Manwin and Pink Visual Answer Your Digital Finger Printing/Filtering Questions - Page 5 - GoFuckYourself.com

V_RocKs · 10-05-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

V, _READ_ the press release. It says "has agreed to implement ? and is already testing ?"... where does it say anything about it already running at 100% right now on all our tubes?

Ahh... OK... I would think you'd showcase a particular video people can see this working on. That'd clear a lot of this up and restore faith...

Nathan · 10-05-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Ahh... OK... I would think you'd showcase a particular video people can see this working on. That'd clear a lot of this up and restore faith...

V, none of the people here complaining right now WANT to restore any faith. Why bother?

Currently, clips we find when uploaded are removed and not added to the site. So I can not really show you any monetization created by the system as of right now.

Allison · 10-05-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stever

so as of now only 9 tubes are participating?
which doesnt really make this worth it since most of the pirating is happening on torrents/forums/etc

as for the partner program do you really think that tube sites will want to have a trailer overwrite a full scene that has a digital video fingerprint? when they prefer to have full length or longer videos? this goes against their whole business model and would hurt their traffic if all videos uploaded became trailers

and lastly not sure if this was answered about robbie's question what happens to all the stuff that is already circulating out there? this cannot be protected? and future dvd releases?

Regarding "only 9 tubes". First of all, as of 4 weeks ago there were technically 0 participating and now 9 major tubes are participating. Secondly, this technology can be applied to torrents. And here is what Fabian stated earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Smaller tubes will have to follow since they can nolonger claim the technology does not work or is not used. There is a provision in DMCA law that makes it very clear to them that in order to keep safe harbor they have to implement technical means available to protect content owners.

It's one of the reason's I started looking at the various service providers in the field in March of this year already.

Obviously there will always be illegal tubes/sites which will not follow and hide behind the law, but they will be easier to target by any content owners.

As far as why tubes would do the monetization program when they use the technology. It comes down to a business choice. Some may prefer to just remove the content completely & not participate. In that case, they pay the cost of running that system. Some may see opportunities in the monetization program.

RebelR · 10-05-2010, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiMpLe

Nathen since you deleted the video on pornhub, I will just leave this here and ask the question again. Can you answer this for me

"" Why doesn't Manwin just stop taking user submitted content. Trust me you can tell the difference between ama and studio. And if you can't....

The best is when I find my stuff on your tubes with the 2257 slate before the scene or our watermark clearly visable on the bottom right. Why accept that submission? ""

I think the answer is this. You remove submitted content, and all the tubes are left with is 4 min content. Ask any tube out there how long they will last without any content over the 10 min mark. If surfers don't see the full clips listed, they will move on to another tube who does have them. Its gonna be like playing whack-a-mole

DWB · 10-05-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RycEric

you just said you work direct with the FBI. I have several on speed dial.

You remember all that shit I was talking about when I called you and I was all fucked up? I was just kidding. I never knew her. And forget that stuff about tying Nathan to a tree and shoving a live chicken up his butt. Just jokes man. Just jokes.

RycEric · 10-05-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

You remember all that shit I was talking about when I called you and I was all fucked up? I was just kidding. I never knew her. And forget that stuff about tying Nathan to a tree and shoving a live chicken up his butt. Just jokes man. Just jokes.

RycEric · 10-05-2010, 02:50 PM

Sean,
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...y/video220449/
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...y/video224664/
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...e/video224376/
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...s/video223350/
http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...n/video223336/
http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...e/video223300/
http://www.spankwire.com/Jenna-Haze-...e/video223274/
http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...n/video222665/

etc etc

SiMpLe · 10-05-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RycEric

Sean,
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...y/video220449/
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...y/video224664/
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...e/video224376/
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...s/video223350/
http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...n/video223336/
http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...e/video223300/
http://www.spankwire.com/Jenna-Haze-...e/video223274/
http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...n/video222665/

etc etc

With the 2257 slate in tact no less...

Dirty Dane · 10-05-2010, 03:05 PM

Accept me on ICQ, SiMpLe

Allison · 10-05-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

BTW, if you have any good DFP links, please post them either here on in your educational thread.

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:

Allison · 10-05-2010, 03:57 PM

Here's the Monetization Process:

Allison · 10-05-2010, 03:59 PM

A little more info on the Biz Rules:

and then the potential result:

Dirty Dane · 10-05-2010, 04:49 PM

Why not also sharing footprint? If the uloader know he can be sued, he will not upload infringements.

DamianJ · 10-05-2010, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slutboat

No one is struggling - we all have read your crap about "blackmail" and "you can't stop piracy"... you are the LONE RANGER when it comes to defending the rights of Pirates.. Why wouldn't we all come to the logical deduction that you are a Pirate yourself?

Is that you agreeing you cannot find a single quote from me defending piracy or supporting it?

Brilliant.

Your debating game is weak, Sir.

Damian: Blackmailing IP addresses is not a good look for the following reasons.
Slutboat: YOU FUCKING PIRATE
Damian: Can you quote any instance of me support piracy?
Slutboat: YOU FUCKING PIRATE
Damian: No really, do you not understand? Saying one doesn't like blackmailing IP addresses is not the same as saying I love piracy?
Slutboat: YOU FUCKING PIRATE
Damian: Sigh

V_RocKs · 10-05-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

V, none of the people here complaining right now WANT to restore any faith. Why bother?

Currently, clips we find when uploaded are removed and not added to the site. So I can not really show you any monetization created by the system as of right now.

While you do run circles around me on a lot of things... Public relations is not your strong suit and never has been. Not sure if you or John rubbed off on the other or if you were both that way before joining forces...

But if you kept it up it'd begin to work. If there is anything you can take away from the BP disaster it is that I am right here. The CEO would still have a job if he just put his personal life on hold like a CEO should and handled the situation with a gracious smile instead of a fuck-me-what-the-fuck scowl...

But anyway... It's your battle. Have fun with it or don't.

fris · 10-05-2010, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

I am not your lawyer, or rather, your company's lawyer. So I am not here to explain DMCA law to you, sorry.

Also, this thread is not about DMCA and why we do what we do.

thats the biggest load of bs ever. avoiding the question as always, you dont plan on ever getting rid of pirated content on your sites, admit it, or else people would be stuck with watching 3 min brazzers vids, not the 50 min videos people upload

fris · 10-05-2010, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SiMpLe

My question to you is why does Manwin accept this type of content when it's clearly pirated. Or are you simply stating your companies model is to simply hide behind the flawed DMCA law.

Your about to show your true colors here Nathan - Bring it.

Accoring to nathan, its ok to pirate your content , and make money off your hard work, as long as they remove it *when* you find out.

Alprazolam · 10-05-2010, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Cool Ice

Translated: The Piracy Retreat held by Pink Visual, and now with guest speaker Fabian from Manwin, is just one big sales push for the FSC, aimed mostly at the dying dvd companies.

Well done.

money making scam + one formerly respected program (by this poster) now aligned with scumbags + an industy organization desperate to stay relevant having a suck each other off party in the desert. bring your condoms. there's diseases out there.

Alprazolam · 10-05-2010, 09:15 PM

i would like to see someone explain how a hidden mirror backup of a tubes content gets resynced on a regular basis and puts content removed by dmcas back on the offending live sites. anyone want to explain that? just hypothetically of course.

marketsmart · 10-05-2010, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

simple,

I have no way of knowing if the uploader does or does not have the rights to do so. If the uploader claims he does, however he claims he got them, he has the right to upload it. Unless we have "red flag knowledge".

You can call this hiding behind a "flawed" law if you want. I think its not a flawed law, it exists for a very good reason. We have a lot of people uploading content that truly is theirs. We own a lot of content licenses ourselves. We own a lot of exclusive content ourselves.

@V_Rocks, 7th July, this is from even before we bought Spankwire in the first place... not sure what you are trying to say...

ok wait...

then why do you have paid partner accounts?

its not like you are letting watermarked content get uploaded..

from my experience, when i tried to upload watermarked content, i was told i needed a partner account..

so, by that response i would take it that you do monitor uploaded content and if you monitor uploaded content then you should now if something raises red flags..

your argument loses credibility when you selectively filter content based on your ability to monetize content...

if an uploader tried to upload content without a watermark, it should be a red flag that they dont own the content...

if they upload watermarked content than at least the owner would get type ins...

.

Nathan · 10-05-2010, 09:35 PM

marketsmart,

depending on what watermark it is, we let it be uploaded, of course we do. There is a ton of content with watermarks on our tubes.

If the watermark creates a red flag for us, it's different of course.

Also, partner accounts simply add in the ads. They are still treated like other accounts otherwise.

Nathan · 10-05-2010, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

While you do run circles around me on a lot of things... Public relations is not your strong suit and never has been. Not sure if you or John rubbed off on the other or if you were both that way before joining forces...

But if you kept it up it'd begin to work. If there is anything you can take away from the BP disaster it is that I am right here. The CEO would still have a job if he just put his personal life on hold like a CEO should and handled the situation with a gracious smile instead of a fuck-me-what-the-fuck scowl...

But anyway... It's your battle. Have fun with it or don't.

Never said it is my strong suit. I'm getting better though, slowly... ;)

This thread was to explain Vobile, I am nice enough to reply to people that accuse me of all kinds of things and call me names on top of that though.

This is not a battle btw.

Noe · 10-05-2010, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Normally technology like this costs ten's of thousands of dollars per month. The FSC has done an incredible job of selecting a state of the art technology platform and negotiating to make this an affordable option for companies large and small.

Pink Visual has researched other similar technology options and has found the FSC APAP to be hands down the best.

My biggest concern is that with the current DMCA law..which allows just about anyone to become a DMCA agent, and without any regulation allows these type of institutions to become viable and for-profit business models..we will see a new breed of copyright trolls who are simply profiteers and are not interested in protecting intellectual copyright at all. Unless we have safeguards, this can be an ends-to-a-means for our industry as I forsee it. What safeguards can be implemented from preventing this?

Nathan · 10-05-2010, 09:51 PM

Noe, can you explain a bit more what you fear might happen or what Vobile could do that would be bad for the industry in that regard?

Or maybe I misunderstood your comment.

Allison · 10-05-2010, 10:02 PM

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.

marketsmart · 10-05-2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

marketsmart,

depending on what watermark it is, we let it be uploaded, of course we do. There is a ton of content with watermarks on our tubes.

If the watermark creates a red flag for us, it's different of course.

Also, partner accounts simply add in the ads. They are still treated like other accounts otherwise.

thank you for clarifying..

i tried to upload watermarked content in the past and it was always rejected...

i will try again and report back my results..

i will say that i respect you coming here and regardless of the comments, you continue to stick around and don't disappear when the conversation becomes heated...

.

Nathan · 10-05-2010, 10:21 PM

marketsmart, thank you.

And I second Allison's post. Although we of course expected some of this, let's try to stick to the actual subject and that is Digital Fingerprinting.

Noe · 10-05-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Noe, can you explain a bit more what you fear might happen or what Vobile could do that would be bad for the industry in that regard?

Or maybe I misunderstood your comment.

My concern I guess is the lack of regulation on who can become a DMCA agent and how those agencies can operate; not necessarily content owners who are interested in protecting their content from being pirated. I guess this is an issue that you and Allison can't resolve, but one that needs to be addressed at the DMCA level. I commend you both for at least working towards a solution together; I'm all about longevity for the industry lol and don't like to obsess on the problem, but rather solutions.

borked · 10-06-2010, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

A little more info on the Biz Rules:

Many thanks for all the explanatory slides

MrDeiz · 10-06-2010, 12:23 AM

wow
just wow

KillerK · 10-06-2010, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alprazolam

i would like to see someone explain how a hidden mirror backup of a tubes content gets resynced on a regular basis and puts content removed by dmcas back on the offending live sites. anyone want to explain that? just hypothetically of course.

Here's how

PHP Code:


			


mysql_query("update db set viewable = 0 where video_id = 12303");

// That sets the video to non viewable...

// another script runs later and does this 

mysql_query("update db set viewable = 1, uploader = "newguy1" where video_id = 12303");

Very simple to have video disappear and reappear.

KillerK · 10-06-2010, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Here's the Monetization Process:

I used to really respect you, now I think you should go fuck yourself. Selling out to the bad guys, I hope all affiliates realize this and stop traffic immediately.

Nautilus · 10-06-2010, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

depending on what watermark it is, we let it be uploaded, of course we do. There is a ton of content with watermarks on our tubes.

If the watermark creates a red flag for us, it's different of course.

Nathan, please pass it on to your reviewers to "red flag" and reject all clips that bear FerroNetwork logo on them, unless they were sumbitted by users with the e-mail addresses like *anything*@ferrocash.com

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 04:11 AM

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.

Nautilus · 10-06-2010, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison

Here are some images I was given permission representing the technical components a bit more.

Thanks Allison, that clarifies alot.

Can you please also ask them to post some specs about the accuracy of their method. What I'm interested to know is outlined in the list of questions below:

1. What is the average discover rate for this tech in most of the standard cases? I mean, out of 100 videos that were posted at tubes more or less as is, without big changes such as half screen logo and recompressed at standard 400-700kb/s, how many will be found?

2. What is the lowest bitrate threshold for videos to still be recognizeable by this tech? 200kb/s, 100kb/s? Basically, the question is how badly a tube needs to recompress a video to fly under the radar unnoticed.

3. Will videos be still identifiable by this tech if they were distorted? It is not uncommon for many of the tube uploaders to take a 16:9 HD video, add their own watermark and then reencode it to a 4:3 SD video (I'll post some screenshots later of this happening).

4. Will videos be still identifiable by this tech if they were BOTH cropped AND distorted. It is happening often with our HD vids - some uploader crops out about 150 pixels from both left and right to remove logos, then adds his own watermark and reencodes it to a 4:3 SD video. The resulting video looks shitty, but it is still somehow passable for many tubes and they accept his uploads. And it is both cropped and distorted, so it's DNA signature must be very different from the original one.

5. What % of the image should be rewatermarked/changed to avoid detection? I've seen videos where the new logos/ads added by thieves were pretty much half screen. Can this tech still deal with those?

6. If an HD (16:9) video was resized to a SD (4:3) video by using color bars full of ads, can this tech still deal with those? It is pretty much widespread nowadays for tube uploaders do downsize a 1280x720 HD vid to a 640x360 piece and embed it into a 640x480 template and then use the remaining space to add lots of promo - they do that because at most tubes their flash players are still SD. Those ads are not simple color bars that are easily identifiable. It is most often a colored text, but sometimes full color images too.

fris · 10-06-2010, 05:25 AM

mansef strikes again

Nautilus · 10-06-2010, 05:32 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.

If it's too complicated than simply red flag it.

Thank you.

Half man, Half Amazing · 10-06-2010, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

And I second Allison's post. Although we of course expected some of this, let's try to stick to the actual subject and that is Digital Fingerprinting.

A little off-topic here, but when your fancy whizbang system identifies a fingerprinted video that is clearly copyright infringement, will you delete the profile of the uploader and all of the other videos that profile has uploaded? You could seriously cut down the massive amount of piracy on your site by implementing that one little thing.

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

A little off-topic here, but when your fancy whizbang system identifies a fingerprinted video that is clearly copyright infringement, will you delete the profile of the uploader and all of the other videos that profile has uploaded? You could seriously cut down the massive amount of piracy on your site by implementing that one little thing.

It treats it as one infringement, so counts against their number allowed before they are banned. I think that currently is 3 infringements. What happens to their old videos is a good question, I can not say right now, have to find out.

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 07:02 AM

Nautilus, we will try to red flag it if we can identify it.

Also, regarding your questions of what is detectable: I do not know the specifics but it detects on both audio and video, and that even afterer at least some cropping and quite a bit of quality drop. We are going to test a bit with our own content.

Regardless of that though, someone recutting the video most likely is not covered by DMCA safe harbor, just FYI. Although it is not 100% clear, it's likely they would lose in court.

RycEric · 10-06-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noe

My biggest concern is that with the current DMCA law..which allows just about anyone to become a DMCA agent, and without any regulation allows these type of institutions to become viable and for-profit business models..we will see a new breed of copyright trolls who are simply profiteers and are not interested in protecting intellectual copyright at all. Unless we have safeguards, this can be an ends-to-a-means for our industry as I forsee it. What safeguards can be implemented from preventing this?

Hey Noe,
How did that hentai content work out for you? Have you guys been served yet? I find it hilarious you, of all people, selling unlicensed hentai content would chime in here. Shall I post the court settlement and admission of guilt by your content broker?

Nautilus · 10-06-2010, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

Nautilus, we will try to red flag it if we can identify it.

Not all of our videos are watermarked (we're still working on it), but those that are can be identified easily, for example:

http://www.spankwire.com/Pantyhose-Sex/video220318/

Quote:

Regardless of that though, someone recutting the video most likely is not covered by DMCA safe harbor, just FYI. Although it is not 100% clear, it's likely they would lose in court.

A person who's uploading video is not covered under DMCA, no matter if the video was recutted or now.

Nautilus · 10-06-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

What happens to their old videos is a good question, I can not say right now, have to find out.

I'm interested to know the answer too, please find out and let us know.

RycEric · 10-06-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

I'm interested to know the answer too, please find out and let us know.

In terms of spankwire, they used to have a hidden CDN where all the master flvs are archived. I'm not sure how it operates now, however, in the past they simply clicked the video off.. not remove.. (just like you can do with traditional TGP software) and reactivate it at a future time. I'll need to do some digging and find it.

signupdamnit · 10-06-2010, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RycEric

In terms of spankwire, they used to have a hidden CDN where all the master flvs are archived. I'm not sure how it operates now, however, in the past they simply clicked the video off.. not remove.. (just like you can do with traditional TGP software) and reactivate it at a future time. I'll need to do some digging and find it.

If true that would probably be a great thing to be able to prove in a future court case. Might even be able to use it to put someone in jail for perjury.

Nautilus · 10-06-2010, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RycEric

In terms of spankwire, they used to have a hidden CDN where all the master flvs are archived. I'm not sure how it operates now, however, in the past they simply clicked the video off.. not remove.. (just like you can do with traditional TGP software) and reactivate it at a future time. I'll need to do some digging and find it.

That's outrageous

BTW, love your avatar, very creative

RycEric · 10-06-2010, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by signupdamnit

If true that would probably be a great thing to be able to prove in a future court case. Might even be able to use it to put someone in jail for perjury.

Raw
http://n1.public.spankwire.com/4/
Here's the mobile
http://n1.public.spankwire.com/5/
and thumbs
http://n1.public.spankwire.com/3/

Nathan · 10-06-2010, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Not all of our videos are watermarked (we're still working on it), but those that are can be identified easily, for example:

http://www.spankwire.com/Pantyhose-Sex/video220318/

A person who's uploading video is not covered under DMCA, no matter if the video was recutted or now.

My point is that if they do it automated on user uploaded content they might not be covered either.

Luscious Media · 10-06-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

No you can not, because that would be illegal.

If however you had a tube and someone ELSE ripped all our best scenes, made a compilation, and posted it to your tube and you made a ton of money from it, then you are right, it's ok on your part, but we would DMCA it. If you then would not remove it, then it would not be ok again.

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?

Nautilus · 10-06-2010, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

It treats it as one infringement, so counts against their number allowed before they are banned. I think that currently is 3 infringements. What happens to their old videos is a good question, I can not say right now, have to find out.

Nathan, one more question regarding your acceptable use policy.

Does it always have to be 3 infringments for an uploader to be banned? If it is only one, but a BIG one, what happens then?

For example, if you get DMCA to take down this video:
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=229526824

Will you wait until the next 2 DMCAs arrive, or will you check this user's profile and find out that he's uploaded the entire publicinvasion.com member area to your site and pro-actively ban him?

http://www.pornhub.com/users/crispoc.../public?page=1
http://www.pornhub.com/users/crispoc.../public?page=2

10-05-2010, 03:57 PM	#211
Allison Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: http://www.topbucks.com Posts: 2,068	Here's the Monetization Process: __________________ Allison President TopBucks.com\| PinkVisual.com\| [email protected] Follow Me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli ICQ: 120353154 Check out PVLocker.com

10-05-2010, 03:59 PM	#212
Allison Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: http://www.topbucks.com Posts: 2,068	A little more info on the Biz Rules: and then the potential result: __________________ Allison President TopBucks.com\| PinkVisual.com\| [email protected] Follow Me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli ICQ: 120353154 Check out PVLocker.com

10-05-2010, 09:35 PM	#221
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	marketsmart, depending on what watermark it is, we let it be uploaded, of course we do. There is a ton of content with watermarks on our tubes. If the watermark creates a red flag for us, it's different of course. Also, partner accounts simply add in the ads. They are still treated like other accounts otherwise. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-05-2010, 09:51 PM	#224
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Noe, can you explain a bit more what you fear might happen or what Vobile could do that would be bad for the industry in that regard? Or maybe I misunderstood your comment. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger

10-05-2010, 10:02 PM	#225
Allison Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: http://www.topbucks.com Posts: 2,068	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. __________________ Allison President TopBucks.com\| PinkVisual.com\| [email protected] Follow Me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/PV_Alli ICQ: 120353154 Check out PVLocker.com

10-05-2010, 02:50 PM	#207
RycEric Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,313	Sean, http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...y/video220449/ http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...y/video224664/ http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...e/video224376/ http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...s/video223350/ http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...n/video223336/ http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...e/video223300/ http://www.spankwire.com/Jenna-Haze-...e/video223274/ http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...n/video222665/ etc etc

10-05-2010, 03:05 PM	#209
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Accept me on ICQ, SiMpLe

10-05-2010, 04:49 PM	#213
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Why not also sharing footprint? If the uloader know he can be sued, he will not upload infringements.

10-05-2010, 09:15 PM	#219
Alprazolam So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 864	i would like to see someone explain how a hidden mirror backup of a tubes content gets resynced on a regular basis and puts content removed by dmcas back on the offending live sites. anyone want to explain that? just hypothetically of course.

10-05-2010, 10:21 PM	#227
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	marketsmart, thank you. And I second Allison's post. Although we of course expected some of this, let's try to stick to the actual subject and that is Digital Fingerprinting. __________________ "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, 12:23 AM	#230
MrDeiz SignBucksDaily.com Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 9,802	wow just wow __________________ Make money with WEBC$MS The only way to still make money in adult

10-06-2010, 04:11 AM	#234
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	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. __________________ "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, 05:25 AM	#236
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,252	mansef strikes again __________________ Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence. WP Stuff

10-06-2010, 07:02 AM	#240
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	Nautilus, we will try to red flag it if we can identify it. Also, regarding your questions of what is detectable: I do not know the specifics but it detects on both audio and video, and that even afterer at least some cropping and quite a bit of quality drop. We are going to test a bit with our own content. Regardless of that though, someone recutting the video most likely is not covered by DMCA safe harbor, just FYI. Although it is not 100% clear, it's likely they would lose in court. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger