GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 4 of 4 < 123 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Pink Visual Files $6.75M Suit Against Brazzers (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=954077)

Loch 05-04-2010 11:28 PM
i just wanted to prply as it seems serious lol

MrDeiz 05-04-2010 11:28 PM
tho it was predicted that way :2cents:

TheDoc 05-04-2010 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by daizzzy (Post 17108167)
WTF?

Settlement Conference Slated for Pink Visual-Brazzers Case

NEW YORK — Will the Pink Visual-Brazzers copyright suit end up in a settlement?
A May 19 settlement conference date before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck was scheduled today, with an order for Pink Visual attorneys to provide a "confidential settlement memorandum" one week prior to the hearing.

"[The proposal] should be the realistic settlement range of that party, not just the party's 'opening bid,'" Peck said in the order. "The settlement range in the settlement memorandum will be kept confidential by me and not disclosed to opposing counsel."

Peck ordered both sides, including company officials and their insurance representatives, to be present at the May 19 hearing.

Settlement conferences are often ordered by the court as a preliminary step to holding a trial or offered by case adversaries. Many times, those conferences end up as an impasse.

Officials at Pink Visual declined comment on the matter; XBIZ was unable to reach Brazzers officials Thursday.

Pink Visual maintains that Brazzers' parent company, Montreal-based Mansef Inc., operates a number of tube sites that permit users to upload and download infringing files, maintaining servers in New York.

The sites at issue in Pink Visual's claims include KeezMovies.com, PornHub.com, ExtremeTube.com and Tube8.com, all owned by Mansef and Interhub, whose officers operate both companies as well as one of the best-known adult companies, Brazzers.

Pink Visual's parent company, Ventura Content, claims that Brazzers systematically abuses the 45 Pink Visual-copyrighted videos. They point to Brazzers categorizing the infringing videos and providing the means for user to comment on, rate or virally distribute infringing videos.
Court talk..... focus on this part..

"Settlement conferences are often ordered by the court as a preliminary step to holding a trial or offered by case adversaries. Many times, those conferences end up as an impasse."

Nautilus 05-05-2010 02:52 AM
I hope they will not settle.

LoveSandra 05-05-2010 03:17 AM
fuuny shit:)

Mutt 05-05-2010 04:51 AM
i really hope they don't ultimately settle - need it to go to trial and a win.

German appeal court just overturned a decision against Rapidshare. I don't think any of the lawsuits are going to be victories for content owners because the fucking laws as they are written now protect practically everybody who is involved in copyright infringement except the poor shmucks who actually produced and paid for the content.

New laws are needed and fast.

ShellyCrash 05-05-2010 05:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17108188)
Court talk..... focus on this part..

"Settlement conferences are often ordered by the court as a preliminary step to holding a trial or offered by case adversaries. Many times, those conferences end up as an impasse."
Exactly. Usually you have to enter into a mediation phase before duking it out before a judge. The more reasonable you appear in mediation the more it helps your case, so it's in Top Bucks' best interest to play nice.

Even if this settles it still could be a win for the industry as that act of weakness may encourage other content providers to do the same who don't want to risk a lengthy court battle. :2 cents:

gideongallery 05-05-2010 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 17108744)
i really hope they don't ultimately settle - need it to go to trial and a win.

German appeal court just overturned a decision against Rapidshare. I don't think any of the lawsuits are going to be victories for content owners because the fucking laws as they are written now protect practically everybody who is involved in copyright infringement except the poor shmucks who actually produced and paid for the content.

New laws are needed and fast.



personally i hope pink visual actually gets their ass handed to them they have the gaul to actually explictly state the fair use they are trying to stomp all over in their complaint

Quote:
They point to Brazzers categorizing the infringing videos and providing the means for user to comment on, rate or virally distribute infringing videos

TheDoc 05-05-2010 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17108870)
personally i hope pink visual actually gets their ass handed to them they have the gaul to actually explictly state the fair use they are trying to stomp all over in their complaint
Actually they have direct copyright violations... which does violate fair use.

Don't try to argue over something that all the information you have is from news reports on a forum. I will make you look rather stupid.

TheDoc 05-05-2010 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShellyCrash (Post 17108767)
Exactly. Usually you have to enter into a mediation phase before duking it out before a judge. The more reasonable you appear in mediation the more it helps your case, so it's in Top Bucks' best interest to play nice.

Even if this settles it still could be a win for the industry as that act of weakness may encourage other content providers to do the same who don't want to risk a lengthy court battle. :2 cents:
Exactly... everything so far is just how it is.

When they win or settle, it will be a extremely massive win for our Industry.

JA$ON 05-05-2010 07:24 AM
it will be thrown out or settled for a small sum to avoid the trouble...

Until the DMCA laws are fine tuned , these lawsuits do little , other than the lawyers a few bucks and get every tube hater's feathers all ruffled.

Instead of bitching on here all the time, people should be bitching to their lawmakers.
Im not saying Im FOR illegal tubes, but if they always have the dmca to point too, It seems that there is not alot you can do.

gideongallery 05-05-2010 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17108994)
Actually they have direct copyright violations... which does violate fair use.
first of all fair use supercede copyright violations specifically because of the notwithstanding clause and the explict declaration that fair use is not a copyright violation

which means your statement is totally wrong

if you ment to say that pink visual has proof that it is not fair use and therefore it is a direct copyright violation (which it seems to be based on your next statement ) then that a different issue


Quote:
Don't try to argue over something that all the information you have is from news reports on a forum. I will make you look rather stupid.
based on their public statement they are going after brazzers for providing a service that facilitates the fair use of commentary for people who BOUGHT pink visual content.

so either they ARE trying to stomp all over the fair use of commentary with a bitch move lawsuit

or

they are trying to destroy fair use of commentary by spread fud with a bogus claim in the press and winning it with a real arguement (like undeniable proof that brazzers employees uploaded the content with express written consent from all the board of directors of brazzers)

either way my comment still stands

i hope they get their ass handed to them

if they had the undeniable proof of knowing and authorized infringement they should be publicly sticking to those facts not trying to FUD against the fair use right of commentary.

Allison 05-05-2010 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17108870)
personally i hope pink visual actually gets their ass handed to them they have the gaul to actually explictly state the fair use they are trying to stomp all over in their complaint

Maybe you should actually read the lawsuit & the documents & judgments already disclosed versus basing your opinions off of a sentence of an Xbiz article. Our confidence in this case remains.

TheDoc 05-05-2010 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17109231)
first of all fair use supercede copyright violations specifically because of the notwithstanding clause and the explict declaration that fair use is not a copyright violation

which means your statement is totally wrong

if you ment to say that pink visual has proof that it is not fair use and therefore it is a direct copyright violation (which it seems to be based on your next statement ) then that a different issue
First of all.... fair use is "claimed" by someone, and the other party claims Copyright Violations... That's how it "actually" works.

They do have proof it's not fair use... ignored take down requests is a copyright violation even if a user uploaded it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17109231)
based on their public statement they are going after brazzers for providing a service that facilitates the fair use of commentary for people who BOUGHT pink visual content.

so either they ARE trying to stomp all over the fair use of commentary with a bitch move lawsuit

or
Based on the public statement they are suing them for several copyright violations.

Fair use/time shifting - would be users uploading it because they purchased a membership... that isn't what is happening.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17109231)
they are trying to destroy fair use of commentary by spread fud with a bogus claim in the press and winning it with a real arguement (like undeniable proof that brazzers employees uploaded the content with express written consent from all the board of directors of brazzers)

either way my comment still stands

i hope they get their ass handed to them

if they had the undeniable proof of knowing and authorized infringement they should be publicly sticking to those facts not trying to FUD against the fair use right of commentary.
You sue for every reason you can to make sure one sticks.... that's how it works.


It is a violation of fair use, "users" didn't upload it.. it's the same user on the site - that's before discovery of IP's - you can see that.

Either way, even IF someone did upload it, when you ignore a take down notice - it's a copyright violation.


Soooooo at the end of the day, Gideon supports Piracy over fair use. That's what your statement is saying.. no wonder most people on here hate you and...

...I understand now why you don't come to shows. Big man on the board, no balls in real life.

JP-pornshooter 05-05-2010 10:07 AM
the doc is right on..
a lawsuit in itself is a way to settle a dispute by way of compensating the suing party.
a mediation/settlement meeting is normal prior to actually going to court.
should (PV) throw an outrageously amount in the settlement offer chances are the case will proceed to court.
also to note is that often corporations have insurance companies backing them and it often becomes a case where the insurance carrier makes the decision to go to court or to pay the settlement as they are the one footing the bill, not only for the trial itself (lawyers are expensive) but also the settlement amount itself.

gideongallery 05-05-2010 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17109607)
First of all.... fair use is "claimed" by someone, and the other party claims Copyright Violations... That's how it "actually" works.

They do have proof it's not fair use... ignored take down requests is a copyright violation even if a user uploaded it.
yes but all brazzers sites have takedown policies in place.
this about going above and beyond that because the same content keeps getting put back up.

the fact that one person doesn't want to spend the millions to defend his fair use right of commentary doesn't mean that the fair use right of commentary doesn't exist.

so the next person who uploads the exact same content has to be given the same chance to choose to defend that right if they want too.


Quote:
Based on the public statement they are suing them for several copyright violations.

Fair use/time shifting - would be users uploading it because they purchased a membership... that isn't what is happening.
proof please


Quote:
You sue for every reason you can to make sure one sticks.... that's how it works.


It is a violation of fair use, "users" didn't upload it.. it's the same user on the site - that's before discovery of IP's - you can see that.

Either way, even IF someone did upload it, when you ignore a take down notice - it's a copyright violation.
based on the statements and documenation i have seen the arguement is based on concept that content returning after being taken down is an infringement not an actual ignoring of the take down notice

as i pointed out above there is a legitimacy to letting that happen. it is necessary if the fair use precedent is to be set.

if you have proof that it is actually a VALID take down notice that is being ignored please post it and i will retract my statement.

Quote:
Soooooo at the end of the day, Gideon supports Piracy over fair use. That's what your statement is saying.. no wonder most people on here hate you and...

...I understand now why you don't come to shows. Big man on the board, no balls in real life.
you know the reason i don't show up at the shows, it a bitch move to try and argue that my keeping my word to prove a point shows a lack of balls in real life.

gideongallery 05-05-2010 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allison (Post 17109526)
Maybe you should actually read the lawsuit & the documents & judgments already disclosed versus basing your opinions off of a sentence of an Xbiz article. Our confidence in this case remains.
post the links i will go thru them and apologize if i am wrong.

PenisFace 05-05-2010 12:26 PM
People still defend Brazzers? Their tubes are some of the top websites on the whole of the internet. Tubes that are completely stuffed full of full length movies directly from paysites of other companies. DMCA this DMCA that, fuck that shit, a company shouldn't have to send 100 DMCA's a day in the first place, and another company shouldn't be able to hide behind DMCA's, effectively letting them get rich from stolen goods. Oh, we've been using one of your 40 minute long videos for the better part of a month to display banner ads to live jasmine and dating programs. You want us to take it down? Okay, we will... We've already made like $3,000 from the ads on the page that was there thanks to the movie that was stolen from you.


Have a nice day!

TheDoc 05-05-2010 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17110184)
yes but all brazzers sites have takedown policies in place.
this about going above and beyond that because the same content keeps getting put back up.

the fact that one person doesn't want to spend the millions to defend his fair use right of commentary doesn't mean that the fair use right of commentary doesn't exist.

so the next person who uploads the exact same content has to be given the same chance to choose to defend that right if they want too.
The upload link doesn't allow you to upload... let me rephrase that, users/visitors/surfers can't upload to them.

So unless the magic Internet fairy is doing it......



Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17110184)
proof please
Proof? That one username that does all the uploads sure does have a lot of memberships... I don't remember the URL but someone broke it all down once for us... other than that, proof will come out in discoveries.




Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17110184)
based on the statements and documenation i have seen the arguement is based on concept that content returning after being taken down is an infringement not an actual ignoring of the take down notice

as i pointed out above there is a legitimacy to letting that happen. it is necessary if the fair use precedent is to be set.

if you have proof that it is actually a VALID take down notice that is being ignored please post it and i will retract my statement.
You haven't read any documentation on this... at all, you have read the two news reports posted on xbiz.

How do I post proof? One it's not my Content, two... do they send back an email that say sorry, we aren't responding?

Proof is in the Court case...




Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17110184)
you know the reason i don't show up at the shows, it a bitch move to try and argue that my keeping my word to prove a point shows a lack of balls in real life.
No, it means you only have the balls to spew crap that you know is bullshit because you know it makes no difference in the end. Even when you're wrong.

If you were standing in front of peoples faces, you wouldn't say this shit - because you know it's crap.

Allison 05-05-2010 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 17110195)
post the links i will go thru them and apologize if i am wrong.
We won't be uploading the documents for mass distribution, but you can access all the current filings at http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...ase_id-358534/ with your Pacer account (which I assume you or your legal advisers have).

gideongallery 05-05-2010 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allison (Post 17110337)
We won't be uploading the documents for mass distribution, but you can access all the current filings at http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...ase_id-358534/ with your Pacer account (which I assume you or your legal advisers have).
so my beef with your case is that you are either
  1. attacking the fair use of commentary directly (based on the statement made)
  2. hiding the real arguement and making anti fair use attacks publically to create the false impression that you superceded the context of commentary

you responded by saying

Quote:
Maybe you should actually read the lawsuit & the documents & judgments already disclosed versus basing your opinions off of a sentence of an Xbiz article. Our confidence in this case remains.
and you give me a link to non public documents that would require pay my lawyer to see.

There is no way looking at the documents would change the beef
because either
  1. your case is accurately defined publically in the NON PUBLIC DOCUMENTS (beef 1)
  2. your case has hidden proof not publically disclosed that will be the real justification for the win which means the public statement was anti-fair use FUD (beef 2)

i will ask again please provide me links to the "already disclosed" documents and judgements not the entire non public documentation.

gideongallery 05-05-2010 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17110253)
The upload link doesn't allow you to upload... let me rephrase that, users/visitors/surfers can't upload to them.

So unless the magic Internet fairy is doing it......
well it looked like it worked i will do a test upload to confirm


Quote:
Proof? That one username that does all the uploads sure does have a lot of memberships... I don't remember the URL but someone broke it all down once for us... other than that, proof will come out in discoveries.






You haven't read any documentation on this... at all, you have read the two news reports posted on xbiz.

How do I post proof? One it's not my Content, two... do they send back an email that say sorry, we aren't responding?

Proof is in the Court case...






No, it means you only have the balls to spew crap that you know is bullshit because you know it makes no difference in the end. Even when you're wrong.

If you were standing in front of peoples faces, you wouldn't say this shit - because you know it's crap.
this started because you stated when i complained

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17108994)
Actually they have direct copyright violations... which does violate fair use.

Don't try to argue over something that all the information you have is from news reports on a forum. I will make you look rather stupid.
it clearly implies that i am missing some PUBLIC information that you had that i missed that would change the oppinion i would have on the case.

yet you can't present any proof.

so what you ment to say (assuming you weren't deliberately trying to mislead) was

Quote:
Actually CLAIM they have PROOF of direct copyright violations ... which does not violate fair use
and i believe them even though i have seen no proof
if your right then their current PUBLIC statements are FUD in attempt to misrepresent their win for other reasons as a win that invalidates the concept of "check out my favorite model name clip" as commentary.

which as you know is one of my beefs with their public statements about the case.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:23 AM.
Page 4 of 4 < 123 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123