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.

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.