So why is it that Brazzers steals from everyone and gets away with it and nobody steals from Brazzers??

AHhh its a Boxxy nation :upsidedow

Ya, id dedicate myself to doing the same they are doing to everyone else and just hide everything from servers,content,offices, out of the country like they do..Bank accounts etc.

:2 cents:

Always late for the good stuff...

and i am just pointing out the legitimacy of the use of the content without permission from creator/owner.

Which is the exact counter point to the bogus arguement made by mutt.

all the photos are from public access. You guys don't know how the internet works.

no great surprise

Gideon, your points are bogus as usual. I defy you to point out a single instance of legitimate fair use of any piece of adult media. I don't mean a hypothetical case, I am talking about a real instance you can point to online somewhere. It simply doesn't happen. Anyone and everyone using adult photo or video content without permission from the owner is simply avoiding to pay for it and/or helping others to do so for entertainment, status or profit. I can understand the many legitimate cases of fair usage in the mainstream for parody or news reporting or creative derivative works comprised of prior works and other cases. But those are never the case in the adult world.

so let me get this straight you expect to walk into a court of law and say
your honor i know you guys have already ruled that content producers don't have a right to licience away "timeshifting" by claiming that they only licience it on "a specific day at a specific time" but you should let us do it because we produce porn.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

it amazing how you keep pointing to mainstream victories by the riaa and talking about precedent they set and don't see how all those case set precedents against you also.

if you want an example of such an extention in porn
mrskin.com

btw that is an amazing far reaching one because not only does he cover his actions by commentary but he actually charges for accessing the "unauthorized use" or more accurately fair use authorized use.

is this thread from today?
stealing images for paysites is so 1996

the devolution continues...

Unless they fucking somehow think that they somehow TOOK THE GODDAMN PICTURES THEMSELVES then there's no way they can think that they have the right to sell them.
Oh, whatever "just put in a DMCA with them" is such a fucking piece of shit cop out.
:2 cents:

Mr. Skin isn't a porn site nor has porn content. The whole first part of your argument made no sense at all. I was asking about fair use in adult and you haven't come up with an example yet. Your agenda is like one of those religious nuts that starts with a weird conclusion like the earth is 4,000 years old and then works backwards to find "facts" or some twisted logic to reinforce their silly pre-determined conclusion. What's your interest in all of this anyway? Do you just want to see everything given away for free? Like I said before, there isn't a single case of fair use going on in the adult world. It's just a bunch of cheapskates and scofflaws who are taking advantage.

Nobody has an answer?

welcome to the interwebs.... where us grown ups actually buy/own the content we display on our comercial porn sites. We also have 2257 docs on nude content.... gasp!

true user submitted content is a different story, such as if you owned a dating site and the REAL user submitted an image of themselves. But to search the internet to steal content is fucking retarded for any company to do muchless one making lots of money.

There is such a thing as buying "amateur" looking content. Not all bought content is porn movie looking.

:Oh crap:Oh crap Most of those girls look like 25-30 though..

gideongallery obviously has no understanding whatsoever of copyright law and the limits of fair use. No point in arguing with him, Jim_Gunn, it is a waste of your valuable breath.

i agree that it looks like they stayed away from the real young looking girls and went with college coed types but i will guarantee you that at least a few of those girls are under 18, they have no way of knowing any of these girls real ages. I can show you lots of girls on OMP and ModelMayhem who are 16 and look the same as many of the girls on this tour.

They will do what they want until someone stops buying it which is never.

And even if they were under 18, there still have to be something explicite, to consider it illegal. In context it is wrong, but not illegal.

I'm loving what Brazzers is doing. Rape sites, questionable-age girls, copyright infringement and all the while making millions.

That's exactly the kind of thing that governments love to prosecute. Brazzers should sign Max Hardcore and Rob Black to directing gigs when they get outta the joint.

Hey "Man" and "Sef", do they have foosball tables in Canadian prisons?

I'm loving what Brazzers is doing. Rape sites, questionable-age girls, copyright infringement and all the while making millions.

That's exactly the kind of thing that governments love to prosecute. Brazzers should sign Max Hardcore and Rob Black to directing gigs when they get outta the joint.

Hey "Man" and "Sef", do they have foosball tables in Canadian prisons?

every single time a porn tube wins a case based on the safe harbor provision that is an example of fair use going on.

safe harbor is and will always be designed to protect fair use.



case after case shows that fair use has a right to exist for porn
your arguement is the one that makes no sense, if the government could claim that laws don't have to exist equally don't you think they would put an exemption in free speach to criminalize porn.

nothing in the fair use statute in the copyright act says anything about not applying to porn.

There is no restriction that says porn is entitled to special right.

read the copyright act again, only a moron would claim that porn doesn't have to respect establish fair use rulings.

if anything that moronic arguement would be laughed out of court BECAUSE you produce porn.

oh and mrskin example is exactly on point with this issue.
Mutt is complaining that brazzers took a single image from a video and presents it in their advertising material without the permission of the creator


mr skin not only takes a clip of the nudity and SELLS access to it without the permission of the creator. He puts those images in banners as well.

your insanely stupid arguement is that mr skin is not porn so his actions are ok, but brazzers actions are porn so the fair use protection doesn't apply anymore.

Another Juggcash Promo, $100 PPS BIG TIT FRIDAY! (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... Last Page)
santana 627 2,565


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Heads would roll ok. profitable companies have a lot to lose. So while the thought of taking a sledgehammer to someone may seem intensely satisfying it does not solve anything. As for

"no real tough guys in adult, just an endless supply of self-destructive idiots!"

You're not serious are you? Just what is a tough guy supposed to do? I can't help anyone make money behind bars and illegal tube site owners are PROTECTED under the DCMA as retarded as that is


spaz

I've done work for Brazzers in the past. Does that make me bad? :pimp

That's not exactlly the point now is it? They are stealing content on their tubes sites, now they steal content for a ex GF site. I still don't understand how other affiliate programs can't sue the living fuck out of them for unfair business practices.

One should be able to argue that Brazzers is trying to hurt their competition's websites by stealing their competitors content in a attempt to dilute it's value by giving it away for free on the illegal tubes they run.

three words
safe harbor provision.

Those tube sites didn't start empty.. that means the owners uploaded videos to get them started.. Even "IF" by any chance that it's 100% user uploaded today. However we all know it's not 100% user uploads but of course arguing with you about theft is like talking to a brick wall. With the exception that the brick wall would be more interesting.

why is it ok for a company to profit of someone else work, until they are sent a notice.

Very good point!

I have never understood that. You can legally run tubes all day long as long as you abide by every DMCA notice.

now you can legally run paysites all day long as well apparently if you abide by every dmca notice

because to reverse the transaction make people automatically liable would act as a censorship of idea

parody commentaries, etc would be prevented.

people like robbie who have claimed that the only way to use their content in a parody would be to not use their content at all. and they would get away with it.

Copyright was never intendent to be an absolute monopoly it was ALWAY designed to be balanced against the public fair use right to use that content.

the monopoly was making money only, and most important when those two rights clashed the fair use right must prevail (that what a not withstanding clause means).

imagine what would happen if micheal moore were to get sued for copyright infringement for using clips of bush in his documentaries. That exactly the consequence of reversing the safe harbor and making it a requirement that you have to get permission before ever using other people content.

to prevent that abuse, you have to accept a minor inconvience of having to fill out some paper work.

freedom of speach is way more important
and considering that your entire industry is based on that principle you would think you would be willing to live with that inconvience.

1. cache is protected fair use, so even if they just scrapped another tube site it would still meet the condition of user uploaded video. The only problem they would have would be that they would have to drop the video since there would be no possibility of counter notice (since they couldn't contact the original uploader)

2. who says they didn't buy a collection of tube filler content to start. That would be legal. And buying traffic would add new users to upload new fresh stuff.

so right there and then you have two ways for a tube site to start that is not infringing.

guess what the court systems are based on a principle of innocent until proven guilty. you can't just assume that those legitimate ways don't exist to argue that they are guilty.

You actually have to prove that they broke the law to convict them.

Blame it on the DVD distribution business.
Nobody cares what happens to old DVDs. And even the newer ones don't sell anymore.

are you stupid or joking?

http://www.exgirlfriendfootage.com/tour/

Maria Ozawa is the top left pic...

Safe harbor provision has nothing to do with the protection of fair use - it was meant to protect ISPs from frivolous lawsuits, from getting sued for what their users are doing when things were beyond their control.

Fair use existed well before the internet and never needed a safe harbor to protect it - people made parodies and commentaries/critiques long before the first computer, let alone the internet, appeared.

I love where this "new internet" is heading. Just steal all the content you need, open a site, run it and profit until you get a DMCA, remove the content in question, steal something else to replace it with, rinse and repeat. You can't lose! :thumbsup

I'd hit it

So who is stealing from Brazzers?? Brazzers is stealing from everyone, but why isnt anyone giving them a taste of their own medicine??

They were the XBiz Affiliate Program of the Year in 2009
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

The critical difference isn't that one case involves porn and one case (Mr Skin) does not involve porn, although that is also the situation. The difference is that for Mr. Skin one can credibly argue that he actually creates something of value using the snippets of content he compiles from various sources, by adding context and commentary, writing and an opinion, and therefore that could be argued to be a fair use. In contrast some random porn site, or porn affiliate program taking liberty to someone else's images or videos and selling access to them or using them without permission to build a business around is clearly just case of someone monetizing the fruits of someone's else's labor to make money without investing in their own content and simultaneously to put the other company out of business. It's unfair and illegal. I don't have a problem with a legitamite fair use, like snippets used in a parody or a documentary or a site that adds significant commentary like a review site or the many other cases that have commonly been classified as a fair use. It just so happens that this kind of thing never or rarely happens with adult content. These tube sites and these gf sites using various stuff they collect isn't a legitimate fair use. If you care so much about fair use Gideon you should appreciate the difference.

whoops, somebody didn't review that ad

DirtyD, as long as a company pays enough money in ads or prepaid first page spots on certain "Free" sites they will always be Program of the Year and always get the most promotion from the one or two legit free sites left. You can't blame people for making money off of them, though in the long run it's self defeating.

I've promoted Jugg Cash since the day they opened the door. Their content is excellent. Of course as an affiliate it's impossible for me to make a sale for them now. But they could care less (and rightly so) because they've branded themselves so well and now have developed a bigger traffic network than all of the affiliates combined.

That was just smart business for them.

As for their tube stuff...they really don't need to have everybody else's full scenes up. But it looks like they want to go for the jugular and put the competition out of business so they are letting it rip (literally).

They can't touch my paysite sales...but they sure have destroyed all my affiliate work for hundreds of other companies. Including yours.

Very difficult to make a sale for anybody these days with all those full scenes for free.

take some time and look at the transcript of the floor when the DMCA was debated

the safe harbor provision was put in place specifically to prevent the take down notice (new power to copyright holder) from censoring fair use. It was specifically put in place to balance the new rights granted to copyright holders. Before that point a host could simple say go get a court order and then we will remove it and the judge would have to decide.

the take down allows you send a 1 page form to get rid of what you claim is a copyright infringement. The problem happens when what you claim is an infringement is really fair use.

please mr skins all those extras you keep talking about to justify his fair use right are given away for free on his tour, he tells you what movies the girls show their tities. He tells you wne the nude scene starts how long it goes on OUTSIDE the scope of the clip.

He is selling you content exploiting it to make a profit. Download the clips there is no preamble telling you any of the stuff you keep taking about it all given away for free on the tour. You could easily make the arguement that there is no need to clip the nude scene since a buyer of the dvd could simple use the info given to fast forward to the appropriate point to see the titties.


the fact that the commentary is shorter on a tube clip doesn't change that. BTW given the back and forth comments under each clip there is in fact MORE commentary about any particular video on a tube site. So that arguement is total BS.