Dirty Dane

gideongallery (and Nathan), the safe harbor is only at risk if you remove user submission by same time making official statement that the reason is infringement (your belief or assumption).

That is editorial. Removing for any other or no reason is not editorial. You can say "I don't like you - therefor I deleted you and your submission", and there is no law preventing you from doing that.

gideongallery

no competent lawyer would say that
1. that doesn't even meet the dictionary definition of editorial control

by definition editorial control is the ability to edit or change the expression of the author based on the desires of the editor .

i don't like you so i am going to censor your expression completely is still editorial control.


secondly there are more then just DMCA laws to worry about

the eharmony lawsuit proves that, they choose to deny their services to gays because (as they claimed) the cost of doing the research to define the compatiblity questions would not be recoverable given the small size of the demographic (10% of the population).

That is a hell of a lot more defendable position then i am doing it because i don't like you

AND THEY STILL LOST

my lawyer says their a liablity, NAT lawyer says their a liability, your just Guy on GFY who has been proven wrong multiple times already.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

btw i noticed you dodged the question

if i were to put a TOS clause that would force you to put your content into the public domain if you filed take down notice

should that TOS supercede your rights under the DMCA.

every "piracy" site in the world would therefore get away scott free for every

because the first time you submitted a takedown request you would be agreeing to put all your content into the public domain

which means i would be able to put it right back up and never have to take it down again.


IF TOS supercede the free speach/Fair use rights (law granted) of submitter, why couldn't those same TOS supercede your rights as a copyright holder (law granted rights) especially when the only way you could identify "infringing content" would be to use my services.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Dirty Dane

Ok, I better watch out for gays suing me because I do not allow gay content submission on my female tgp/tube.



Jesus....

gideongallery

oh right i forgot Gays are the first and only minority.

oh and wait gay people would never choose to make money or be able to comment about straight porn either.


for example i could splice together matt bixel AKA Danny Rhymes into a fake threesome, compare and contrast it to one of his real threesome scenes, to comment on/bring attention to the anti -gay mentality of the female porn stars

i realize the idiot who you hire as a lawyer might be too clueless to see how i could portray that removal as a "deliberate attempt to censor the commentary about a clearly anti-gay policy within the porn industry" but my lawyers are actually competent.


The fact is even with your deliberately scope limited view, i can produce a liable situation proves how wrong you are. BTW that another time you have just been proven wrong.

Add in race (of the submitter not the content) and you would have tons of potential liablities from "taking down content for any reason"

btw i notice you dodged the question

if i you truely believed that TOS should supercede the DMCA, why hasn't a single torrent or tube site simple put in their TOS that by using their site to view content you claim is your copyright you agree to put all your content in the public domain.

IF you can TOS can force conditions dam your legal liabilites, why couldn't a tube site simple force you to put your content into the public domain, if you filled out a valid take down request against them.

It would totally end the problem, because the only way you could keep your content out of the public domain is to not file a takedown request for any content.


basically get the full benefit of the safe harbor, and no work taking shit down.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Nathan

Robbie, your last posts.. Man... I do not know what to say.. 1.2m unqs. 100+50k a month... And that back in the day when "everything" was so great??? Maybe we should teach you something instead of the other way around, LOL!

You just totally made my day! Almost as good as you saying claudia Marie is number one for big tits on Alexa, lol.

__________________
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger

Nathan

I disagree, it is not such a clear thing!

__________________
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger

DWB

I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one.

Machete_

big tubes pay famous rippers for uploading videos

duh

TheLegacy

What like this guy?



Oh wait you said ripper - not rapper

__________________

gideongallery

if as you say it has nothing to do with the law and is simply a policy
then TOS should cover you for ANY violation of the law , including distributing kiddie porn

your claiming that TOS as a contract supercedes all legal liability, well the criminal liablity for distributing kiddie porn is legal liablity.

Just because consequence of violating that legal liablity is jail time, instead of money doesn't change the fact that it still a legal liablity.

so again if you truely beleived that TOS contract, grants you immunity from legal liabilities, put up the kiddie porn and put a TOS clause saying they can't use it as evidence.

whores do that all the time, see how many of them get convicted of prostitution even though their TOS require that you don't enter their site if your a police officer.




your the only one who wants it both ways

if the law worked the way your claiming it did, i could simply put in my TOS that by using the service to view copyright material you claim ownership of you agree to put all your content into the public domain

that way the first time you made a takedown request you would have been forced to put all your content into the public domain.

I would never have to listen to another take down request from you ever again, and i would be legally authorized to put the content right back up again.


The worst thing in the world for you guys would be if TOS did supercede the law as your trying to claim it does because this type of TOS clause would be perfectly legal and there would be nothing you could do about it.


so then the question is back to you , do you still stand by TOS supercede the laws even if it was used in this way.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

ask the religious right how ethical you are for producing porn.

i stand up for fair use irregardless of the medium

using youtube to comment that "check out quest crews best dance routine"

should be just as legal as putting a tape cassette in vcr fast forwarding to the dance routine
and saying "check out quest crews best dance routine"

how ethical is it to censor that free speech.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

DWB

However, this is the porn business and others in the same business are stealing my videos.

There is a difference.

I do not base my ethics in this business on mainstream or any other factor than what is the acceptable standard of this business. If I were to base what is ethical in the porn business based on my non-adult values, most of the thieves would be dead already, as I don't consider human life very valuable when that human steals from me, as they are also stealing from my family. In the real world, and if I catch you inside my house, that is punishable by death. Luckily for all of you and unfortunate for me, there is a difference between the two.

The Porn Nerd

I agree with this guy. Why?

KISS rocks
He knows his shit
I like how he BASHES GG for being a fucking idiot

Carry on.

PS: I do NOT have a "Man Crush" on Robbie. HOWEVER: I DO have a Man Crush on Robbie's biceps.

__________________
My Affiliate Programs:
Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

Over 90 paysites to promote!
Skype: peabodymedia

gideongallery

there is two problems with that copyright infringement will never and has never been theft

your talking about out and out censorship, the blanket removal of all the videos of a persons account (something which even youtube does not do)

while at the same time working in an industry that only exists because of 1st ammendment.

without that protection you would be hauled off to jail on pimping and pandering charges.

it two faced at best.

btw since your also argueing that TOS should supercede the law

would you support the right of a tube site owner to put a term of service condition that says if you use the service to view content you claim a copyright too, you must put all your content in the public domain.

if TOS can supercede things like free speech, why should a tube site have a right to basically turn the takedown notice into a trap that forces you to put your shit into the public domain.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

this statement makes no sense, the market is moving towards tubes as the new primary traffic source.

ethics by the way are not supposed to be fluid and dependent on what the enviroment is.

by definition that is an unethical principle, in fact it given it own name situational ethics.

My moral compass is defined by one simple rule your right end the second mine begin, and vice versa.

I never demand 1 rule for myself and another for other people, irregardless of what the market conditions are around me.

so i will ask the question again, would you defend your position that TOS should over write the law if a tube site used their TOS to force you put your shit in the public domain if you sent them a takedown request.

I have repeatedly pointed out exactly what they would have to say to do it.

while you have repeatedly called Nat out to do something that even youtube doesn't do

demanding that he extend TOS and accept a liablity he currently avoids, would you except such an extension if it worked against you.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

DWB

gideon, you can call it whatever you want and write about why it isn't theft until your fingers bleed, but it is stealing.

It's not yours. You don't own it. You don't have the rights to it. You didn't pay for it. You can't time shift it. You're not renting it. You do not have permission to take it, and you sure as shit don't have permission to profit from it. Whatever "laws" you want to hide behind, I wipe my ass with. I'd beat your ass just the same if you stole my bike or a single video from my website.

Your silly talk is wasted on me gideon. Save your nonsense for someone else.


Of course TOS can not supersede the law. Stop being a fucking dick head. But if someone violates your TOS and you've already stated you can remove the account or submission if they do, then do it. This is not even an issue of TOS superseding the law, not even sure how it spun into that. This is about doing what your TOS was written for in the first place. Your TOS should be within the law, then you follow it. Why have it otherwise if you are not going to use it?

Look, all of this is bullshit and everyone knows it. I'm not going to split hairs with you or Nathan over this anymore, as it doesn't resolve anything. Nathan and his company are thieves profiting from content they uploaded themselves. Users don't upload 1000s of videos, loading 4 - 5 videos a day for 2 years in a row. Yea right. It's insulting that anyone would expect us to believe they do. And you... I don't even know what you are, but I'm not going to waste any more time with you.

We come from different places and will NEVER see eye to eye about this topic. Like I said, don't even waste your time. I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

gideongallery

1. the submitter did pay for it
2. fair use gives them right to do things like comment, timeshift, formatshift that content, even if you don't want them too.
3. the copyright act explictly takes away your exclusive right with regards to fair use
4. which means your the one trying to break the law by demanding that all content be taken down.

your asking NAT to remove all the content of a user irregardless of if it is covered by copyright act defined fair use or not, simply because fill out 4 take down notices.

clearly if even 1 of those videos was in fact fair use authorized, that would have to TOS superceding the law (in this case section 107 of the copyright act) there is absolutely no way it can be anything else.

so now we are saying fuck innocent until proven guilty.


again what you are just saying doesn't change my question in one little bit

assuming your right and TOS that broad should be allowed, suppose that because it a contract and the act of using the service bind you to agree to that

do you support that forced nature being used against you

if i put a clause saying that if you used my service (tube site) to view your content you agree to put all your content into the public domain.

It would do a complete end run around safe harbor provision because the only way you could identify your infringement to complain about would be to USE my tube site.

and if you used my tube site (and therefore autoagreed to the TOS) you agreed to put all your content into the public domain.


I am not arguing with you about your opinion, i am asking you if you would be willing to accept the consequence of your opinion if it was used against you


PS. the key point is that for me my opinion is consistance irregardless of weather it helps me or hurts me (neither TOS condition would be valid because it takes away a right granted by the law -- fair use right to the content vs your right to dispute complete unauthorized use of your content)

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Dirty Dane

I never said or claimed that TOS as a contract supercedes all legal liability. That is a strawman argument from your side, so you can argue against things I didn't say or mean. This is not about the weight of laws, but the laws themselves and what they cover. If the weight (your argument) is final, then everything would be legal in countries having constitutional free speech. But it doesn't work that way, the constitutional weight is not final, it also gives access for laws to override it, the same way laws weight are not final but give access to design terms and policy.

What I say is, the TOS can be used as a contract to prevent things that is not unlawful in the first place, but things that are inappropriate, off-topic or non-beneficial etc for your business or organization can be prevented. Laws supercede TOS, but if there is no law, then that argument become pointless. The only thing left is policy and that's what OP question.

If you claim and state one policy, but act different and refering to non-existant laws (the weight of laws is pointless argument), then there is a reason to question that policy. If DMCA doesn't prevent you from removing the inappropriate, off-topic or non-beneficial without losing safe harbor, then it doesn't prevent you from removing the appropriate, on-topic or beneficial. Like I said, you can't have it both ways...

gideongallery

that the stupidest statement you have every made, so everything including shit that is illegal on it face would be legal if free speech exists

Bullshit

I am saying the exact opposite and your trying to misrepresent

The reason you can take down kiddie porn is without incurring a civil liablity BECAUSE A LAW SAYS IT ILLEGAL.

The same is not true with copyright infringement there is a very specific set of rules you have to follow and that is a valid notice, with the appripriate counter notice ability to happen.

NAT WOULD BE WILLFULLY VIOLATING THAT PROCESS, by taking the content down for TOS only reason. That would make them liable if it violated free speech.

ok and if the sky was pink it wouldn't be blue

what does a fabricated case that has already been proven to not exist here, 3 examples where the laws could be violated, each with civil liablities, hell even when you deliberately limited the scope to an insane level i documented a potential violation of discrimination laws.


bullshit

When you for example take down kiddie porn you are giving up the safe harbor provision of the DMCA and justifying your actions using the child pornography laws. You trade one immunity (takedown/counternotice process )for a legally justified reason for removal (it violates kiddie porn laws).

Your saying give up the safe harbor to hide behind, NOTHING.

That the point, you want NAT to remove all the content, including stuff that could be 100% authorized, either by the copyright holder, or by fair use.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

yes you did


you clearly said NO law will tell you that you can't remove user submitted content if they violated TOS.

that statement clearly put the TOS above the law in priority (which is by definition what the word supercede means).

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Slutboat

I can't believe Pirate Nathan still has green rep.

You guys are a bunch of fucking pussies.

__________________
The Slut Boat soon will be making another run
The Slut Boat promises something for everyone

DWB

And there is your flaw.

Lets use PornHub as an example here. Are you going to tell me the uploaders to that site, many who have 100s and sometimes 1000s of uploads, actually paid for all the videos they uploaded? NO FUCKING WAY.

They are downloading them from torrents, they use stolen passwords, or whatever. Very few were paid for, if any. The truth is, random uploaders are not really uploading the bulk of the content to these giant tubes. The biggest uploaders work for the company, everyone knows it. No loser, regardless of how big a loser he is, is going to upload 4 - 6 (or more) videos a day, every day, for 2 years straight.

So considering they didn't even pay for it in the first place, your reasoning does not work, again.

And YES, if you are caught with my content, you are GUILTY. There is no proven innocent or anything else, you have it, you are responsible for it.



OK, you're going back on ignore. Bye.

DWB

We are limited on how much we can give in a period. I can green you today but it won't let me add or take away from you for several days after.

Tjeezers

Nag Nag Nag

You hit my ignore list

__________________
Enroll in the SWAG Affiliate Asian Live Cam Program and get 9 free quality linkbacks from my network!
Wanna see how old school I am? Look at this! All my Cam Review Sites are here!

Dirty Dane

Yes, it's bullshit, and that's what I'm trying to tell you. It's only the words in the law that tells you what you can or can't. The weight does not tell you that. It's YOUR logic: "Because law weight higher than TOS..". Wrong. If there is no law, then weight doesn't count for anything. Same with the constitution vs law: You can't say a law is unconstitional if there are no constitution...

..got it?

Correct. But if there were no law against it, then you couldn't say a law supercede your TOS. You can still disallow it in your TOS...

got it?

Wrong. That argument is only valid if he state the reason is infringement. He can still remove for ANOTHER reasons without losing safe harbor. If that weren't the case, then his sites would be flooded with spam and Youtube would be flooded with porn.



Taking down child pornography neutralize DMCA. You are required to do so by law. But DMCA doesn't neutralize you from removing content for another reasons than infringements. If you disallow underage content that is not illegal, you can still TOS away that content, even if the uploader didn't make an infringement, and without losing safe harbor.

Like I said, you can't have it both. I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm telling what you can and can't.

Nathan

DWB, until you run a tube, you have no clue what 'losers' are willing to do to look cool. ALL content is user uploaded unless we bought the license for it then it MIGHT be that we upload it. But we have licenses for THOUSANDS of DVDs we do not even upload.
Anyone that thinks otherwise can try to prove so in court, but since it is impossible to prove something that is not true, it will just be a waste of time and money.

Dirtydane, DMCA does not allow filtering 'non beneficial' content. Even filtering out content that does not match a specific niche is dangerous unless automated or user controlled! This is the whole point here. Just removing content virtually by random will definitely not help your DMCA safe harbor!

__________________
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger

Dirty Dane

Then why are you saying on the website that you can block or remove user submission for any or no reason then? Aren't you the one who toss away safe harbor by saying that?

There you say you can, here you say you can't. You can't have it both ways.

Nathan

Dirtydane, because it gives us the widest freedom possible. If we would try to formulate something matching dmca or other applicable laws 100% that line would be 3 paragraphs and we would be uncertain if we did not miss some aspect and thus do not protect us enough.

__________________
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger

Nathan

Additionally, just by writing it this way in the TOS does not mean we do it as written without considering dmca. So no, we are not throwing away safe harbor.

__________________
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger

Dirty Dane

What you (especially gideongallery) don't seem to understand is that DMCA and safe harbor is about infringements and liability thereof only. That and the procedures don't affect other laws and defense (that is also pointed out in DMCA), nor does it prevent you from enforcing other terms. You can run a service with both safe harbor and other rules that is not about infringements. In fact, DMCA permits you to remove content if you have good reasons to believe so, even without a copyright notice.

Why even discuss safe harbor? Do you qualify for it?

gideongallery

so your arguement is never right because it based on non existant situation

if we lived in a world where no constitution existed no TOS would be unconstitutional,
if we lived in a world where there were no anti-discrimination laws no TOS would be discrimintory.

Problem is that world doesn't exist

laws exist, the constitution does not exist, your trying to argue that even though the laws DOES exist, it should not apply. There is a huge difference and priority or "weight" clearly count in the real world case


there is always a law against it, becaue your TOS is defined by contract law, the principle of law that allow you to sue for disputes in contracts. and those laws are bound by the constitution, which defines what type of laws congress can make.

again your not argueing the existance of a law, your argueing weather a law that exist APPLIES

but your using the impossible condition that the law does not exist at all as a justification for your bogus arguement.

Yes you would be right if we lived in a world where no constitution existed, no laws exist, but if that were the case copyright laws would exist anyway and nat could do whatever the fuck he wants.

Given the fact that copyright act does exist, two laws always exist against TOS (fair use under the copyright act, and free speech part of the constitution that defends free speech).

while you might be able to argue those laws do not apply to your TOS, you would still have to spend the money to make that arguement and that is a liablity.



what the fuck are you talking about have you every disputed a wrongfully banned account

every single video that is removed has a reason beside it

to successfully get the account back you have to prove every single one of those reasons is wrong, or that they allowed something equally (in which case the reason is discrimintory)

having to have a legitimate reason doesn't create a situation where you can't stop porn from being posted on youtube, porn is a valid reason for stopping content as long as you apply that rule to every every single time . Allow one guy to post porn, and your going to get your ass sued for discriminiation when you remove someone elses porn.

IT not discrimination if you universally apply the rules.

That being said, just because you don't want to universally apply the rule doesn't make it wrong. Any tube site could restrict itself to only showing 2 minute clips, and use "bigger than 2 minutes = gone"



your trying to make if A >B then A must be < B arguement.

but that is totally wrong.

look in every case you choose to remove the content for a non take down case you lose the safe harbor provision, in fact the act defines the safe harbor as a protection granted if you follow certain rules.

In your kiddie porn case you don't care about giving up that protection, because the actual criminal law gives you the cover instead. Your basically trading one form of cover for another.

When you take down non takedown (false takedown request happen all the time so you can use the word infringing) just for TOS violation, you lose the safe harbor and don't replace it with anything. Ergo you create a potential liablity for yourself.

Even no porn, nothing over 2 minutes any restriction creates a potential liablity, the biggest one being discrimination that one is avoided by always treating everyone exactly the same way (which is why i can say 1 example of letting a video up by youtube proves it is there policy not to remove all the videos of an account, if they did do it sometimes only their ass would lose a discrimination case the second they choose to remove the content of a visible minority).

Discrimination laws is nasty, you don't have to prove that reason they treated you differently was because you were a hahahahahaha if you did no one would get convicted of the crime since a bigot could simply lie and make up a "i don't like you reason" for discrimination and get away scott free.

Under anti discrimination law all i have to do is prove that i am a visible minority, and you treated me different than a non minority and you lose.

That why eharmony lost their 2 million dollar case, even though they had a really good, non discrimintory reason for the different treatment (we can't make money given the population size) they were forced to create a money losing dating site, just to comply with the law.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

doesn't PREVENT is not nor will it ever be the same as PERMITS.

A >B does not mean A < B.

The DMCA give you immunity for a very specific process if you follow that process you have an immunity for the potential infringement, if you don't you don't period

whenever you doe something outside that process you accept the liablity for that action.

In the case of certain situations you basically trade the protection of DMCA for the protection of another law (kiddie porn)

but you never keep the safe harbor provision of the DMCA if you don't follow the process exactly, that the very way the law is defined.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

factoring privacy laws, free speech laws, anti dscrimination laws, as well as the international treaties, and the respective difference between countries regarding those laws. try 26 paragraphs.

a blanket we can do anything, while only doing what is minimum required by law, is the best cover.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Dirty Dane

Existence of laws in general is not the same as existence of a specific law. It can't be illegal if there are no law against it. Don't you understand that?

Again, there are no law "against" a contract. There are only laws that tell what you can't write and how you can/can't create a contract.


With that argument, I could sue pornhub for discrimination, if they block or remove a porn movie I uploaded to their server? You better ask Nathan about that.

Infringements and other TOS violations are two different things covered by different laws. Learn it!

Dirty Dane

That is the most stupid thing I ever read. In other words, you are saying that Youtube will lose it's safe harbor if they "wrongfully" remove child pornography that is "copyrighted"???

gideongallery

existance is a binomial condition something exist or it doesn't exist. what you are taking about is weather it apply or not.

something could exist but not apply, which is the condition your trying to misrepresent as "existance of a specific law"

that called a bound contraint, go beyond that bound contraint and you most certainly are doing something that is "against" the law.

exactly what i am saying the safe harbor granted against COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT does not apply to other laws like DISCRIMINATION.

if they allowed a video when a white boy uploaded it but blocked the same video/similar video when i did it, hell yes i could sue for discrimination. And it would be up to them to prove that they didn't do it because i was a hahahahahaha.

If they failed or their reason was legally justified (ala eharmony case i previously referenced) they would lose.


the safe harbor provision is an immunity for PUBLISHING CONTENT not takeing it down

the takedown notice shift the liablity for a wrongful COPYRIGHT TAKEDOWN to the copyright holder making the takedown request but again only for COPYRIGHT TAKEDOWN

you can't make a DMCA takedown request for kiddie porn, you make a complaint about kiddie porn under kiddie porn laws.


That has nothing to do/does not exist for any OTHER type of take down.


what however they gain by the kiddie porn laws is protection from being sued for discrimination for removing the content, because discrimination laws do not give you the right to force someone to do something illegal, which publishing kiddie porn would be.

your still trying to argue that because the law doesn't prevent something it ALLOWS something.

that is A>B therefore A must be < B (that not true in math, it not true in logic, and it most certainly not true in the law).

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

exactly and the safe harbor immunity only applys to the transactions covered by the DMCA period.

Any other (TOS violations) has no such immunity.

That the point, use the TOS to take content down, and you are liable for any of the consequences of that takedown

unless another law grants you immunity you have no immunity for your action

That the point i have always been making

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Nathan

Yes we qualify for safe harbor and we make sure we keep doing so.

And your other remarks are simply not true. The point of DMCA is to protect services that do not interfere with user content because it would break the logic of the site. It is not to protect a site which takes user content and then picks the pieces of it that it likes! Claiming otherwise just means you are understanding dmca differently than major copyright lawfirms in the US. If you think you are right and they are wrong, so be it.

__________________
"Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right."
- Charlie Munger

DWB

Install Ffvb plug-in and you'll never have to see his posts again. I had to put him on ignore today and it removed EVERY post he has ever made here. Added a whole bunch of clowns.

It's like cleaning off shit on the bottom of your shoes.

The Porn Nerd

Hey Nathan, here's something that's actually relevant to the real world:

Can you PLEASE make sure MY PeabodyCash videos stay on the fucking frontpage of Pornhub for more than four hours? We get MAD SALES from Fellucia Blow on there but her vid only stays on the frontpage for a few hours. Why would you 'take it down' when it's like a fucking cash register? Leave it up a whole day at least, not just a few hours!!

Thank you.

__________________
My Affiliate Programs:
Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

Over 90 paysites to promote!
Skype: peabodymedia

gideongallery

should be

that is A!>B therefore A must be < B (that not true in math, it not true in logic, and it most certainly not true in the law).

sorry "!" not operation stuck on my keyboard for some reason, i think because the 1 key is glitchy, so when i hit shift 1 nothing happened.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Nautilus

That's exactly what you're doing - you hand pick the pieces you like for your main listing.

Today your editors liked our stolen vid and listed it. I checked that user - he has about 100 more of the uploaded vids, while only 2 or 3 were presumably listed so far (I think so because they have bigger view count) and most of the rest have like 40-50 views.

So you obviously have an editorial policy, and thus do not qualify for safe harbor using your own logic. Which is probably true because youtube who enjoy their safe harbor which was upheld several times in courts doesnt have any giant "best of your stolen vids" listing PH style right at the main page. They auto-recommend you several vids at the main page and that's it - no 5000 pagers there full of stolen shows from Viacom, TW, WB etc, handpicked by their editors for their "quality".

And I'm more than impressed with this video that guy uploaded to PH:

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=2135237195
Waking Up With Anna
0%
30:34 4 views 40 years ago

__________________
.
.

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

Nautilus

Because they only care about page views to sell to their scamming "advertisers". They dont give a fuck if it's Fellucia or midget tranny orgy or a dog running a scateboard. All of your signups are peanuts compared to what they charge their criminal "media buyers" for ad views.

__________________
.
.

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

The Porn Nerd

Excellent point. But you'd think they'd leave "popular" videos (with very high page views) ON the frontpage for longer than, say, a midget tranny video with 1/4 of the views. But then again, maybe they've determined that by swapping out vids at such a high rate of speed (usually less than 8 hours, on average) helps with their views, thereby helping with what you pointed out.

__________________
My Affiliate Programs:
Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

Over 90 paysites to promote!
Skype: peabodymedia

Go4it

Hey nathan ive got a question about user uploads. How do you know that the persons in the video are 18+ ? Im talking about the amateur videos. You cant really control that right?
isnt it dangerous and what is the legal point of this?
thanks so far ;)