how could that be realized? our content is not allowed to be given away for free on tube sites. but what if someone takes it from any of my clients and uploads it somewhere. how do i control that? impossible :2 cents:

gideongallery you are an idiot. I'm sorry. I don't throw those kind of words around that easily. But to tell me that my company doesn't have the "right" to be the only one to monetize the content that I personally shoot of my own wife (and she is part owner of said company) is about the craziest most bizarre, upside down world bunch of bullshit that I've ever heard. Not only will that stupid line of thinking lead you to a very bad end down the line, but it's also just plain incorrect. You are trying to manipulate law in your mind to suit your concepts of freeloading off of others. Good luck with that. Now, I'd like to tell you the same thing I tell a bum on the street. Go get a job. You don't belong here.

:2 cents:

Its not about making a perfect system - its about making an effective system compared to the current non-existing system.

You have all the documents, know all the buyers, and you have the biggest interest in protecting your content. If you do not have the resources to policing the net, send DMCAs, take people to court or break their legs, then you would outsource, and since you probably are not alone, then others could join you in an organization.

Me, as an buyer, would select you over the other content providers, if you could lay out a plan on how you will keep your content from being stolen by every tube site known to man. If you and all of the other content providers can not do this, then there would not be much reason for me to buy, when other can grab it for free...

Compare it to Nike - they have to fight pirated goods, so their sales and brand do not erode.

i suggest you hire a good lawyer to explain it to you
ask them what the significants of a "subject to" clause is.
ask him if your copyright allows you to take away the rights granted under section 107 or if the "subject to" clause creates a situation where your exclusive rights are superceded.

copyright has never been an absolute monopoly, if was intented to be an absolute monopoly the subject to clause would not exist in the law.

Sorry for skimming a little bit, but the subject of "how would tube sites be held responsible for removing said content" came up. I think first of all, they have to *want* to, and second of all they have to be willing to hold their uploaders to a higher standard.

Such as require uploaders to digitally sign a simple binding statement (how 'bout a checkbox) that states that they own the rights to distribute the material, and upon request they can forward a content license or similar proofs. What is hard about this? At the very least they cover their legal ass in case the "you-tube" defense falls apart.

Any situation where someone says "tell me about it and I'll remove it" is what I call the "you-tube" defense BTW.

Then the site has to be willing to follow through in *every* case of complaint of a breach.. if you bind the work to the uploader, at least you've got someone to query. Do it via email confirm link after every upload. Now you have an IP, and an email address.

I would think this type of system would rise to the level of "good faith effort" which should be a bare minimal standard.

the key point is why would they want to, the law does not require them too, it would cost them money to implement such a system so why not just obey the laws as they are written.

As your self the question do you go above and beyond the law with your paysites. do you track down every use who buys a membership to make sure little tommy has not stolen his fathers credit card to view porn. of course not your not required to so you choose not to incur the expense. Unless there is some significant benefit to incuring the extra expense tube owners are no more go beyond their legal requirements then you would with your paysites.

But gideon, members have to leave all of their information including billing. You have a recourse *IF* you ever needed it for legal purpose or what not. My suggestion right now, today, would be to get it in place to collect. It's not hard after all to save a few literal bits of data should a situation arise. After all, google is being sued on multiple fronts over very similar things. Such as the google earth case where a couples private property was placed online even though their very driveway was marked private property do not enter and so forth.
Google is using the youtube defense by saying "hey, all anyone has to do is tell us they want their house removed and we'll remove it". But that doesnt even touch the problems being complained about, which is means of gathering the data in the first place (if it was legal or not), and if they used reasonable standards to determine it.

If you've got a member downloading full scenes and uploading them to a tube site, and the tube site doesnt even KNOW that it's 1 guy who sent 40 hi def, full length scenes, then they're really doing nothing by saying "I didnt know". They may feel confident that that's enough, and it may be for now, but I think in terms of whats more likely versus less likely.. it's more likely that some small minimal standard of accountability will be enforced if not adopted voluntarily.

IP, email address, username.. not hard to collect for a what-if scenario IMHO.

You are comparing apples and oranges again my freeloading friend. As a paysite we have no way to do anything with a credit card. That's all kept from us (as it should be) for the security of the member.

Last thing anybody wants is a bunch of us running around with credit card info. LOL

I have to tell you, you certainly proved me right when I said earlier that you have an agenda. You are no different in my eyes than those people who loot businesses everytime a natural disaster happens.

Keep telling yourself all these loopholes and unintended consequences that have arisen from legislation being behind technology gives you some kind of "right" to steal my copywritten, trademarked, and intellectual properties.

As I said before...it's nothing more than a short term money grab.

And just like all the other scams and loopholes and b.s. that I've seen over the years, this one will come and go as well.

At that point, what are you going to do? My guess is you will be on here defending the next batch of crooked bullshit.

As a human being I'm sure that is not the perception you want to give of yourself, but since the ONLY thing you ever do on GFY is defend theft and try to redefine it in your own terms and citing a section of the law over and over and over to defend what you already know in your heart and mind is WRONG...then the people who are in the adult business have to take your measure by what you show us.

And what you show isn't very pretty.

Let us all know when you actually produce something yourself and/or do anything that is of any value to any of us. I'm always looking for ways to do business with people. Just keep us all informed when and if you ever have that capability.

the biggest enemy to adult tube sites is 2257, i'm suprised more people arent welcoming it as a solution.

I think if they were all USA based yes but the bulk if not all are overseas I think.

it is not unintential it was put there by design by the lawmakers, go and read the congressional transcripts from the debates about the law, go read the senate transcripts. Copyright was never intented to be an absolute monopoly, it was designed to be a conditional monopoly that would allow you to recover the cost of production and turn a resonable profit for your efforts.

the mpaa and the ria have done a really effective job of misrepresenting fair use as a loop hole, a trick or abuse of the law, the bottom line it is not

It was explictly define in the law, the transcripts from the debate when the law was being passed proved that it was put there on purpose specifically because the lawmakers realized they were creating a monopoly with the exclusive rights. Monopolies are bad, and need to be stopped, fair use is the balance to prevent that bad things that come with a monopoly (19.95 back up copies of windows, having to buy the same song for each device, etc).

It has never been a loophole, in fact fair use was defined in a section BEFORE the exclusive right granted section, those exclusive rights were bounded by the fair use EXPLICTLY.
i don't defend theft (copyright infringement is not theft it is a fraud)
i don't defend the fraud either (see my your are guilty no if, no buts comment)
i defend the fair use right granted by the law, most of the examples come after you have purchased the necessary right to view (tv shows and my cable bill)
secondary delivery of that content has always, and was intended to be legal.

Piracy occurs because you refuse to fullfill that fair use responsibility, you have the membership list of people, know who has bought the right to view from you, you could perfectly provide backup/recover access to the content. You don't so the next best solution ... torrents allows people who fraudlently claim they have a right to view to gain access to your content.

removeyourcontent.com provides direct competition to my service (mine is for software not video) you refuse to take up such a services, focusing instead of solutions designed to prevent fair use rights explictly granted. you attack people who work out their own solution to the problem (this thread)

This thread made my day....because of your response. Love it....

OOOohhh this is getting interesting! :thumbsup

Goddamn giddeongallery, you are annoying. I ALREADY hired removeyourcontent.com AND I am streaming my members area with encrypted h.264 And NO, my intellectual, copywritten, and trademarked content was, is, and NEVER will be intended you scumbags to make money with.

I don't whine about anything. I take action.

YOU are the one who enters every thread and starts WHINING about ONE small section of law that was passed by a group of lawmakers who were NOT technically savvy.

That will be rectified. And again...let us all know WHY you are on GFY. All I see you doing is defending thieves. Oh excuse me...frauds. Why don't you stop trying to insult everyone's intelligence with your parsing of words.

In my view...birds of a feather flock together. You sure are doing a lot of "flocking" with some thieves.

Stop sigwhoring and actually contribute something to this business and stop defending theft and perhaps someone may take you seriously.

And when the laws change and you are sitting in a corner sobbing over "fair rights" I'm gonna be a real dick about it and look at you and snarl: "Adapt or die"
LOL!

Most are US based. Not all are hosted in the US though.

we know that before :(

Robbie good stuff man. Keep fighting, the thieves havent won yet.

Robbie For President!
 

Robbie, your input is treasured -- please keep actively posting on the boards. We need your comments!

Thanks,

Dave

stop promoting them then

I'm just totally insulted by the sheer arrogance of gideongallery. I can only imagine that this is his "alter ego" behind a keyboard who goes into every thread about content theft and begins defending it.

There is no way that a person could be that arrogant and full of themselves to walk up to anyone of us in REAL life and tell you to your face that he has "fair rights" to take your copywritten, trademarked, intellectual property and monetize it against your wishes.

How does a person get that egotistical and arrogant? I couldn't imagine ever saying that to anybody. I would expect to be bitch slapped on the spot. Yet, here he is defending something that is taking money from our families mouths.

I don't think he truly appreciates the passion and seriousness of people who work hard and try to make something. HE may not see it as stealing...does any thief? But I'll damn well bet you that everyone of us who creates content sees it for exactly what it is: Stealing.

And no amount of spin by gideongallery is gonna change that. I swear to God someday I'm gonna really lose it over this shit.

behind ya Robbie
Keep fighting!

I'm not really fighting with anybody...this shit will be resolved one way or another. It just pisses me off to see a person come on here and act so goddamn smug about stealing from people. "Hi, I'm going to take everybodies stuff and I have every right to because the law says it's ok to steal"

I just don't think that gideongallery thought about that before he said the things he said. His tone is always anti-adult webmaster and pro thief.

I don't want to fight over shit, but when I see him always come into every thread with that same "fair use" line it really pisses me off. And I know I'm not the only one. And when he tells me he has the rights to make money off of me and not have to worry about any costs or 2257 laws...that infuriates me.

Maybe he will read this and show some more sensitivity towards this issue when discussing it with people whose very livelihoods are at stake. Some tact on his part would be much appreciated.

You and I both know that the current law is extremely outdated. No one could have foresaw what the web has become today.

And I think the bigger issue with some of the tube sites is not so much the people that upload copyrighted materials, but instead the owners of the tube sites themselves uploading the copyrighted material and pretending it was someone else. I'd love for someone to sue one of these companies and see what they come up with through discovery.

all they need is 1 part inside usa, hosting/registrar/etc to get ya.

go to pornhub and check out the userprofiles. God damn some of those look REAL REAL REAL young. Yikes somebody needs to pay more attention

I've always thought that Pornhub was probably doing more damage to Brazzer's sales than anyone.

He should shut it down or at least reduce the video lengths.

gideongallery, you will be in jail or in court soon, and then you can explain your truly dumbass ideas about copyright law to the judge. Should be hilarious.

funny
tech savvy had nothing to do with it the original copyright act was written before vcrs
new technology simply brings competitions into fair use areas that you had a defacto monopoly even though you really were not entitled to a monopoly (see vcr and timeshifting)

the law is technology independent it must be balanced before technology considerations, otherwise it would hinder the GROWTH OF technology (ie stop the VCR)

my business is not really hurt by "piracy" i own a shit load of pornstar domain names, if people see that girls video tube site and they like her look they will type in her name with the .com extension. Best case i send them to her official site, which has the added value of live interaction with the girl, worst case i just rotated it around to a video site who feature that girl, and has a strong enough value proposition to get the signup.

brazzer recognizes the fair use rights, and the law as it is currently written legitimizes the tubes no matter how much you hate them.

Just because they choose to montize the 100% legal distribution channel doesn't give you the right to attack them.

it might happen, the mpaa has done a lot to misrepresent fair use as a loophole that needs to be closed.
However i very much doubt it especially when independent research reports prove that

and
fair use finally has some lobby groups on it side getting laws into the committee review process that are designed to fix problems with newer copyright laws like the DMCA

Fair use is not putting it up on a tube site. So what is your point?

Last night I went to meet Robbie and his very lovely wife Claudia. What really nice, genuine people.

ok one more time (for example)

1. if i were to make a parody song "tube's killed the pornstar" (sung to the tune of "video killed the radio star") layered on one of your porn scenes i would fully within my right to release it anyway, anywhere i wanted (see the fair use right of parody, and comentary)

2. to prevent a copyright holder from useing take down request to censor this perfectly legal (along with other fair use) distribution of your content law makers balanced the takedown request with safe harbor provision.

3. That safe harbor provision is what makes the tube sites legal.

1+2 =3

The entire safe harbor provision is being abused... Once some people start to take these sites to court and the law can answer, I'm sure there will be some changes.. For example..

It can be argued that these sites do not qualify at all for the following reasons.

(c) The Internet user, not the service provider, must select the origination and destination points of the communication [512(a)(3) and 512(k)(1)(A)]; I suspect that tube sites simply have the videos being "uploaded".. there's no recipient being selected. Unlike a file sharing site where you have to know where the content is in order to access it (as the uploader has to share the link with you), tube sites also promote that uploaded video such that other people besides the intended "recipient" are gaining access to the material. Thus, they're not adhereing to the following.

No copy of the communication is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients [512(a)(4)]; Again... Who is the recipient? Why are others besides the intended recipient being able to view it?

(g) No copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, and provision of connections [512(a)(4)]. Again, who is the recipient? If you don't know that, then you can't determine the period required to transmit to them. Regardless, it's clear that there is a time limit to how long the SP can store the material.

Is the user uploading a WMV and the tube site converting it to Flash? Then they no longer quality for the Safe harbour provisions.. (e) The service provider must not modify the communication selected by the Internet user [512(a)(5)];

This can also be argued the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. This would imply that anyone could notify them of specific infringing material and if they didn't investigate and remove it, they could be held liable.

Depending on how the videos are presented, using SERP results etc. this can also be argued The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)]

And of course this is a big one (a) The service provider is an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications [512(k)(1)(A)]; How is it that tube sites are actaully routing and providing communications?

If you're hitting a tube site with take down notices, you need to keep track of who the "user" was that was uploading.. If you can show that those users are constantly uploading infinging material, then the tube site can also be found liable since they're are supposed to The safe harbor provisions require the service provider to include in its copyright infringement policies a termination policy that results in individuals who repeatedly infringe copyrighted material being removed from the service provider networks. [512(i)(1)(A)] This termination policy must be made public in the terms of use that the service provider includes in its contracts or on its web site.

Bottom line, this was never written so that tube sites, file storage sites etc. can do what they do. It will take court cases and legislation in order to fix it. I see plenty of ways these sites could be taken to court but no one is doing it.

By the way.. Nice way to deflect attention away from what this thread was supposed to be about.

ok your interpretation may make you feel good but it doesn't make sense in the context of the law, if you must EXPLICTLY define the intented recipent then web host would be liable for the actions of their hosting clients, because when i put up a domain it goes to anyone who enter the url.

this clause is intended to stop a service provider taking copyright material, putting it up on their own site, and saying we are immune because person a did it too.
While they would be immue for person A actions their own would be for their own

To comply with this a service provider would simply have in their publish functionality (upload) TOS that the content is available to everyone. therefore the anticipated recipients would be everyone comming to the site. Your choice as an uploader would be to share with everyone or don't share using that site.

but in the case where the TOS requires you to share with everyone, that time period would be infinite.

there is a different between the medium (format) and the message (communication). IF your interpretation was correct, buffering, reverse proxy, bandwidth optimization (showing lower grade images /video/ to slower connections) would all be illegal.

hense the take down procedures defined by the DMCA
but that not the case since we are talking about tube sites that comply with the take down request, so they retain the protection of the Safe Harbor provisions.

again case law goes against you there, hosting providers charge monthly fees for hosting packages the more copyrighted material hosted the more money the make. The attributable is for direct financial gain from the infringing material, tube sites generate indirect financial gain thru advertising.


Did you notice the word transmission, you were the one quoting it back, tubes are transmitting the material, there is an or between those words, which means they don't have to provide routing or provide of connets for digital online communication to be protected.

hence my suggestion to use removemycontent rather than bitching and whinning
or calling a boycott of a company which is choosing to play within the law.


never said it lets them to get away with anything they want, just pointing out that the tube sites are complying with the laws and are entitled to the safe harbor provision. If you can prove that they are uploading the videos themselves or any of the other claims made by webmaster here you can sue them. But until you can produce such proof, what they are doing is legal.


Brazzer is making a business decision on how to deal with tube problem, they are complying with the law, it is there right to do so, and if your ratios are going down because if it that is your problem. Calling them theives (which they are not) just because you don't like their choice is just fucked up.

GFY is the only place I know where 2 + 2 = 5.

To obtain the safe harbor the OSP must:
1. not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing (512(c)(1)(A)(1)).

2. have a Designated Agent registered with the US Copyright Office to receive notifications of claimed infringement (often called takedown notices).

1. I made a test and uploaded my clips to couple of tube sites. On some of these tube sites my clips appeared instantly; on others not. That means their employee have to accept uploaded movie before it appear. They fucking know that they host stolen videos because they didn`t pay for them

2. redtube.com, pornhub.com, youporn.com don`t have a Designated Agent.

1+2=they`ll not obtain safe harbor

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi

I was just reading through this. It looks like the government tries to make it as difficult as possible to keep someone from infringing on copyrights.

gideongallery - you're a moron.. You're taking examples that aren't even similar in order to make your argument.. You're also creating "loop holes" out of thin air in order to make your argument.

Even IF the TOS says it's to go to "everyone", in that case the SP has selected the recipient which means they no longer adhere to the Safe Harbour provisions. Once you've established this, then everything else doesn't matter since they fail pretty much every other provision.. i.e. if they then use that material to generate search engine traffic which they benifit from financially.

The rest of your twisted arguments are all just the typical criminal way of spinning things to make themselves appear "legal" when they clearly are not. It's clear you side with the criminals with your arguments.

You are a complete fucking IDIOT!!

Fair use does NOT protect nor apply to those infringing for PROFITABLE GAIN OR COMMERICAL INTERESTS.

Fair use does not apply nor protect the infringer when the infringment devalues or directly competes against the orginal work.

If PAYSITEA.COM has an exclusive video in their members area and some fucking thief puts it on a tubesite it is 100% absolutely without a doubt copyright infringement and the tubesite as well as the user whom uploaded it as well as those whom downloaded or viewed it are liable for prosecution.

Tubesites do not exist for parody or commentary, their ulterior motive is COMMERCIAL GAIN. Fair use also does not apply nor protect an infringer in any manner whatsover when a copyright protected work is used in its entirety.

There are a number of reasons why commercial content theft isn't protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act with good reason I might add.

I believe Napster tried that and got burned four or five different ways because they didn't meet requirements.

it amazing how many times you make this arguement even though i have proven it does not apply. The key is are they making money directly from infringing or not.
I pointed you to the VCR case where plantiff made this arguement against sony because they were selling the VCR's for 1k each. THAT DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT "TIMESHIFTING" was established as a fair use.

I have pointed you to the independent government report that proves that fair use is a 6 billion dollar economy (Commercial interests) yet you keep ignoring it to make your point.

By now you should realize the difference between directly profiting (making a copy of a video cassette and selling it) and in indirectly profiting (selling a vcr which allows you to potentially make a video cassette and selling it). tube sites are clearly making the profit indirectly (from advertising) unless you can prove they are uploading the content themselves (which i have clearly said you should go after them if you have such proof)

there are other fair use rights, but when i mention them (back up /recover/ timeshifting) but every time i mention them you guys keep trying to argue they don't exist because they were not spelled out in the original act. at current count you guys have said timeshifting is not fair use (29 times) even though i have provided you direct link to the court ruling that explictly says it was.

I choose parody and comentary, as the fair use in my arguement because they are EXPLICTLY defined in the original act, which means i can avoid having the arguement 30th time.

While it was not the primary fair use right, parody and comentary do apply and to protect that free expression the safe harbor provision must stand, even if it is being abused to make a profit.

What if someone frames an entire tube site and flips the affiliate links to their own.

fair use?

No problem with this!

can the video appear on the site if the user does not choose to accept the terms NO
the user is given two choices send it to everyone (claiming the right they are allowed to do so) or use someone elses services.

your arguement comes down to you are only allowed safe harbor provision you must provide absolute 1:1 distribution and that would make every host, every proxy liable ILLEGAL.

Tube sites increase the liablity for the uploader to decrease the liability for themselves.

However the users are not making any money off their uploads (so fair use CAN apply to there actions) .

all the financial benefits are indirect, which the courts have already ruled multiple times does not automatically make contributory infringement/ does not invalid the fair use of the customer.

you can make money by providing fair use services and devices (vcr, diamond rio, back up services , etc) and not be guilty of contributory copyright infringment, even if those devices could be use for copyright infringment.

I for one have to honestly admit that I've completely lost the point you were trying to make in your original argument. Am I right in assuming that you believe the whole tube system to be a legal example of fair use? If so, how come YouTube keep taking videos down after a C&D or DMCA notice has been sent through?

I await your bloated reply in much (see Federal Act 16, Chapter 2, Section 2, Paragraph 3, Sub-paragraph 4 for this word).

As I said before, you're simply making arguments in order to make something illegal appear legal.

Bottom line is this.. The INTENT of the safe harbour provisions were to protect hosting companies, ISPs, data centers etc. from being liable from the illegal actions of their customers. Tube sites, file upload sites etc. have taken the poor wording of something that wasn't intended for them in order to do something illegal. You can spin it all you like, but it's not going to change the fact that these sites are takign advantage of a loophole..

nope the safe harbor provision of the DMCA was put in place to protect fair use by the CUSTOMERS of a tube site.
because the provision is only designed to allow the customer to object and fight for their fair use right if such fair use rights exist. if they did not comply with DMCA notcies then they WOULD be infringing on the copyright.

There are countless examples of people who don't defend their fair use rights to copyrighted materials, because they don't want to have to spend thousands defending such a fair use right. So the take DMCA take down request have already done, what the safe harbor provision was intended to stop.

for example i clip the portion of the fight where nate quarry did the running man after starr, the clip was less than 50 seconds and it matched the clip used by sport show on tsn. I purged all commentary, from the reply list that pointed people to the entire video (which would have been copyright infringment) letting it just be a discussed topic.
I was hit with a take down request even though, commentary was explicitly defined as fair use under the act. But my lawyer said it would cost at least a grand to defend that right. Since i was doing it to test the effectiveness of image quality to getting viewer rankings i didn't bother, but the DMCA censored free expression.

Those copyright holder who continue to whin and complain because they don't want to simply outsource the monitoring of the sites and sending the request are basically cry babies.

The DMCA take down request already censors legitimate fair use expression, it doesn't need to be strenghtened in anyway. IF anything there should be a pentalty for wrongfully issuing a takedown request on non infringing content (fair use or licienced).

So to wrap it up, which tube sites does gideongallery own?

I just noticed this thread and am amazed that some idiot actually thinks that some people re-posting other people's videos for monetary gain somehow falls under fair use.

Would you agree that the example of John Doe ripping a video from PaysiteA and uploading that to TubesiteA, TubesiteB and so on constitutes copyright theft?