't want to have to track and send DMCA notices to any of the tubes participating in the FSC program, just go to www.fscapap.com and sign up to get finger prints created of your content or at least get demo and one on one consultation.

Then you naturally benefit as more tubes or even torrents participate in the program down the road.

DWB · 10-06-2010, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Yup, it also takes audio finger prints too as a side note. And it reports back any time of match from a 10% match to a 100% match. Where a 10% match would mean that say only 1 minute of a 10 minute clip had a match to your piece of content. So it can help you find people who compile clips.

Thats amazing technology.

I think the down side to this is it's not yet affordable for smaller companies or mom and pop operations, for the amount of tubes it checks against. However, I will admit this is extremely promising and once they have many tubes, torrents and file sharing sites on board, it will probably be worth the money.

Allison · 10-06-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Thats amazing technology.

I think the down side to this is it's not yet affordable for smaller companies or mom and pop operations, for the amount of tubes it checks against. However, I will admit this is extremely promising and once they have many tubes, torrents and file sharing sites on board, it will probably be worth the money.

So which option is the "not yet affordable for smaller companies" in your opinion? The revshare program (55% of each sale made from the upsells) or the Tracker and removal program for the $450 per month?

~Alli

DWB · 10-06-2010, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Many GFYers here seem to let emotions run hard

Well duh...

I can probably speak of a lot of smaller operations when I say, unlike large companies like yours or Nathan's (or others), we don't have people searching for content and sending DMCAs for us. We do it all, email by email, on top of the day to day operations. This makes it extra frustrating instead of just having someone on staff to do it, which would probably make it a little better.

There are more of us smaller guys than there are of you big ones. This is why theft is met with such hatred. Many don't have the money to sue and fight legal battles, and are literally caught in the middle of something that is totally beyond their control. I can only speak for my self, but I can't tell you how many times I've had my content removed from Nathan's sites alone, only to have them go right back up under a different name a week later. Doesn't matter to me who is loading it, it ends up back up there and that is the bottom line.

And lets not beat around the bush, regardless of what the tubes are morphing into, we ALL know how they got the traffic that they now have, and it wasn't by loading legal content. The screwed us ALL in the ass and now we are eventually going to get strong armed into doing business with them, because I think we can all see that's where it's heading. And truth be told, that is probably what this scamming, incestuous industry deserves, right along with .XXX to ice the cake.

To sum it all up, it's like being forced to do business with the guy who repeatedly raped your kid sister. Of course emotions are going to run hard.

DWB · 10-06-2010, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

So which option is the "not yet affordable for smaller companies" in your opinion? The revshare program (55% of each sale made from the upsells) or the Tracker and removal program for the $450 per month?

~Alli

$450 a month for tracking and removing 10 videos on a handful of tubes seems steep. If it gets to the point where it's 15 - 20 tubes, 15 - 20 torrents, 15 - 20 surfer boards, and 15 - 20 file sharing sites, then it would be MUCH more of a value, because that is where the bulk of the piracy is taking place now. Even if they only scanned the top 10 sites from each piracy area, that would be much better. From what I understand, you CAN alternate the 10 videos, which is a huge bonus (if that is correct), but the amount of sites it currently scans does not seem worth the value. It doesn't take that long to scan 10 tubes and deal with it yourself. The surfer boards and file sharing sites are the real time consumers.

I personally don't see the rev-share option as a real solution (I hope I'm wrong), simply because it's very hard to convert an ad video or sample clip in a sea of full length free videos. Tube traffic is not the best of converters to begin with for this very reason. YES you can make some sales, but the ratios are pretty bad. At least in my experience anyway. I think this could hurt the tubes as well, as surfers are now used to full length videos, and if the tubes start to get filled with promo videos or ads, they will simply go somewhere else. I know I would.

Allison · 10-06-2010, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

I personally don't see the rev-share option as a real solution (I hope I'm wrong), simply because it's very hard to convert an ad video or sample clip in a sea of full length free videos. Tube traffic is not the best of converters to begin with for this very reason. YES you can make some sales, but the ratios are pretty bad. At least in my experience anyway. I think this could hurt the tubes as well, as surfers are now used to full length videos, and if the tubes start to get filled with promo videos or ads, they will simply go somewhere else. I know I would.

I'm just commenting on your second point because I think those are all valid concerns from your perspective. I'd still encourage you to take the demo to learn a bit more about it or at least be in touch so when the # of tubes is worth it to you, you can be contacted.

Regarding the second point. Worst case scenario it doesn't convert & you prevented your full length video from being viewed & instead showed a trailer or a shorter clip that branded the content the way you want it branded.

Best case scenario, people actually get creative & optimize how they advertise to a consumer like this (maybe have a tube style tour or sell non-recurring per scene instead of monthly memberships or come up with an idea no one else has yet) and you generate some good money.

In my opinion, any result between the worst case scenario and the best case scenario is still decent. No?

DWB · 10-06-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

I'm just commenting on your second point because I think those are all valid concerns from your perspective. I'd still encourage you to take the demo to learn a bit more about it or at least be in touch so when the # of tubes is worth it to you, you can be contacted.

Regarding the second point. Worst case scenario it doesn't convert & you prevented your full length video from being viewed & instead showed a trailer or a shorter clip that branded the content the way you want it branded.

Best case scenario, people actually get creative & optimize how they advertise to a consumer like this (maybe have a tube style tour or sell non-recurring per scene instead of monthly memberships or come up with an idea no one else has yet) and you generate some good money.

In my opinion, any result between the worst case scenario and the best case scenario is still decent. No?

Yes, the technology has my interest. I'll keep my eye on it and see how it goes.

Regarding the rev-share, gonna have to wait and see on that one. I hope I'm wrong and people make a lot of money. While I am confident in the tracking technology, I don't yet have have that same confidence in monetizing it once it's found.

I still look at porn so I am trying to think about what I would do the second I noticed I was not going to get the video I just clicked on. I'm pretty sure I would click back and go find something else that was what I wanted, free. Don't think I would spend a second more to watch something I did not click on. Keep in mind, I'm sitting there, cock in hand, looking for something that is going to get me off. Click... NOT WHAT I WANTED... Exit. I would also stop visiting that tube if the bulk of the videos did the same thing. What you're really doing is creating blind video links. My gut is, that won't work. However, I've been wrong before, so I'll watch this project and see how it all pans out. For the sake of the industry, I hope it all works as planned. Something is going to have to give sooner or later or it's curtains for a lot of sites and companies.

Allison · 10-06-2010, 07:13 PM

DWB: so in your second scenario what is the downside to you?the upside I would think is that you didn't have to send DMCAs at a minimum. All the other scenarios would be the tube operators concern and I'm sure many would adapt as they saw fit.

signupdamnit · 10-06-2010, 07:20 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-06-2010, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Many GFYers here seem to let emotions run hard

Yeah after all, it's only your livelihood that the crooks at Manwich stole. Get over it guys!

I mean why would they be upset that a bunch of questionable thugs came into the biz, broke every copyright law known to our industry, made millions and millions doing it, operated a tube site WITHIN THEIR MEMBERS AREA full of stolen content and now those producers can look at a thread like this where you're both sitting here trying to induce them to join the bro-club. I mean what's there to be upset about?

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-06-2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by signupdamnit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

x 1,000,000

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 07:58 PM

DWB, if $450 USD a month is not worth it for you to nolonger have to police your 10 newest videos on 16 of the biggest tubesites, then what would ever be?

I understand that there are mom & pop shops around everywhere, but $450 USD a month? EVERYONE here complains how all the tubes steal their content and cause them to make less money, if $450 USD a month is too much, how much less money are you making because of the tubes stealing content?

Or are you now saying you are making less money simply because the tubes exist? If that is the case, then your problem is not piracy, its the fact that tubes are in your opinion hard to compete against.

$450 USD is basically 10 sales a month or 1 sale every 3 days. Are you losing less sales than that because of the tubes in your opinion thus its not worth it? I am trying to figure out where the problem specifically is.

I also think you should talk to someone like RYC or Degban and discuss how much money they actually want to DMCA your content for you, you might find it cheaper than you think it actually is.

DMCA has become a cost of doing business in this and any other media industry. And as you said yourself, its not mainly the tubes, its the filesharing sites and torrents. I understand that it pisses people off, but me closing our tubes would not a) make anyone more money and b) lower the amount of work DMCA wise you have to accomplish. It will simply shift our traffic to tubes and other sites which are much harder to deal with than we obviously are.

I can not change the past, and blaming me for it does not help anyone either. I think I have shown plenty of times by now that I am willing to work with everyone and I am by far the least of your problems piracy wise. You should actually prefer me controlling these tubes than most other big tube site owners out there.

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

Yeah after all, it's only your livelihood that the crooks at Manwich stole. Get over it guys!

I mean why would they be upset that a bunch of questionable thugs came into the biz, broke every copyright law known to our industry, made millions and millions doing it, operated a tube site WITHIN THEIR MEMBERS AREA full of stolen content and now those producers can look at a thread like this where you're both sitting here trying to induce them to join the bro-club. I mean what's there to be upset about?

I suggest you stop claiming that Manwin did anything as you say above, since its simply not true. I am not going to stand by forever and just let people paint me that way.

1) Manwin is not breaking any copyright laws.
2) Manwin removed the UGC section from their members area community when we took over the assets.

As I said in my previous post, I can not change the past. If you can not stop living in it, I can not help you.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-06-2010, 08:02 PM

Sooo Fabian...put your money where your mouth is and delete the user profiles of anyone on your network of tube sites that gets 3 videos reported. And delete the other videos they have uploaded. I've sent you guys a few hundred DMCAs but I'm totally down with keeping track of the usernames of all the DMCAs I submit to you. I'll put it in a GFY thread and if a name gets 3 hits, I expect you'll do the right thing and take action.

Also, is this technology up and running in the tube site Brazzers operated within their members area, or are we supposed to keep that on the downlow?

RycEric · 10-06-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

I suggest you stop claiming that Manwin did anything as you say above, since its simply not true. I am not going to stand by forever and just let people paint me that way.

1) Manwin is not breaking any copyright laws.
2) Manwin removed the UGC section from their members area community when we took over the assets.

As I said in my previous post, I can not change the past. If you can not stop living in it, I can not help you.

Don't fucking lecture us on copyright laws bitch.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-06-2010, 08:05 PM

Living in the past? You bought a public-relations troubled asset my friend and with that comes the reality that YOU have to deal with. Why is the "MAN" still in Manwich? Is Stephane Manos still there, if he is...then as long as he walks in your hallways you're going to have to pay the price for him being there.

signupdamnit · 10-06-2010, 08:11 PM

Quote:

A racket is an illegal business, usually run as part of organized crime. Engaging in a racket is called racketeering.

Several forms of racket exist. The best-known is the protection racket, in which criminals demand money from businesses in exchange for the service of "protection" against crimes that the racketeers themselves instigate if unpaid (see extortion). A second well known example is the numbers racket, a form of illegal lottery.

Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business that is based on the example of the "protection racket" and indicates that the speaker believes that the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that the business itself created (or that it intentionally allows to continue to exist), specifically so that continuous purchases of the solution are always needed. Example: in a protection racket, a representative from the racket informs a storeowner that a fee of more than 1000 dollars will be required every month for protection money, though the "protection" that is provided comes in the form of the racket itself not causing damage to the store or its employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_%28crime%29

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-06-2010, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

I understand that it pisses people off, but me closing our tubes would not a) make anyone more money

Ya know what, it may not make anyone anymore money...but ya know who definitely won't make anymore money....YOU. And for a LOT of people in this industry...that'd be just fine with them.

RycEric · 10-06-2010, 08:15 PM

Gloves are off now. Enjoy.

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

Sooo Fabian...put your money where your mouth is and delete the user profiles of anyone on your network of tube sites that gets 3 videos reported. And delete the other videos they have uploaded. I've sent you guys a few hundred DMCAs but I'm totally down with keeping track of the usernames of all the DMCAs I submit to you. I'll put it in a GFY thread and if a name gets 3 hits, I expect you'll do the right thing and take action.

Also, is this technology up and running in the tube site Brazzers operated within their members area, or are we supposed to keep that on the downlow?

Again, and for the last time. There are no tube sites in any of our members areas.

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RycEric

Don't fucking lecture us on copyright laws bitch.

You are one funny guy, come and sue me and then we'll talk about this in court, how's that?

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

Living in the past? You bought a public-relations troubled asset my friend and with that comes the reality that YOU have to deal with. Why is the "MAN" still in Manwich? Is Stephane Manos still there, if he is...then as long as he walks in your hallways you're going to have to pay the price for him being there.

The "Man" is still in Manwin because the M is trademarked and branded in Montreal worth millions and Manwin.com was the best domain we could acquire.

As I have said in the past, none of the old owners are part of the business. Believe it or not, I do not honestly care...

And very sorry to tell you, but the assets are BY FAR not public-relation troubled. Just because some guys on GFY complain day in and day out does not make them troubled. The brand value BY FAR exceeds any kind of trouble GFY people could EVER bring to us...

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

Ya know what, it may not make anyone anymore money...but ya know who definitely won't make anymore money....YOU. And for a LOT of people in this industry...that'd be just fine with them.

Sorry again, but the tubes we run is not the majority of our business. And I can assure you, MANY MORE people in this business will be hurt than benefit from us closing our tubes.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-06-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Sorry again, but the tubes we run is not the majority of our business. And I can assure you, MANY MORE people in this business will be hurt than benefit from us closing our tubes.

Prove it. Close 'em down and let's see what happens.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-06-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Again, and for the last time. There are no tube sites in any of our members areas.

You didn't answer my first part:

I start a thread on GFY keeping track of the usernames of all profiles that I have to DMCA Manwich on. Once a name gets 3 dings...you kill the username and ALL the other videos that user has uploaded. Or are you in the business of encouraging repeat offenders?

Alprazolam · 10-06-2010, 08:53 PM

Nautilus · 10-07-2010, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

I understand that there are mom & pop shops around everywhere, but $450 USD a month? EVERYONE here complains how all the tubes steal their content and cause them to make less money, if $450 USD a month is too much, how much less money are you making because of the tubes stealing content?

I'm glad you just put it up straight finally.

Alprazolam · 10-07-2010, 08:42 AM

i would actually consider this if it wasn't the fsc involved.

Allison · 10-07-2010, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alprazolam

i would actually consider this if it wasn't the fsc involved.

The fact that the FSC is involved I think is a great thing. First, who else would have put the time and effort into negotiating the use of state of the art technology for the benefit of the adult industry as a whole? Who else would have been able to get basically a huge group discount that fits with the majority of the industry's needs?

No private company in this industry would have had the time, energy or desire to spend months to work on something like this. And if a private company did do this, then there would be a whole slew of conflicts of interest.

The FSC has been nothing but accessible and helpful through the whole education process and finger printing process. They put you directly in touch with the people that handle the technology backend to be efficient.

And why I or Pink Visual encourages all content owners to participate is our belief that all content owners benefit from having less free porn out there and move away from the consumer mentality that porn=free.

Robbie · 10-07-2010, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

First, who else would have put the time and effort into negotiating the use of state of the art technology for the benefit of the adult industry as a whole? Who else would have been able to get basically a huge group discount that fits with the majority of the industry's needs?

No private company in this industry would have had the time, energy or desire to spend months to work on something like this. And if a private company did do this, then there would be a whole slew of conflicts of interest.

I have nothing against the FSC. But you're kinda making it out like they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

Reality is that it would be a huge money grab if they could somehow pull this off and get all the pirate sites in the world to comply with it.

Step one would be to get some major content producers on board, which would be the conference you guys are having. Then step two would be to pressure some more tube sites into going along with it (the part that is going to be a lot harder).

That would then give SOME protection on some tube sites. And it would make the FSC some money.

I don't see anything wrong with any of that part.

I'd just like to say that there are much, much cheaper ways to do this that are more effective over ALL sites (including bit torrent sites and file share sites and all tube sites).
Not attacking or trying to belittle this little deal. I'm just sayin'...

And yeah, a lot of folks don't trust the FSC at all. They were supposed to be representing a consortium of adult companies in first ammendment cases before the courts. And we all saw how that kinda went.

And now they are jumping into something that they have zero experience with and apparently are still on a learning curve as to what, who, and how piracy is done.

I kinda wish they would go WIN some damn cases against the govt. assault on the porn industry like they are supposed to do. And I'm thinking that is what a lot of other folks are thinking too

Allison · 10-07-2010, 10:26 AM

Robbie, the FSC Anti Piracy Action Program is not currently the atomic bomb to kill all online piracy in one day. I agree that companies need to also use other solutions combined with this and take other feasible steps to minimize infringement from customers. However, this finger printing solution, unlike many others, actually prevents infringement seamlessly versus going after infringement after thousands of people have already viewed your content.

I also believe that the program will grow and it will be "pulled off" because the FSC actually doesn't have a learning curve when it comes to IP law. Also, we benefit from the fact that this industry is relatively small so getting the message out isn't that difficult. I'm already aware of more tubes looking to get started.

Robbie · 10-07-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Robbie, the FSC Anti Piracy Action Program is not currently the atomic bomb to kill all online piracy in one day. I agree that companies need to also use other solutions combined with this and take other feasible steps to minimize infringement from customers. However, this finger printing solution, unlike many others, actually prevents infringement seamlessly versus going after infringement after thousands of people have already viewed your content.

I also believe that the program will grow and it will be "pulled off" because the FSC actually doesn't have a learning curve when it comes to IP law. Also, we benefit from the fact that this industry is relatively small so getting the message out isn't that difficult. I'm already aware of more tubes looking to get started.

Not wishing it ill will...just saying that the FSC has always been the equivalent of the keystone cops, pretty much bumbling everything. lol

And having attorneys that understand IP law doesn't mean they are actual webmasters who have a few years of real world experience with this.

There are already some people here who actually know where and how and who is involved. For instance RYC already stated he has a data base of around TEN THOUSAND pirate sites right now. And those sites are being crawled as we speak.

The FSC is going to crawl a handful of tubes. And charge a lot more money to do it.

Meanwhile people are already crawling, looking, and auto dmca'ing very effectively and getting results because of relationships developed over time.

That's sort of what I'm saying when I speak of a learning curve that the FSC simply doesn't have. This isn't their field of expertise (some would say they have yet to show a successful field of expertise heh-heh)

I hope that the FSC does a good job on this. And I hope that there will be a way to somehow coerce those 10,000 + pirate sites to all join in and actually make that worth the $450 a month that is being asked.

Honestly? I'd rate that at about $50 a month IF it was hitting thousands of pirate sites. And then I'd want it to auto DMCA them down as opposed to replacing it with a trailer. Doing the trailer thing on a few tube sites doesn't help you over at porn bb dot org with entire members areas ripped, cataloged and linked up as millions of people download them. Hell, that's the kind of place they get the scenes to upload to the tubes to begin with.

But since all these new experts didn't bother to ask me...I hope that this partial solution works well for everybody involved.

God knows these sites such as Pornhub have ass raped most of you to the ground, and any relief is better than none.

Nathan · 10-07-2010, 12:27 PM

Robbie,

the part I do not understand is simple... first everyone complains about tubes, how evil they all are, how much they suck and so on... then people bring a solution, and the only thing yo ucan do is bash the solution.

The FSC and Allison clearly know that there is a TON more stuff than tubes out there that is causing piracy, but we have to start somewhere, no?

All the hate is sad... Hate me all you want, but TopBucks and the FSC? That's just ridiculous.

Alprazolam · 10-07-2010, 01:21 PM

hate is a strong word.

DWB · 10-07-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

DWB: so in your second scenario what is the downside to you?the upside I would think is that you didn't have to send DMCAs at a minimum. All the other scenarios would be the tube operators concern and I'm sure many would adapt as they saw fit.

Regarding the tracking and removal, I think it's brilliant. It's the monetization I don't have much faith in at the moment. I base this on what myself as a surfer likes, and a blind link to anything will have be going back or closing a page down very quick. That is what I see as the downside. I don't think, and I may be totally wrong, that many eyes are actually going to see what is used as a replacement video, whatever that new video may be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

DWB, if $450 USD a month is not worth it for you to nolonger have to police your 10 newest videos on 16 of the biggest tubesites, then what would ever be?

Right now it is $450 for 10 videos, across 9 tubes, and you own most of those. We're not even to 16 yet. Even then, while I do agree that tubes were the beginning of the problem, and I wish the illegal tube owners would die and suck cock in hell along with their mothers, I also know that the real piracy TODAY is happening elsewhere.

With the help of some software I already have and Google Alerts, I can handle 9 or 16 tubes on my own with little effort at all. Takes 10 mins a day for that little. It is not worth $450 to me for such little policing. Now, get up to 16 tubes AND add 16 torrents AND 16 file sharing sites AND 16 surfer boards, and you have yourself a great deal. But 9 - 16 tubes, I just don't see the value because that much is very, very simple to police once you've done the hard part of getting all of it removed once. Upkeep is easy, even if frustrating when the same videos keep going right back up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

EVERYONE here complains how all the tubes steal their content and cause them to make less money, if $450 USD a month is too much, how much less money are you making because of the tubes stealing content?

Like I said, tubes and torrents started it, but tubes are manageable now. I can DMCA the shit out of a handful of tubes quickly, but file sharing... that takes a while. Search the board, find the links, find what pages they link to, then DMCA. THAT is time consuming. Tubes are not, once you have a system together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Or are you now saying you are making less money simply because the tubes exist?

Tubes, torrents, file sharing, surfer boards, porn saturation, bad economy, stopped making DVDs... lots of reasons for a drop in my income. I do not blame one over the other, but blame them all collectively, including myself for not doing something about it when piracy started to happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

$450 USD is basically 10 sales a month or 1 sale every 3 days. Are you losing less sales than that because of the tubes in your opinion thus its not worth it? I am trying to figure out where the problem specifically is.

I just don't see the value in 10 videos scanned across 16 tubes (9 currently). This is new for you as well, and long term neither of us know what is going to work or not. Only scanning 10 of your latest updates may or may not work. As a porn surfer myself, I don't care if a video was just updated or is 20 years old, so long as it fits my fantasy at the moment. I hope covering 10 updates works for you, I'm just doubtful it will. You have a cock (I think) and if you actually masturbate you should know that it just doesn't matter when something was released, to get you off. Maybe the hard core "porn star" fans will care, but I've never been into that so I can't say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

I understand that it pisses people off, but me closing our tubes would not a) make anyone more money and b) lower the amount of work DMCA wise you have to accomplish. It will simply shift our traffic to tubes and other sites which are much harder to deal with than we obviously are.

I can't expect you guys to close your tubes. Wouldn't ask. It is a HUGE traffic source now. However, what pisses people off is how it came to be. Lets face the facts, while you personally may not have had a hand in it, the company you bought was one of the largest pirate operations ever. Those tubes would not have the traffic it has today if it did not steal everyone else's videos, and yes, at least at one time, the company had staff uploading for it, just like that had a tube section of stolen videos in the members area. You say you're changing that, time will tell. I hope you do. But to come in AFTER the "deed" was done and act like it's all kittens and butterflies, insults a lot of people and pisses them off.

Honestly, you bought what was at one time, a literal criminal enterprise, who screwed over just about every studio and producer in the industry. The company became a GIANT due to ripping everyone off, now you walk in and say it's over and lets all get along and make money together? THAT is what pisses people off. Sending DMCA's are just a hassle, but one we can live with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

I can not change the past, and blaming me for it does not help anyone either.

I'm not blaming you for anything that was done before. But it was done before and it did help to create the problem we all face now. To not acknowledge that is an insult to everyone in the business and is the fuel that continues to get poured on the fire.

If some gang raped my sister, then got a new gang leader who said it's all good now and we don't do that anymore, and that he didn't have anything to do with the old gang... that just doesn't work. HE IS STILL IN THE GANG!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

I think I have shown plenty of times by now that I am willing to work with everyone and I am by far the least of your problems piracy wise. You should actually prefer me controlling these tubes than most other big tube site owners out there.

I agree, tubes are not the biggest problem for piracy. No doubt about that. Not anymore. Hence my reservation about paying $450 to scan a handful of tubes for 10 videos. While I see illegal tubes as a problem, I no longer view them as a large problem. That time has come and gone. I can manage the biggest ones now with little effort.

Robbie · 10-07-2010, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Robbie,

the part I do not understand is simple... first everyone complains about tubes, how evil they all are, how much they suck and so on... then people bring a solution, and the only thing yo ucan do is bash the solution.

The FSC and Allison clearly know that there is a TON more stuff than tubes out there that is causing piracy, but we have to start somewhere, no?

All the hate is sad... Hate me all you want, but TopBucks and the FSC? That's just ridiculous.

Hate? I don't hate TopBucks or the FSC. You're trying to twist words here. The FSC just never was able to successfully do what it was supposed to do all those years ago. And I'm pointing out a simple fact...they don't have ANY experience in dealing with content theft online. They are going to have to spend a couple of years building that knowledge, and a couple of more years is something that a lot of people don't have if things continue on.

I certainly don't "hate" them. They've never done anything to me. Or for me. Or much of anything at all from what I have read.

As for Top Bucks...I've been an affiliate of theirs since they first opened that program. Why would I hate them? I'm wanting these programs like Top Bucks to do something that will allow me as an affiliate to once again make sales the way I used to with them.

Is this gonna do it? No. Does it have some promise? Maybe, but again...$450 for a handful of tubes is not gonna fly. Not when I can get all sites spidered and dmca'ed for far, far less.
For instance, I COULD afford to go to a bar and pay $100 for a beer. But that don't mean I should.

And I don't hate you either. I don't even know you. Hell, I've never even HEARD of you before and I've been doing this a long time and had relationships with just about every adult company out there. Best I can tell you were once a grunt worker or something with TMM? And then you suddenly got rich and bought Mansef in a bad worldwide economy. Okay, I'll suspend my disbelief.

I'm just pointing out that IF people want to be serious about piracy...then just deciding to hand it all over to the FSC isn't the best idea. There are effective people out here right now and it seems dumb to me to ignore them and try to convince everyone to jump on with a legal group that was supposed to defend our industry in legal decisions before courts.

I do hope that this helps somewhat. But being in the trenches the last couple of years while you were...uh, doing whatever it was you were doing and Top Bucks was trying to figure out what to do and the FSC was doing...uh, whatever it is they were doing: I just don't see this having any real impact.

But again, I sure hope it does have some impact other than just putting more money over to FSC and then achieving negligible results.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-07-2010, 03:27 PM

Nathan:

Since you STILL haven't answered my challenge. I shall ask again. If you are REALLY honest about wanting to cut down on the piracy on your sites:

I start a thread on GFY keeping track of the usernames of all profiles that I (and others) have to DMCA Manwin on. Once a name gets 3 dings...you kill the profile and ALL the other videos that user has uploaded. Or are you in the business of encouraging repeat offenders?

C'mon dude...do you have any idea how drastically this would cut down the piracy on your sites? Pretty simple solution, doesn't cost anyone any money and you rid yourselves of the repeat copyright offenders. Why wouldn't you take me up on this?

Dirty Dane · 10-07-2010, 03:33 PM

Amazing. Now you have to pay the host to stop piracy on it.

10-06-2010, 07:13 PM	#270
Allison Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: http://www.topbucks.com Posts: 2,068	DWB: so in your second scenario what is the downside to you?the upside I would think is that you didn't have to send DMCAs at a minimum. All the other scenarios would be the tube operators concern and I'm sure many would adapt as they saw fit. __________________ Allison President TopBucks.com\| PinkVisual.com\| [email protected] Follow Me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli ICQ: 120353154 Check out PVLocker.com

10-06-2010, 07:58 PM	#274
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	DWB, if $450 USD a month is not worth it for you to nolonger have to police your 10 newest videos on 16 of the biggest tubesites, then what would ever be? I understand that there are mom & pop shops around everywhere, but $450 USD a month? EVERYONE here complains how all the tubes steal their content and cause them to make less money, if $450 USD a month is too much, how much less money are you making because of the tubes stealing content? Or are you now saying you are making less money simply because the tubes exist? If that is the case, then your problem is not piracy, its the fact that tubes are in your opinion hard to compete against. $450 USD is basically 10 sales a month or 1 sale every 3 days. Are you losing less sales than that because of the tubes in your opinion thus its not worth it? I am trying to figure out where the problem specifically is. I also think you should talk to someone like RYC or Degban and discuss how much money they actually want to DMCA your content for you, you might find it cheaper than you think it actually is. DMCA has become a cost of doing business in this and any other media industry. And as you said yourself, its not mainly the tubes, its the filesharing sites and torrents. I understand that it pisses people off, but me closing our tubes would not a) make anyone more money and b) lower the amount of work DMCA wise you have to accomplish. It will simply shift our traffic to tubes and other sites which are much harder to deal with than we obviously are. I can not change the past, and blaming me for it does not help anyone either. I think I have shown plenty of times by now that I am willing to work with everyone and I am by far the least of your problems piracy wise. You should actually prefer me controlling these tubes than most other big tube site owners out there. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-07-2010, 10:26 AM	#293
Allison Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: http://www.topbucks.com Posts: 2,068	Robbie, the FSC Anti Piracy Action Program is not currently the atomic bomb to kill all online piracy in one day. I agree that companies need to also use other solutions combined with this and take other feasible steps to minimize infringement from customers. However, this finger printing solution, unlike many others, actually prevents infringement seamlessly versus going after infringement after thousands of people have already viewed your content. I also believe that the program will grow and it will be "pulled off" because the FSC actually doesn't have a learning curve when it comes to IP law. Also, we benefit from the fact that this industry is relatively small so getting the message out isn't that difficult. I'm already aware of more tubes looking to get started. __________________ Allison President TopBucks.com\| PinkVisual.com\| [email protected] Follow Me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli ICQ: 120353154 Check out PVLocker.com

10-07-2010, 12:27 PM	#295
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Robbie, the part I do not understand is simple... first everyone complains about tubes, how evil they all are, how much they suck and so on... then people bring a solution, and the only thing yo ucan do is bash the solution. The FSC and Allison clearly know that there is a TON more stuff than tubes out there that is causing piracy, but we have to start somewhere, no? All the hate is sad... Hate me all you want, but TopBucks and the FSC? That's just ridiculous. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-06-2010, 07:20 PM	#271
signupdamnit Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,697	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

10-06-2010, 08:02 PM	#276
Half man, Half Amazing Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Capital Wasteland, DC Posts: 372	Sooo Fabian...put your money where your mouth is and delete the user profiles of anyone on your network of tube sites that gets 3 videos reported. And delete the other videos they have uploaded. I've sent you guys a few hundred DMCAs but I'm totally down with keeping track of the usernames of all the DMCAs I submit to you. I'll put it in a GFY thread and if a name gets 3 hits, I expect you'll do the right thing and take action. Also, is this technology up and running in the tube site Brazzers operated within their members area, or are we supposed to keep that on the downlow?

10-06-2010, 08:05 PM	#278
Half man, Half Amazing Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Capital Wasteland, DC Posts: 372	Living in the past? You bought a public-relations troubled asset my friend and with that comes the reality that YOU have to deal with. Why is the "MAN" still in Manwich? Is Stephane Manos still there, if he is...then as long as he walks in your hallways you're going to have to pay the price for him being there.

10-06-2010, 08:15 PM	#281
RycEric Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,313	Gloves are off now. Enjoy.

10-06-2010, 08:53 PM	#288
Alprazolam So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 864

10-07-2010, 08:42 AM	#290
Alprazolam So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 864	i would actually consider this if it wasn't the fsc involved.

10-07-2010, 01:21 PM	#296
Alprazolam So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 864	hate is a strong word.

10-07-2010, 03:27 PM	#299
Half man, Half Amazing Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Capital Wasteland, DC Posts: 372	Nathan: Since you STILL haven't answered my challenge. I shall ask again. If you are REALLY honest about wanting to cut down on the piracy on your sites: I start a thread on GFY keeping track of the usernames of all profiles that I (and others) have to DMCA Manwin on. Once a name gets 3 dings...you kill the profile and ALL the other videos that user has uploaded. Or are you in the business of encouraging repeat offenders? C'mon dude...do you have any idea how drastically this would cut down the piracy on your sites? Pretty simple solution, doesn't cost anyone any money and you rid yourselves of the repeat copyright offenders. Why wouldn't you take me up on this?

10-07-2010, 03:33 PM	#300
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Amazing. Now you have to pay the host to stop piracy on it.