signupdamnit

DDuke

I?ll begin with the complaints. First, signupdamnit writes, ?I think the digital fingerprinting technology should be far cheaper and more open.? I find this statement to be the most ironic comment in the entire thread, yet it seems to represent an attitude that is quite pervasive. Vobile, the software company with which FSC has contracted, expects to be paid a fair price for their intellectual property. They have invested millions upon millions of dollars in this technology, there is an expense to operating and administering these information systems, and they are business people who would like to see a return on their investment. One would think that a group of content owners could sympathize with the fact that Vobile is not willing to give away their intellectual property or to sell their services at a loss. (If you think that Vobile?s prices have been inflated, that they are making more than a reasonable return on their investment, I strongly encourage you to check out the other providers?BayTSP for example, an excellent company that offers a product/services very similar to Vobile?s.)

Second, signupdamnit believes that he ?should not be required to work with any one organization or provider.? Yes, in order to participate in APAP, you must be a member of FSC. FSC invested months upon months of work and incurred significant expenses in order to design APAP as a Member?s Benefit. Membership Benefits, for any membership organization, are available to those who pay membership dues/fees. Again, I would think that this would be a relatively simple concept for webmasters who run membership sites. Would you open up your ?member?s only? area to people who haven?t purchased a membership simply because they don?t think it?s ?fair.??

Third, several people have claimed that APAP is a cash grab. Others claim that it is a struggle for FSC?s relevance. And yet others claim that it is outside the scope of FSC?s Strategic Plan. The Free Speech Coalition is a 501(c)6?a membership organization/trade association. More specifically, FSC is a group of adult entertainment companies that came together to collaborate on litigating, lobbying, educating, collective bargaining, bulk purchasing, etc. It is a group of adult companies, funded by adult companies, and governed by adult companies. (Here, I have to correct Robbie. Robbie claims that FSC is ?supposed to be representing a consortium of adult companies in first amendment cases.? FSC was never and is not now limited to First Amendment issues in its mission. I?ll be the first person to acknowledge that this name is misleading and unfortunate?I wish to hell the founders had chosen something different. While the founders were right in that the name is more politically palatable to the mainstream than something like ?The Pornographer?s Union,? it has led to nothing but misconceptions within the industry. I want to be clear on this. FSC?s mission is: to lead, protect and support the growth and development of the adult entertainment community.

Every year, the entire FSC membership elects members to its Board of Directors. Every three years, these elected representatives develop a Strategic Plan. In the Strategic Plan, they answer the questions, ?What are our highest priorities?? They ask, ?What issues are relevant to us?? ?Over the next three years, what should the scope of our work be?? ?How do we want to spend our money--the money that we, collectively as members, have pooled for this purpose??

The vast majority of issues/problems addressed by FSC require a tremendous expense, and membership dues are used to cover those expenses. When FSC fights .xxx, we don?t make any money; we spend a great deal of money. When FSC fights Cal/OSHA, AHF, and the LA Country Department of Health in order to prevent mandatory condoms, we don?t make any money; we spend a great deal of money. When FSC fights Calderon and his 25% tax on adult products, we don?t make any money; we spend a great deal of money. Despite the fact that these issues affect the entire industry, those companies who pay FSC membership dues shoulder the entire burden. And, it?s important to note that FSC?s membership dues have not increased by one single penny in 30 years. Now, FSC has developed a program to fight piracy, and because we developed a pricing structure that covers the cost of hiring an attorney and administering the program, we are being accused of a ?cash grab.? Unbelievable.

If, despite the reality of what FSC is, you believe that FSC is some sort of nefarious group of parasites feasting on the profits of the adult industry, if you believe that FSC is really some secret group of opportunists living in million dollar Malibu mansions, do not join. Do not become a member. Do not give FSC one single penny. Problem solved. You have nothing more to bitch about.

Now, for those interested in looking forward and who are open to a thoughtful and organized approach to addressing the problem of piracy, both Robbie?s and Allison?s comments make is clear that I have done a poor job in communicating exactly how we got to where we are today. So, I?d like to take this opportunity to correct my mistake and tell you the story of how APAP came to be.

It began, not months ago, as Allison wrote, but rather two years ago, when FSC?s Board of Directors acknowledged the fact that ad hoc approaches to the problem were not working, that FSC had been remiss in not addressing this issue earlier, and that an organized strategy against piracy would be one of the coalition?s strategic priorities. As directed by the Board, I immediately began work on a piracy project plan.

While I do have some expertise in collective bargaining and negotiations, I have limited knowledge of that for which I was negotiating?tools that could be used to fight piracy. On Nov. 18, 2008, FSC hosted an anti-piracy summit. Speakers included Dean Garfield, Executive VP, MPAA; Lawrence Kanusher, Senior VP, Sony Music; David Kaplan, VP, Warner Bros. Studios; David Ring, VP, UMG Recordings; Steve Kang, Senior Counsel, NBC-Universal; Alasdair McMullan, Senior VP, EMI Music, Michael Huppe, General Counsel, SoundExchange; Jennifer Pariser, Senior Counsel, Sony Music; Scott Coffman, President, AEBN; Steve Hirsch, Managing Partner, Vivid Entertainment; and a number of attorneys from Jenner & Block and attorneys from Mitchell, Silbergber & Knupp.

In addition to educating myself and others about the technological solutions available and what other industries were doing, I began to ask our members, practically individually, how we should approach the problem of piracy. In January 2008, at AEE, I had dinner with Scott Coffman (AEBN), Ilan Buni (Gamelink), Eric Johnson (Sureflix), and Richard Cohen (Hotmovies). We spent hours talking about how piracy has affected their companies and the various ways that they would like FSC to proceed in finding tools and developing programs to fight it.

Then, at the xbiz conference in February, we held a meeting with producers, to discuss approaches to piracy. In attendance at that meeting were Phil Harvey and Bob Johnson (Adam & Eve), Steve Hirsch (Vivid), Theresa Flynt and Michael Klein (Hustler), Ali Joone and Samantha Lewis (Digital Playgroung), Rob Novinger and Tony Rios (Channel One), Steve Orenstein and Avi Bitton (Wicked), Bruce Lehay and Keith Webb (Titan), Frank Koretsky (IVD/Pleasure), Christian Mann and John Stagliano (Evil Angel), and Christopher Alexander (Anabolic).

Over the next year, we continued to meet. This group came up with ideas, met with our mainstream counterparts to see what they were doing about copyright infringement, met with tube sites, piloted a few mass-DMCA takedown targets, and organized multi-plaintiff litigation.

It became immediately apparent to all involved that our industry was underdeveloped as far as the technology needed to combat piracy. We met with the companies our mainstream counterparts recommended. During our initial conversations with these companies, we found that, typically, studios pay $30,000 monthly for their services. We negotiated with a number of companies and were able to develop a system where FSC would purchase the product for participating members. Through aggressive negotiations and bulk purchasing we have been able to save FSC members tens of thousands. Throughout the negotiations we made it clear that if the program did not work for the smallest of companies, it would not work at all. Now a studio can track their material, send takedown notices and receive the rest of the APAP benefits for as little as $400/month. That is a marked improvement over $30k for software alone.

FSC contracted with Gill Sperlein a very successful and aggressive copyright infringement attorney and Gill oversees the program that launched last April. APAP is a month to month program because we want to make sure that adult businesses do not feel trapped into a program they don?t like. No one has dropped the program since its inception and we have had many new members. APAP continues to grow and change as we are in constant contact with participants responding to their needs and feedback.

This week we announced that a number of tubesites have agreed to utilize APAP?s software program to block content from going up on their sites. Not only will the software block pirated content from going up, but also offer an opportunity for the content provider to monetize the traffic-the multi million viewers coming to these sites.

At the request of our participants, we are developing the same platform for filesharing sites and will roll that out by month?s end.

Working with Vobile, FSC?s APAP program will stay on the cutting edge of copyright infringement technology and working with our member participants we will continue to build on this ground-breaking program.

signupdamnit

Thanks for addressing the issues.

I think everyone understands the desire to make a profit. But one thing which really troubles me is that I have yet to see an accounting for how these fees will be distributed among all parties involved. Not just generalities but exact figures and percentages. For instance is Manwin getting a % of all fees even when Manwin neither owns the tube in question or the content? What's the exact agreement and where exactly are the monies going. Full disclosure of fee disbursement would help a lot. I'm sure you have some sort of contract already in place among the key players so it seems odd for it to be some sort of secret if you seek industry wide participation and support.

I'll touch on technological issues once I've read more on the technology and any other options available so I will save that for a later time.

Robbie

Good post DDuke...however, the companies you had meetings with in Jan. of 2008 had not YET felt the impact of piracy to the extent it became by the end of 2008/beginning of 2009. So those meetings don't mean much. Hell, I talked to so many paysite owners over the last couple of years and I can tell you flat out that at the beginning of 2008 I was still being told to "not worry about it" and "it's good advertising and branding"

Also, in regards to the cost.

Yes, I'm sure that Hollywood studios with giant budgets are getting milked pretty good pricewise. And it's great that you were somehow able to convince the software people to give us such a great break.

But again...it comes down to how effective it is versus cost.

A major studio releases "Iron Man 2" for instance. Hell yeah it's worth 30 grand to them to try and keep it down to a dull roar on pirate sites.

I release "Claudia-Marie Gets Butt Fucked By Pornhub" this week. Next week I release "Claudia-Marie Blows The FSC" and next week I release something else and so on and so forth...
BIG difference. So explaining how much the software fee for Hollywood vs. Adult is kinda pointless.

Bottom line is simple business: How much is it worth? The answer: Whatever someone is willing to pay.

Are there better solutions to keeping stuff off of ALL sites for a quarter of the $450 a month? You better believe there is.

Bottom line: You need to get this rolling on THOUSANDS of pirate sites. I'd forget the "replace vid with trailer" bullshit. That is doing nothing but forcing you to beg pirates to comply. Use the software the correct way: Auto DMCA.

And to do that you're going to need the data base of the pirate sites. Something that you don't have yet.

That's my point. You've went out and secured fancy software. And you don't have the means to implement it correctly yet (a handful of tubes so far).

It's sort of like if I went out and bought a NASCAR race car. I wouldn't have a clue what to do.

You've got a bazooka in your hands but no target at this point.

That's what I'm saying when I say you have ZERO experience. Having meetings and attending seminars isn't going to suddenly smarten you up.

I honestly think you need to drop that price WAY down real quick and try to get tons of folks on board. Otherwise I can't see the cost effectiveness of paying $450 to play video switch-a-roo with a few tube sites. And yes I know you plan on it growing. Well, like ALL businesses you need to have the correct price point for that.

And $450 ain't it. And joining the FSC to bolster you guys up a bit more...well, that's pretty smart on your part. But again...the $450 a month is gonna stop that from happening on a major scale.

It doesn't matter to me or anybody else that runs a business how fancy and "cutting edge" your software is. If I can get better results on over ten thousand pirate sites for a quarter of your price and I don't have to join anybody or anything...well, it's a no-brainer on that one.

Again, I'm not discounting the wonderfulness of this software. Just pointing out the real world here. You're asking people for a premium price and delivering about 9,990 LESS pirate sites being impacted.

You're gonna start out delivering tiny results, you may want to re-think this "Well Hollywood pays a LOT more" business strategy.

I am certainly playing devils advocate here with this discussion. I sincerely wish that you had brought this to the table with at least some of the people who have been actively dealing with piracy while you were having meetings and attending seminars. No offense. But come on man. This thing needs some pit bulls who are hands on experienced and it needs to be tweaked out to start going after ALL pirate sites.

Others have and are doing it. But best of luck on this. Maybe in a few months you'll get it all up to speed. Fastest way would be to set that shit to auto dmca and flag it after a certain period for litigation if it doesn't come down.
That would get REAL results and wouldn't depend on asking pirates to play nice. You could instantly be going after ALL sites instead of a handful (well, that is IF you had the databases of the sites all filled in with dmca info on each of the 10,000 + of them)

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Allison

Just a quick point here is that you realize you get the funds first in the form of the membership & you then pay the FSC APAP, not the other way around? So you would be tracking each sale via your program & the unique identifiers to associate each sale with where it came from.

__________________
Allison
President
TopBucks.com| PinkVisual.com|
[email protected]
Follow Me on Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli

ICQ: 120353154

Check out PVLocker.com

signupdamnit

Understood. The main question is simply where are the fees paid going exactly? Say a content provider chooses the 35% option.

What percentage of the 35% in this example (if any) goes to............

1. The host tube.
2. The FSC
3. Vobile
4. Manwin (Where neither the host tube or content owner)
5. Your company (Where neither the host tube or content owner)
6. Any other party (please break down individually)

Knowing this might help considerably. I think some of us have our suspicions and the lack of this information only feeds them.

Allison

Content owner gets the 55%. Remaining % you pay to the FSC who distributes a portion to Vobile, the host tube, and the FSC retains a portion. I don't remember the exact % for each, but I recall it being close to a even split of 15% each.

Pink Visual is not a party to it. We are just a supporter seeing a larger picture that behooves the entire adult industry to minimize piracy and change the consumer perception that porn is free.

__________________
Allison
President
TopBucks.com| PinkVisual.com|
[email protected]
Follow Me on Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli

ICQ: 120353154

Check out PVLocker.com

signupdamnit

Thanks for that information. I'd really like to see something more specific though and I'd bet many reading would too. So if you or someone else could find out and state the exact % figures going to all parties that would be helpful.

Just to make sure because I guess some earlier info was wrong: 55% to content owner then and not 65%. So on the "rev share" option they pay 45% to this program then and not 35%, correct?

So you're not getting a % of any of this other than if you own the tube or the content. If so, great. I think that helps matters. But what about Manwin and their associated companies. Is the same true for them?

Allison

Manwin would get the % only on their tubes. Fabian has already posted why they are interested in using the technology on Manwin tubes and why he envisions more tubes doing the same (see page 1) There is an agreement on the technology

Fabian and I agreed to start this thread purely to educate as the technology is new to the adult industry despite years of use in mainstream.

Allison

And yes it is 55/45. I asked my earlier mistake to be corrected, I'm not sure that it was.

__________________
Allison
President
TopBucks.com| PinkVisual.com|
[email protected]
Follow Me on Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli

ICQ: 120353154

Check out PVLocker.com

DWB

I could not agree more.

Half man, Half Amazing

See thread title. See those words "Manwin"?

This is why no one wants to be involved. Content owners don't need the company RESPONSIBLE for ripping them off telling them how much they have to pay them to stop doing it.

If Manwin is involved = FAIL.

DWB

Another very valid point.

Nautilus

So to the question of whether you're going to delete all videos uploaded by a user who's got 3 strikes, the silence is the answer.

How predictable.

__________________
.
.

FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote | 100K+ FHGs | Check recently added galleries

New sites | Pantyhose | Nylon | Shemale | Strapon | Lesbian | Mature/MILF | Anal | Old&Young | Gay | Feet

Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2)

Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password.

ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

Half man, Half Amazing

I would think DDuke and Allison would be encouraging their newfound friend to enact this as well. I guess a no-cost solution implies a 'no-profit solution' to certain parties and thus no one wants to get on board.

Agent 488

i don't even bother with pornhub anymore. everything i want is on slutboat. hardsextube, wankdb. your solution sucks.

Allison

RE Robbie
"Bottom line: You need to get this rolling on THOUSANDS of pirate sites. I'd forget the "replace vid with trailer" bullshit. That is doing nothing but forcing you to beg pirates to comply. Use the software the correct way: Auto DMCA."


First, the monetization factor is a key component to why this solution is affordable. I'm not sure how many times we've said it, but this technology normally costs each individual content owner $30,000 per month. And it costs that much because it's effective, state of the art, and consistent with the legal remedies that courts have ruled on in copyright cases.

Regarding thousands of sites. Of course the program intends to increase tube and torrent site participation. No one ever said it would be just these 8 and that's it. The fact that amongst these 8 includes many of the most traffic'd tubes is huge, many more will follow.

__________________
Allison
President
TopBucks.com| PinkVisual.com|
[email protected]
Follow Me on Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli

ICQ: 120353154

Check out PVLocker.com

Allison

Now just a general note. There's a lot of irony going on here, especially with the most recent comments.

Let's take a realistic scenario like how some torrent sharing sites will blacklist a certain studio's content to minimize users from sharing it. Wouldn't you try and get on say those 8 torrent site blacklists despite the fact that there are 1000's more torrent sites? You don't have to become best friends with that torrent site.

So the the FSC APAP system is basically very similar. I think the only difference is the fact that people put a face and name to Manwin or other tube operators & then take it personally.

I have never heard of any successful business that overcame their obstacles through bitterness. In fact, I'm pretty sure some of the worst business decisions on record have come from too much emotion.

__________________
Allison
President
TopBucks.com| PinkVisual.com|
[email protected]
Follow Me on Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli

ICQ: 120353154

Check out PVLocker.com

Allison

The FSC supports the "Principles for User Generated Content Services". Pink Visual also supports the use of these principles.

http://www.ugcprinciples.com/


Happy reading...

__________________
Allison
President
TopBucks.com| PinkVisual.com|
[email protected]
Follow Me on Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli

ICQ: 120353154

Check out PVLocker.com

Robbie

Hey Allison, let me apologize to you if I'm coming across like a dick.
I don't mean to do that to you in any way at all. I am a fan and supporter of what y'all did in going after Mansef/Manwin like you did.

As I said before though...the average business person is going to look at that and not really care how much MGM or Sony paid for that software. 30 grand isn't even 1/10000 of their advertising budgets.

What we all care about is cost effectiveness.

Now the revshare thing doesn't sound bad. Mainly because it won't make any money for the tube site which I'm VERY happy about. How can I say that? Well...Pornhub is my affialiate. I put up several videos on there, fully watermarked. They then put up a single small text link with their affiliate link.

But of course since tubes rely so heavily on prepaid ad spots, the page is so spammed from top to bottom with dating and cam ads and Live Jasmin popping up everywhere...that after several months my vids have had millions of hits. But Pornhub as an affiliate has only made 6 sales. LOL!

Those guys have NO sense of marketing. And all of the big tube sites are exactly like that. They are all cookie cutter clones of each other in terms of marketing and presentation.

So yeah, the revshare option is nice....IF it means you don't have to pay $450 a month for something that is far less effective than just hiring RYC to go out and find your stuff for you for MUCH MUCH cheaper and far more effectively.

But yeah the revshare thing is fine. Even joining the FSC isn't that big of a deal (though it sure would be nice if the FSC were working on First Amendment issues instead of being distracted with trying to monetize piracy)

So IF a person were to want to get involved in this particular thing. Would it be possible to do it simply by 1. Joining the FSC 2. Choosing revshare option 3. NOT having to pay any monthly fee for the "APAP"

What is the exact cost for someone wanting to go that route? Because that wouldn't cost a person anything other than the fee to join FSC because I can tell you right now from my own experience with my vids on pornhub that there won't be any sales coming off those pirate sites on the affiliate link.

And again...I am NOT trying to make you angry or be a pain in the ass (though I can see that I am being a pain by not jumping aboard). I don't want to hurt Top Bucks in any way at all or get you irritated with me. I'm not trolling, I'm just saying what my own experience in this business and in my own dealings with piracy of my stuff has taught me.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Half man, Half Amazing

So tell your BFF Fabian to adopt:

11. UGC Services should use reasonable efforts to track infringing uploads of copyrighted content by the same user and should use such information in the reasonable implementation of a repeat infringer termination policy. UGC Services should use reasonable efforts to prevent a terminated user from uploading audio and/or video content following termination, such as blocking re-use of verified email addresses.

Do it right here, right in this thread. If he won't...ask him why he won't adopt this policy.

Robbie

Fabian COULD do all that right there in house. Several tubes and torrents have made blacklists that they post right up the sites and is part of the TOS when a person makes an account to upload that they are NOT allowed to upload any vids from those studios.

Thing is he refuses to even discuss doing something like that. He only wants to be DMCA'ed so he can keep making money off of other people's work for as long as he can. Hell, if I were him and could get away with it...I'd probably do the same thing. It's just human nature at it's very lowest common denominator. Especially when you have a lot of pre-paid ad spots that bring in the money for those tubes...you need the traffic that all those ripped videos bring in.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Half man, Half Amazing

Here's a Hush Hush Blackzilla video on Pornhub:

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=743254466

Here's the profile of the user that uploaded it:

http://www.pornhub.com/users/JJ09

He's uploaded 1209 videos. Let me state that again. 1209. Twelve hundred and nine videos. None of which appear to be shorter than 20 minutes. Oh and did I mention he has uploaded an ADDITIONAL 900+ videos that are set to Private. 2100+ copyrighted videos. But I digress...

Here's another of his vids, this one from Porn Pros:

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=1914850290

And here's another from Chanta's Bitches:

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=179243951

That's three on the first page. Under my suggestion, Fabian would kill this account since it's clear this guy has no intention other than uploading copyrighted content. That would result in the removal of over 2100 infringing vids with one click of the mouse. How much does that cost copyright holders? Zilch.

How is that not an incredibly workable solution?

Robbie

Because then he doesn't make any money...and the new solution from FSC doesn't make any money. It's best for him and the FSC that all that content stay there until all the owners join the FSC and pay for APAP

Not saying the FSC is actively endorsing that...I'm just saying that IF there is a choice between making money and not making money, it's obvious which option is preferred.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Half man, Half Amazing

Or how about this,

here's a Backseat Bangers vid on Spankwire:

http://www.spankwire.com/Lisa-Backse...s/video205243/

Here's the uploader:
http://www.spankwire.com/Profile.asp...&UserId=349041

He's uploaded 2,353 vids. All of which look to be full length copyrighted videos.

Here's a Third World Media vid he uploaded:

http://www.spankwire.com/Meow-Bangko...e/video216919/

And a Hush Hush:

http://www.spankwire.com/Young-Fresh...x/video216715/

3 strikes he's out. That'd result in the removal of 2300 copyrighted vids.

Didn't need any fancy software or digital forensics technology.

Why won't Fabian do this? Hmmmmm.

Half man, Half Amazing

Then they need to be upfront with copyright owners and tell them they are in this to make money. Don't try and package it with some bullshit claim about wanting to stop piracy. They don't want to stop piracy because it's their new cash cow now.

DWB

Why would anyone take it personally when their property is stolen from them repeatedly?

Robbie

Well in all fairness...of course they want to make money. Who doesn't?

The thing that they are ALL missing here is the emotion factor. Will this help the piracy situation? Yeah a little bit. Will it make some money as a motivation to the FSC and the tubes? Yeah.
BUT...does it piss off the guy who did the REAL work of creating, filming, editing, uploading, taking the legal risks, etc.? You damn right it does.

That's why the posts from Fabian come across so smarmy. He doesn't have a fucking clue. He's probably never even been on a real porn set in his life. But for those of us who actually have all the skill sets to do everything from casting to lighting to editing to uploading to site design to updating to marketing etc., etc. WE get fucking pissed when someone else comes along and makes money off of our work.

So Fabian comes in here and gets blasted. And then he gets pissed off and starts posting in a shitty manner. Human nature...he's defending himself. And then the guy who did all the REAL work gets even more pissed.

Same with DDuke. When I read that he went to some seminars and had a meeting with AEBN in Jan. of 2008 so he now knows about piracy...I almost spit water out of my nose! lol

WE, the guys who actually do this for a living are the ones who do REAL work. Not go to meetings. Or seminars. Or own a tube site that runs itself on a script and tell people on GFY that it's impossible to police it.

No. Guys like me are the ones who really work this business. If Fabian gets fired tomorrow...oops, I mean if he loses his company tomorrow...what skill sets does he possess to do anything in the real porn business? I don't know. Can he shoot? Direct? Can he open notepad and build a site? Can he manage his own server? Film editing? Does he know how to take care of his own 2257 docs? My guess is a big fat NO. Other people do all that for the company, not him.

Well, a lot of us out here HAVE taken the time to learn to do all these things. And we do it everyday. And make a damn good living from it.

But to see people scheming on how to make money with MY work doesn't sit well. It doesn't sit well with anybody who actually has skin in the game.

Again, I completely understand and agree with the concept of monetizing it. I'm just trying to explain why I don't think it will ever be fully accepted and the FSC congratulated with open arms about it even if they deserve to be.

Content producers are going to look at it like a shakedown. That's just the way it will be.

Now, companies like Top Bucks, Nasty Dollars, etc. will be a lot more open to that. Because they too are run by people who never step foot on a porn set. They just hire shooters to do the work. So they aren't gonna be as emotional because they don't have the time and effort invested.

They simply budget out each month for x number of scenes. No involvement other than talking on the phone. So those big companies are going to probably step in line rather quickly I would guess. Why not?

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

DWB

Fuck, that's my video. Thanks.

signupdamnit

You'd almost think this was some bad joke.

tony286

What happens if the tubes who signed up for this decide to not follow the agreement?

Allison

Robbie, I must disagree with your assessment of why I might be posting in a non-emotional manner and you might perceive that TopBucks or Pink Visual is not as attached to the work. Here are all my reasons to give a shit and care and be all emotional:

-The 60 employees here in the office that I see day to day
-The other 60 employees that used to work here 4 years ago
-The producers we've worked with and that I've met that I've seen struggling
-The fact that I have loved being here at this company for the past 10 years from the work I do to the people, to the creativity and use of technology.

I've already let all of those factors get me frustrated, annoyed, sad, bitter, etc and it didn't accomplish anything.

So, I let all of those factors inspire me and our company and instead act (not react) with intent, knowledge and good business decisions. And ever since I made that change in how I was on June 9th, 2009 & the people here also changed, Pink Visual and TopBucks have been impacted and for the better.

__________________
Allison
President
TopBucks.com| PinkVisual.com|
[email protected]
Follow Me on Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli

ICQ: 120353154

Check out PVLocker.com

Atticus

Do you put up a different URL watermark on the vids so you can track any type ins or just claudia-marie.com?

Just curious if its possible those spots generated type ins in addition to the 6 sales? I know if I'm surfing on a tube and I see something that catches my eye I would most likely type in the URL versus click a text link.

Paul Markham

As Robbie and Half man, Half Amazing have pointed out this is there business plan. To remove these uploaders and their content would seriously effect the Tubes bottom line. They use pirated videos to sell ad space.

And the FSC has jumped into bed with them. Think about it. The organisation that hails itself as protectors of Freedom are now in league with those who profit from piracy. And want others to jump into bed with them and pay for the privilege.

Are the FSC jumping on the same bandwagon by joining them?

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

robwod

Although I have no horse in this race, I have been in this business an awfully long time and frankly, what I see happening is this (realistically or otherwise, it is the perception by many at this point):

• A system that is basically asking content producers to pay for the privilege of not having their content stolen -- by the same people stealing it.
• A system of pay us (FSC) if you want us to protect you from theft -- but only if you join us.
• A system us pay us a monthly fee to monitor an extremely small number of your video content on an extremely limited amount of sources

The bigger producers probably will just jump on board, but this will likely have a negative impact on smaller producers and in general, provide a seriously negative attitude towards TopBucks, Pink Visual, Manwin, and the FSC in particular.

Prior to this, PinkVisual was damn near put on a pedestal for championing a cause closely regarded by many as one of the most serious to face content producers in a long time. Many were hopeful of PinkVisual following through such that a precedent could be set. Thus, for many, the settlement has already tarnished that reputation somewhat, and certainly disappointed many. Granted, it is not PV's job to set a precedent, but it was indeed hoped by many that PV would be the one to finally do it. Thus, that's probably a big reason why so much negativity right now around this as it as it pertains to PV. The FSC has long been a topic of credibility, or lack thereof, in this business, so no surprise there.

One thing I do find interesting though is the idea of swapping an advertised video of 20+ minutes for a 2 minute trailer. Personally I think this is going to backfire. In fact, it's likely going to be the fuel to create numerous "illegal" tubes who refuse to get on board with this "protection scheme". Once that happens, and I think it very much will, surfers will simply go to where they're not jerked around. They'll just migrate to other tubes that give them whatever they click on and continue to hide behind the DMCA. Anyone willing to bet money that some of those tubes operating under this scheme will also create illegal ones under aliases in order to capture that crowd too. If so, then its just business as usual, but now with added revenue stream from those who pay the monthly protection fees.

And then if that happens, and surfers migrate, the "FSC associated tubes" will see lower page views and ultimately lower ad revenues. How long before changes are made then?

It'll certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out. My gut feeling is that this is not a solution at all. The real solution, in my opinion, would have been for the FSC to instead focus on some actual legal work, such as addressing the loopholes being exploited in the DMCA.

DWB

I would like to add paying off 3rd world police and sometimes running from them, to that list.

Robbie

I know y'all have been impacted. I'm an affiliate since forever.

My point is that until you actually dig the ditch yourself with your own hands and you actually own that ditch...you can't feel the anger that the people in that position feel.

I can stand back and be a little bit detached because I already have my situation in hand and have for the last two years. It was a HUGE burden off of me. I literally couldn't sleep when my content was being devalued like that.

Matter of fact it was a couple of years ago when I first hired removeyourcontent and had not yet figured a way to successfully protect my streams in the members area, that Eric at RYC told me that Claudia-Marie was the most pirated girl out there.

It was sick. And it made me physically sick.

And yes, I have had to let employees go too. I hated it. But I could no longer justify keeping them on. This is a business. And pretty much anything that has to do with my tgps and affiliate work is now just me. There just isn't enough money as an affiliate anymore to justify having a group of employees working for me.

But I'm just explaining to you...try and tell a guy like Tony and his wife Mandy Blake. Or Buzz and his wife Rachel Aziani. Or Dave and his wife Chica. Or our own Scott and his wife Celeste Fox...and the list goes on and on and on...just try telling those people that you understand where they are coming from.

Cause you really don't. You're not the one having to explain what you do to your family. Or try to protect your kids from finding out. Or try to keep stalkers and crazed fans from finding where you live. Or worry about the police kicking your door in at your home. Or worry about a million other little things like that.

People like that are putting EVERYTHING on the line. And they damn sure don't appreciate...and never will appreciate anybody stealing from them OR shaking them down (which is how they are going to view it)

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

DWB

I just had a bunch of videos removed from them about 2 weeks ago, I think this was one of them as it's not showing now, however.... note the message: This article is temporarily unavailable.

borked

Not everyone Robbie - I for one am doing my small bit on the side not to make money from it. I'm doing it to help others. That said, of course there will be some costs involved if people want to implement it, since it will take me time to put it on their servers and customise it for their needs. But the costs will be minimal.

I am doing it because I like doing things like this that keep my grey matter churning over. That actually IS my job. I get compensated for things like that, not paid.

This setup is different though, because the technology IS expensive (you can thank the MPAA for pushing up the price on that one). However, there are companies involved that need to make money to make profit. I think (I may be wrong) that the only partner in this that is not-for-profit is the FSC.

I think it's great that mainstream technology has been brought over to the adult world, since it is proven technology that works. The problem is the price which will only be affordable to the major labels.

__________________

For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com
(consider figuring out the email as test #1)

Paul Markham

Shows how little you know about this business or any business if you think $450 = 10 sales a month. So let me explain to you what it costs to take $450 a month. Less processing feed of 10% ($45) less affiliates payouts of 33% ($150) So an extra $450 is $255. Where did you learn your business management and accounting skills?

DMCA has become an enormous cost of doing business because of you and people like you who profit from others hard work and paying them nothing.

You can change the present. And you have absolutely no intention of doing so. Unapproved uploaders can have limits on the length of scene they can upload. Serial offenders can have ALL their videos deleted. You won't do either because it will hurt your ability to sell ad space. Selling ad space because you have pirated full length videos on your Tube sites TODAY is your business plan. Yes you want to work with everyone, every serial pirate you can find.

It might bite you in the ass if you really cared about piracy. Hang on you do care about piracy, you love it to death.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

Paul Markham

This is my thoughts on this situation.

Anyone who thinks the problem with Tubes can be solved by a program is a dreamer. It won't work and this is why. If anyone knows otherwise I will stand corrected.

Large traffic tubes sites exist because they can publish full length scenes and reap hundred of thousands to millions of viewers a day. Without the full length videos the traffic will migrate, to the other Tube sites with full length videos. It took Pornhub and a few other Tubes 2-3 years to go from practically nowhere to be the top porn traffic sites.

In that time they have educated the customer he doesn't have to pay for porn, in fact Tubes offer a better deal than most porn sites. So if the top 20 Tubes take up this scheme with a vast majority of the porn producers/owners AND delete all the full length UGC videos and their profiles. The surfers will soon realise and go to the 21 to 40 top Tube sites of today. Which will become the top 20 in a very short space of time. Because the surfer is now educated and will go looking.

So Top Bucks, FSC and all the others who jumped on this band wagon can you see how it will not work? If you hamstring 20 Tubes with a program another 20 will take their place. Same goes if you do it to 2,000 tubes. And those that replace them will see the folly of signing up to this and will be in countries you can't chase them so easily.

I bet Manwin have realised this as well so have no intention of making it work.

And if Top Bucks have such marvelous content that the viewer has to have, as no other content will take it's place. I'm going to be surprised.

Edit And another thought. If Manwin or any other top tube comply with this scheme and see another tube coming up to their level, they can't keep buying them out. Because once they get the new tube to comply, the next one in line gets their traffic and becomes a threat. They can't keep buying tubes because their traffic is migrating. Then change the new one to the reason the traffic is migrating. Running around chasing their tails.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

Paul Markham

It's not the solution and you know it. It won't clear Pornhub of EVERY full length video on it. And if it did you would lose traffic to the next tube down the line with full length videos on.

You're trying to fool us or/and not got a clue how it works.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

DWB

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...5#post17588485

I just listed 7.

Half man, Half Amazing

This EXACT thing happened when torrent sites like Mininova went legit. The downloaders just went elsewhere and other torrent sites moved up the traffic list.

Atticus

You're wrong.

Manwin has every intention of making this work and it's a brilliant move on their part. Part of the DMCA law states that to comply a tube has to take advantage of available tech. If not they can be sued for infringement. Since Manwin operates the biggest tubes out there they are in the lead position. They already have the traffic and by pushing this new technology forward into the adult space they are giving copyright holders legal rights to go after tubes that do not take advantage of available technology. If every tube has to comply then they will remain the biggest traffic holders in the industry. With this move, and TB and the FSC's help, they are crushing the competition.

DamianJ

That's his M.O.

Half man, Half Amazing

You're delusional. You're seriously telling us Manwich wants to remove piracy from their tubes...yet they allow profiles with 2300 and 2100 copyrighted videos to remain. I understand the whole "use available tech" argument but how about the "use common sense" argument? How about the "stop repeat offenders" argument?

They won't even punish their own users that are clearly violating the TOS of their sites, yet you think Manwich is going to lead the way of anti-piracy? What are you smoking and can I have some?

Half man, Half Amazing

I'm guessing Fabian is being silent because he's got his Manwich people working on either switching all their "Uploaded By"'s to 'Anonymous' or their busy creating a bunch of fake profiles. Which is it Fabian?

Maybe you won't respond to my challenge but I think I'll do it anyway. If nothing else it'll make for a very compelling body of evidence for one of my clients when we can show how you do nothing to punish repeat offenders.

robwod

Atticus, I see your point, and certainly hope it works like you expect it to work. However, I think there also exists a real possibility that overseas Tubes will also flourish as a result since surfers will not appreciate having a bait and switch tactic used. While I hope I am wrong, to me the success of tubes to this point revolves around the following:

• Volumes of Surfers attracted to enormous quantities of free porn
• Provide that enormous amount of videos, legal or otherwise, to create an almost viral traffic explosion
• Sell ad spots for revenue sources

To me, if you disrupt the surfer enjoyment, you risk disrupting the rest. And by using a bait and switch technique, I just can't see surfers staying around.

One big thing we keep reading around here is that "legal" tubes using sponsor trailers cannot compete with the big tubes because of the full length videos offered. Whether that is a valid observation or not, I do not know. But I seriously doubt that if a tube company sees their traffic drop as a result of this, and subsequently the value of their advertising marketplace, that they'll sit idly by and not notice the other competitive tubes cutting into their viewership. Thus, the "legal" tubes under this plan STILL need full length videos, legal or otherwise.

For this reason, I don't think you can claim to be both "legal" and still allow user uploaded material and hide behind a DMCA. I just don't see a grey area here. You're either legal, or your not, regardless of having a DMCA policy in place, as that's simply flawed.

This is all just personal opinion of course. But it all strikes me as a conflict of interest to take money to protect content users from yourself, then continue to post unauthorized material of those who refuse to pay.

Half man, Half Amazing

But Manwich doesn't. Who exactly is it your partnering up with in this thread again...oh right....Manwich. So you're telling people, in a thread about UGC sites, to support a company that doesn't even support the principles you promote, in relation to UGC sites. Why would anyone want to jump on board again?