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You and I both know that the current law is extremely outdated.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?

i have said repeatedly if you got proof that the site owner is posting it themselves then sue them because they are commiting a copyright infringement. But a user posting it is GENERATING ANY MOINETARY GAIN.

theft no because copyright infringement is not a theft
copyright infringement - maybe ?

what right did the paysite give that person (access shifting)
is the tube sites using swarmplayer technology
Does that country have a piracy tax (like canada/ sweden) ?
can you prove that you are losing sales due to the action ?
did the copyright holder register the copyright with the us copyright office?

....

I am amazed that I created a topic that lasted until page 4.

BTW, this post has to do with this thread...
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=840797

You keep parroting that over and over in this thread. Keep posting it. It won't make it true, but keep posting it. The fact is, copyright infringement may not be directly spot-on defined as theft, but it certainly is a tangent of theft at the very least. If someone is infringing your copyrighted material and profiting from it it absolutely IS a form of theft, oblique or otherwise is immaterial. Whether a court defines it that way or not is also immaterial. Any sensible-thinking person should be able to see it clearly.

Robbie is the one who is in the right in this thread, not you.

Sorry chum, you are fighting the wrong fight.

This is the internet porn biz, was it any different 10 years ago?

Thanks for the exposure..... :thumbsup

Copyright infringement = theft PERIOD. You don't know 10% as much about this issue as you think you do.

:1orglaugh You are wrong though. He is dumb.

He is a fool. Everyone on this board thinks hes a fool...like really everyone. Hes in every fucking thread acting like he knows how shit works and all he really does is show what an idiot he is. I know very full people who are so full of themselves and at the same time so fucking dumb.

It can be argued that copyright infringement does not exactly equate to theft if you take the word of the law to be exact ("A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" (Theft Act 1968, Section 1), however, later on the act goes on to state that "appropriation" occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property - which I'm willing to bet could be used against a tube site owner in a court of law.

I wasn't aware that the paysite had given the person any rights to the content - they've simply provisioned the "right" for a person to view their content for such a period of time that said person maintains a membership with that site, and I highly doubt any paysite is going to randomly give normal members any form of broadcast rights when such rights are frequently sold between various broadcasting companies.

Besides, if somebody was a member of the paysite (in order to have the "access shifting rights"), why would they want to view the content through a different gateway (the tube site) rather than the original paysite itself?

I'll hold my hand up and honestly say I've never heard of "swarmplayer" technology.

For the sake of argument, and because this board seems to be US dominated, no - both the tube site and the paysite are operated in and by American residents.

Nobody realistically can, because that works on the assumption that everyone who saw your content would have purchased it if they hadn't seen it - which is flawed, because otherwise advertisements would have a 100% success rate. However, both the MPAA and RIAA seem to somehow wangle this "proof" out of nowhere in court situations, so I'm sure there is some legal angle which negates the need for such proof.

My understanding of US law is shaky here, but I was under the assumption that it was along the same lines as English law, in that copyright is automatically assigned to the creator (under The Berne Convention, 1886) upon creation of the content; it does not need to be asserted or "registered" with any government entity.