100 ....

It sound like you are arguing that Mr. Skin isn't a fair use either, ha ha. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have never seen an adult tube site with any real commentary. It's just an excuse to steal content. How could that be fair or a fair use? Here in 2009 just about every industry that our civilization has built is in the process of collapsing for a plethora of reasons, intellectual property theft being just one of many. Once again you start with a conclusion and will say anything to support your ridiculous position no matter how preposterous.

Ive wondered how far you could get with actually doing commentary the same way those who slice mainstream sex scenes and do it.

Somehow I bet all of you would support removing the site though and while you claim mr skin is legit, youd still want the same thing done with your porn removed from internet. Are any of thos sites even hosted in the US? If not, why not? LOL

just a hunch though lol

http://www.tube8.com/teen/teen-fucked/9866/ (11 pages of comments)

nope just point out that you are fabricating a difference between a tube and mr skin to come to the bogus conclusion that "it just and excuse to steal content".

quite simple if "here is the titties in this movie" falls within the scope of commentary then

"this is my favorite bang bros scene " does too.


cry baby whining simple solution provide for all the fair use rights of your customers
the fact is simple it fair because the act says when fair use and your exclusive rights conflict fair use wins. Think it unreasonable cover the cost of providing those fair uses fully.


says the guy who twist my words to claim "you are arguing that Mr. Skin isn't a fair use either, ha ha"

if the rules you are making up were real then mr skin would be illegal
and all the fair use rights in mainstream (which you have acknowledge exist) would not exist.

that not proof that those rights don't exist in adult and fair use is "just an excuse to steal content." it proves that your rules are fabrications that have no basis in law.

the problem is your starting with the conclusion "it just and excuse to steal content" and then ignore things like 11 pages of comments, how little mr skin is actually doing to be protected by fair use of commenting etc to keep that conclusion valid.

From my experience of decent designers they will ask the client to put together the images the particular design needs. Also sponsors with any brains understands that most designers are not the best at choosing images for a particular design.

Also any affiliate who uses content from a tour needs to know the sponsor owns the content, or he's violating copyright law.

19 times out of 20 it's the client who chooses the image, so it could be someone at Brazzers grabbed them.

Also I have always been told that it's imperative to have any girl on the tour inside the site or you can get charge backs. Seems none of this matters to Brazzers.

When the Tubes first appeared a few big sites started immediately to support them in one way or another. People who look beyond next weeks paycheck would of realised that Tubes were going to hurt affiliates the worse. But no they kept sending the sites like AFF Brazzers traffic. Ir they had pulled the traffic away en mass these sites would of have to had to make a choice. Continue to support Tubes and only get the traffic coming from them in those days or drop Tubes and continue with affiliates. In the early days I doubt if the Tubes had the traffic they have now.

Affiliates shot themselves in the foot.

They don't now, they did when Tubes first appeared and probably for the next 6 months.

Do affiliates learn? No way they still send traffic to sites who are stabbing them in the back and trying to close down that side of the business.

And you don't understand copyright laws.

Because they have a team of lawyers protecting them from people they steal from. Who they would turn onto you for stealing their content. It's not a 2 way street.


Which displays the stupidity of this business. They back someone who is doing all they can to hurt their other advertisers. Great forward thinking. NOT!!

No it was not smart business and it did not need a lot of thought to realise what was going to happen, but you and Xbiz kept supporting them while they were stabbing you both in the back.

I suspect a lot of the content comes from DVDs. The lack of watermarks on the content makes me suspect it's not mainly Internet content.

exgirlfriendfootage.com - Coming Soon! :1orglaugh

I don't think they care at all. This industry is getting sad

No, to prevent censorship from copyright holders there is counter DMCA. Safe harbor is to prevent ISPs from getting involved in a lawsuite over things they have no direct control over and no direct benefit from.

it's closing time let it die https://youtube.com/watch?v=vVt6vhRAu3k

I've got a bodysuit that say's LEGOS on it

do you understand what you are saying.

How do you get to counter notification if the copyright holder gets sued immediately for a potential infringement.

you can't

before the DMCA the host was not involved in the lawsuit either. If you complained about copyright infringement they would say sorry we are not involved we only provide hosting get a court order and we will remove it.

You couldn't sue until you got proof thru a court order period. They need no protection to avoid being involved.

After the DMCA all you need to do to get the content down was to send a letter period. Refuse to honor that letter and you got the same liability as refusing to honor a court order in the past.

congress knew that if they didn't set a specific counter notification procedure and produce a period of immunity (equal to before the court order was obtained) this new automagic takedown procedure would cause censorship effect. The host is immune so long as they comply to give them BACK the immunity before court order status.

The immunity after counter notification is designed to give the legitimate fair use users the right to keep the doing business after a bogus complaint while they fight out right in court.

it a balancing act between the new rights and the abuse that new right can create. Take out any one piece and the law becomes abusive.

I'm not in favor of what they are doing with piracy at all. Matter of fact I directly connect that to a huge loss in my affiliate sales. It's difficult to make a sale to all the different paysites out there who don't protect their content and it's available for free everywhere.

But yes, what Brazzers did was indeed smart business for THEM. Not for you or me.

As far as any of us sitting back and saying things like you just did: "kept supporting them while they were stabbing you in the back"
Well think about it Mr. Markham. XBiz lives off of advertising. They are not going to tell their biggest advertiser that they will no longer accept their business.

And for that matter nobody in their right mind would.

IF Brazzers called Paul Markham today on the phone and said: "Paul we are ordering $100,000 worth of exclusive big tit content from you this month. And every month into the foreseeable future"

Well, if that happened...we wouldn't be seeing Paul Markham on GFY. He would be too busy making a living and "supporting" Brazzers

Again, I'm not condoning what they are doing. It's obvious that they are going straight for the jugular and are taking no prisoners. It's costing all of us a lot of money.

But to deny it's been profitable as hell for them is foolish. And to attack all the people making money with them is somewhat hypocritical. I've never "supported" Jugg Cash. Just like I've never "supported" anybody. Whenever I am paid for a service then that's what it is: a paid service. If anything, the people who are doing the paying are the one's doing the "supporting"

:2 cents:

They don't give a shit what people think and as long as the money keep comin'

i always hear the talk about how/what brazzers is "stealing" etc.. but to me it seems SO INSANE that everyone on here talks about it, and knows about it........

and what? wtf happens after that? wheres the breakdown? people just go own supporting them and promoting their programs?

this takes the credibility wayyyyy the fuck out of the claims that brazzers is stealing/ruining the industry.

as i understand it so far: brazzers swept the adult internet industry with pornhub-- using stolen content?

someone please just come straight out and say that so i can understand!

and let me tell everyone something from someone who's seen and taken part first hand- and used to profit from these situations in my wilder days: money may make a corporation invincible, but does NOT make the people invincible.

wow first intelligent thing you said.

now all we have to do is get you to understand that exploiting the technology can make you way more money then fighting it.

Exactly. What you do not understand is that immunity through conter notification and immunity through the safe harbor are the two different things - the first is for users, the second is for their ISPs. Users can't claim safe harbor defence, ISPs cannot argue fair use.

wrong the immunity after counter notification is for the host too. after the counter notice has been filed by the fair user of content the host goes back to having full immunity for hosting the content. The act of accepting the liablity if the fair user is ruled against eliminates the liablity for the host.

But the point is it an a to b to c condition.

If the host is liable from the very begining (eliminate the safe harbor provision) they can only protect themselves by not hosting potentially fair use stuff. They most over step in favor of the copyright holders.

Since fair use is supposed to take precedence in the case of a dispute between the two that would be reversing the fundamental bases of copyright act.

You need the safe harbor so the content will be online long enough so that counter notice can extend fair use to where it needs to be.

Without safe harbor parody would never have been extended by the eff to include just changing the subtitles.

Bogus arguements like robbie that the only way you could use his content to make a parody music video "internet killed the porno star" (protected fair use) was to not use his content at all. (dress up in a wig and pretend to be claudia marie).

the proof that it is fair (did not in and of it self cost a sale and therefore meets condition 4) would not exist without proven example of hosting happening.

or to put it very simply

if you remove the safe harbor provision from the act
the only way that the host can protect themselves from the liabilty would be to censor everything that could be fair use just to be safe.


no fair use content will ever get hosted.
which means there will be nothing to challenge status quo of fair use
which means no new fair use rights will every be established.

so they put their site down. smart bros, thumbs up :1orglaugh

Yes I agree that indirectly safe harbor protects fair use too. But the main and direct protection of fair use is still counter notification.

After you filed counter DMCA, you still need to prove in court that your use of copyrighted material is fair - which you will fail to do if you simply uploaded full length scene to a tube. That's why all of them call for safe harbor, not fair use defence.

Nice site. I'm going to promote it.

Thanks for sharing.

but the point i am making and you seem to understand now is that safe harbor provision stands between the infringement and the direct protection.

If the safe harbor doesn't exist the content will not be put up so that fair use arguement can be made when legitimate.

Under that circumstance where the choice is between a cart blanc denial of fair use
and extra work of filling out a 1 page form.

i think the one page form is the better of the two
especially considering that before the DMCA you had spend thousands in court cost to get a court order to get the content taken down.

the little bitches complaining about the safe harbor provision should ask themselves if they want to go back to get court orders to get the infringement to stop.

still want to know who natalie really is
and what program has her content

there are currently no pages that rank for the term natalie from exgirlfriendfootage.com

should be easy enough to hijack the disgruntalled surfers who signup looking for that girl and failing to find her because it was DMCA away.

Well yes safe harbor just gets the host out of the way, making it a dispute between the two - a copyright holder and a publisher.

It's an extra work of policing dozens of thousands of sites and filing hundreds of thousands of forms - which is absolutely not sustainable burden for most copyright holders.

Something needs to be changed there, and I think that DMCA should be amended to include the difference between the ISP and the Publisher - Publishers being those who operate sites and make content immediatly availble for surfers, while ISPs being those who provide services for other sites and do not operate them (hosts, billers etc).

Publishers should not be entitled for safe harbor protection anymore, they should be held responsible for making sure that all content they publish at their sites is either licensed or fair use, no matter if they publish it themselves or allow their users to do it. While ISPs should still be protected with the safe harbor.

With that added to DMCA, it'll bring the balance back into the system - fair use is still well protected, but no more loopholes to steal intellectual property under the guise of the safe harbor, if it is no longer provided to the Publishers.

except that definition would cause the exact type of censorship that i am complaining about. tube sites would be considered publishers. which means downfall parody would never have been allowed on the tube site in the first place

The eff could never fought for and established the extension to parody that they did.

All those videos would be censored.

if you wanted to something like that you would have to add some sort of serious penalty to prevent that.

Say if you sent a takedown notice for something that was fair use you must pay 3 times the damages asked for or 3 times the income lost which ever is greater(since extending the copyright monopoly to the fair use space would be sherman anti trust violating act). If you failed to pay the fee within 24 hours of ruling all your copyrights would be put into the public domain.

that would create an insentive for publisher like youtube to defend potential fair use.

That would be more balanced then the current DMCA because two companies with deep pockets would be fighting for fair use claims, instead of users getting stomped all over (43 downfall parodies taken down) until a major user rights groups decides to take up the cause and defend what is so clearly non income losing fair use (eff downfall parody).

I see alot of boxxy on gfy lately :)

that's because GFY is always 6 months behind the rest of the world

btw a host like mojo who lets a user post an html page with a flash video embedded would also "make content immediatly availble for surfers"

try uploading content on your domain via ftp and then see how quickly after is done you can see the web page in your browser.

So how exactly does your "make content immediatly availble for surfers" protect isp services like hosting.

especially with regards to fair use ruling :winkwink:

You can still use your own host, not a public service, to post those of your parodies that push the boundaries of previously accepted fair use practices. That's still well balanced imo - you can post fair use materials that are within the commonly accepted boundaries at public service sites like youtube, and if you want to try something new that may or may not fly in court as a fair use, use your own paid webhost.

I thought courts already reward defendands with the compensation of their legal fees at the expense of plaintiff, when they find fair use defence is valid. Isn't that enough of a counter-balance?

Maybe a better definition would be operate/do not operate websites.

the problem is that in post case the person actually making the fair use doesn't make any money from that act. The 43 people who used the downfall clip to make fun of xbox live, burning man etc were doing it because they wanted to express themselves. They didn't make money from it. That is exactly why they didn't fight the takedown notices their was no monetary incentive to do so. The best they could ever get was their cost covered.

If that burden was shifted to youtube they would have even less incentive because the proof that video was not making money would be gone. The copyright holder could argue that they are fighting to protect their ad revenue. making it more expensive to fight and more difficult to win.

A profit (not just a cost recovery) motive strong enough to compensate for that significant addition of work would have to be put in place. 3x is what the current laws (if applied) state is the penalty and therefore that should be the minimum cost for a false takedown request.

it would take you 3 years just to make the minimum payout

Why woudn't they express themselves within the already accepted fair use boundaries, if they only do it for fun? I believe it is only fair that only those would be pushing the boundaries of the law who feel what they do is right and really necessary, and ready to stand up for that; not just every teenager making fun of xbox at public service site.

If those parodies are such a necessaty for the human kind, some one will make one and post it at his own site, and then battle in court it's fair use. If he wins, every teenager at public service site could do the same. If not, than not.

I understand we should ensure some progress in fair use practices, but it doesn't have to be a speedy one, and certainly not at the expense of the entire industries collapsing.

That would be $450K? Too harsh imo. Especially if this particular kind of potential fair use case have not been tried in court yet - you can hardly claim those takedown requests a "bogus" ones, since the extension of fair use have not been set yet in court for this particular case.

goddamn Brazzers you scumbags!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so you want to reverse the priority between fair use and the exclusive rights copyright holder

the original act said fair use should take priority, that was the agreement that every copyright holder makes to get their exclusive rights.


of course i can
downfall producers knew that they had no proof that a single sale was being lost

they knew that the only way you could get the content necessary to make that parody was to either buy the movie or rent it (both of which paid the artist)

they new that request and sales for the underlying movie was increases because people would either want to make their own parody, or see what the movie was really about.

There was no economic loss
they knew the fair use right of parody was already explictly established
and there was no possible way that this could be extended outside the scope of that original granted right

But the made the bogus take down request to censor that free speach because they didn't like having their movie being made fun of.



watch the video every single on of those points is covered by the parody. They were supposed to watch the video and only send a take down request if it truely violated their copyright.

this was not about an unestablished fair use right that need established by the courts first
this was about a movie company take advantage of the loop hole that makes assuming that claim of infringement is true no matter how completely unsupported by a single case law.

parody was a right granted since the inception of the copyright act and they were taking it away using that loophole.
so fine 10 times that amount would not be unreasonable.

Where it said fair use should take priority? Quote this part.

Hitler has been brought up in this thread, the thread has now reached maturity. Congrats, thread, you're fully grown!

once when defining the exclusive rights of the copyright holder 106


and a second time when they defined the fair use rights (section 107)

the first prefesses the exclusive right with requirement to recognize section 107 thru 122

the second explictly exclude the exclusive rights (notwithstanding ....) and explictly declared fair use as "not an infringement of copyright"

You missed your calling! You should have become a CRIMINAL defense attorney, as you really are bending over fucking backwards to defend CRIMINALS!

Obviously YOU do NOT produce shit! YOUR content is not at risk, as YOU don't make content. YOUR website sales are not a concern, as you don't produce anything.

You could have been a key player on OJ's dream team if you had followed your criminal defending passions earlier on in your life.

considering that they can't be considered criminals as long as the imunity of the safe harbor provision apply i am doing no such thing.

You however seem to bending over backwards to try turning them into criminals to defend your outdated business model.

In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, a service provider who hosts content must have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, infringing activity on its network.

OK where it says fair use should have priority.

so how are torrents / newsgroups / tubes (just the illegal stuff) / whatever covered by this clause in your deluded brain...

are they posting full un edited works for criticism?

comment?

news reporting?

teaching?

scholorship?

research?

parody?

anything at all? besides making sales - to profit from their fraudulant use of copyrighted works in their entirety?

enlighten me here - how do you use this section to justify their actions?
how do you equate what is being done, with what should be fair use as defined in your quote?

.

Gideongallery, please post a scan (JPG or PDF is fine, your choice) of your law school diploma.

fair use is not frozen in time, new fair uses UNDEFINED in the original act have been established by the courts.

Backup was established by the court
timeshifting was established by the court
formatshifting was established by the courts

backup was extended to the cloud years ago
timeshifting was extended to the cloud in july (supreme court decision)

newer fair use rights like access shifting have been established in EU and are working their way thru the us court system.

the repeated failed arguement made by RIAA and the MPAA is that network effect invalidates fair use rights. But that is as stupid a statement as saying that the video invalidates free speech. Video is just another medium, the swarm is just another medium the right stays true irregardless of the medium.

Thanks Perry Mason...and yet there is this thread: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=921335

That guys in jail. And oh yeah...The Pirate Bay : JAIL

Weird how that is happening isn't it? I guess the judges forgot to ask Gideon "Lawyer Diploma From A Box Of CrackerJacks" Gallery about that.