Ah. I saw the banner and didn't know it was FYC. Totally missed the top link.

I'd make your banner before more eye catching. Lots of shit going on with that page, make yourself stand out more. I saw that banner because I was looking for a link but as a consumer I may have missed it.

Not that you need any advice but I would use colors that are drastically different than the site it is on to really make it pop, along with different movement to grab an eye. Right now it doesn't stand out. :2 cents:

Hey nathan, congrats on your purchase.

if you guys are seeking high quality feeds which update daily, and will fit right into your members area, then hit me up...or have your guy hit me up :)

Let my people, call your people:winkwink:

It's not a hot issue... I think Stan is just saying it because he was accused of just posting because I own envisionext (which I do not)..

I am also not trying to put words in your mouth.. all I am saying is, I do not own envisionext, neither directly, nor partly, nor via some other company... As I said, things change.. you might find old info that says I own it, but that is currently not the case.

The banner spot is new the manwin guys just added it and we are still tweaking it. :winkwink:

Homegrown Video R-E-S-P-E-C-T
 

No need to disagree. For one, "the little guys" were the only ones that ever actually came through on their promises to help in the Acacia situation. Next, I have watched enough of those so called little guys come up big to know what you are saying to be true.

To clarify, my comments were directed to those that want to throw stones in glass houses and have not been accountable themselves or have actually demonstrated being unethical.

congrats on the purchase and good luck

:thumbsup

Nuff respect! :winkwink:

Nathan is awesome at trolling. A rerun of That 70's Show aired here last night, the one where Hyde teaches Jackie how to be Zen. Basically fob off all negative comments from people with a simple reply, and don't get bothered about it...

Whatever.
That's cool.

If you distill Nathan's posts down to their bare context that's pretty much all that's left. :1orglaugh

red herring.

Too bad we can't link to other forums. On a German forum I saw lots of complaining about Fabian / Nathan, and Virage (Manwin) regarding payments and shaving issues involving German websites after some of his acquisitions there. :disgust

(Note: Google can roughly translate the pages).

http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1258733453.jpg

Still, people will do business with Manwin and accept whatever they are willing to give them. In other words, shady business as usual in some corners of the adult biz...

ADG

post the search queries here, i know some people who will post them no problem.

ive never spoken to wargames, thought he was with vasmediagroup, i only deal with biggy.

Thats even more flipping than someone working 12 hour shifts at mc donalds.

People have never been bigger whores in the last 15 years until now. If Nathan ask's them to suck his dick, they would be lining up so they could get their videos on his site, or for him to buy their content, etc. What happened before, what is happening now, what may happen, who else is getting fucked by them. No one cares anymore, they all turned into whores because their business is crashing and they need as many sales as they can get.

A little birdie was telling me today that we should watch for a definition change of "host" & "website" in the not too distant future from multiple countries.

You can upload anything you want to a "host" which can have "safe harbor", so actual hosting companies are still protected.

As soon as you link to it from a "website" there would be no "safe harbor", and all the copyright/2257 stuff would apply.

I guess that will pretty much fuck Web 2.0, but they should have figured it into their CBA instead of calling themselves a "web host". :1orglaugh


When one buys assets, they also get stuck with the liabilities. :winkwink:

The ironic thing is that they are groveling to one of the companies most responsible for their businesses crashing. :helpme :1orglaugh

Many people cheering on the Mansef/Brazzers/Manwin business model here fail to realize that there are significant differences between how the TGPs/MGPs operate(d) and how Tube sites run by Mansef have been operating.

Mansef/Manwin is fighting lawsuits against the US government and private companies because they are perceived by them as being a criminal/illegal enterprise.

Throughout this thread, Nathan / Fabian Thylmann has been hemming and hawing, parsing words, and dissembling. He can't seem to give forthright answers to anything anyone really wants to know about.

He calls himself a Managing Partner, but he can't name whom his other "Partners" are. Why should that be a secret?

He appears to be hiding more than he is revealing, and yet he asks people to trust him.

He apparently did the same thing when Virage Media acquired a few German assets following his parting way with NATS (not long before their security issues were made public). Existing affiliates reported what they claimed were big losses in sales and alleged shaving going on.

To my knowledge he didn't flip his major German assets. He is still presumably paying for them. Therefore, I'm not quite sure how he can afford even more financial/credit exposure, since as I understand it, his company Virage/Manwin is a Limited Partnership, and not even a Corporation (particularly with large deals, creditors care about such distinctions).

With regards to Envisionext, Nathan/Fabian tried to deny anything more than a fraternal relationship with the Envisionext President/CEO, Stan Fiskin (Envisionext did some design work for Virage Media).

Yet in an X-Biz article about the new Virage VP for Mergers and Acquisitions, Bob Rice (who has not been mentioned much, if at all, in this thread), it is stated that Virage acquired Envisionext (anyone know what Bob Rice is up to these days?):

Virage Media specializes in strategic investments and recently acquired XTube.com and IWantU.com. The company owns New Jersey-based Envisionext Inc., a web design and solutions firm with offices in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and other U.S. and European cities.

On LinkedIn, Stan Fiskin is listed as VP of BizDev for Virage Media:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/+/Fiskin

Yet, they still try to spin it as if there was/is no formal/legal relationship between Envisionext/Virage/Manwin.

If you look at records for HQtube, they indicate that Envisonext owns/owned HQtube, and if you look at Xtube, Virage owned/owns it. Both companies appear to currently fall under the SexRevenue program, owned by Virage. This alone certainly seems to confirm more than a casual fraternal relationship between Nathan/Fabian and Stan.

Even with Manwin, Nathan/Fabian doesn't appear as if he plans to be the hands-on Managing Partner/CEO (boss) on the scene in Canada, but instead will delegate from Germany, perhaps to the same people at the former Mansef (since he has been vague about who has left - if any - and who remains).

Mansef is/was not especially well-liked within the industry, and are the targets of the US government and other companies that are fed up with their shabby business practices. I imagine by now that the Canadian government has an eye on them as well.

I've worked with programmers for many years. I think Nathan/Fabian is a bright programmer. However, such people do not necessarily make great business leaders.

I kind of doubt that Nathan / Fabian has acquired the kind of wealth that would enable him to outright purchase Mansef without some assistance.

Others have alleged that he is in bed with fugitives Jain Shaileshkuma (aka Sam Jain) and Bjorn Daniel Sundin, who made hundreds of millions allegedly defrauding people with scareware and other scams.

Despite his denial of knowing who "Sam Jain" is, Nathan / Fabian has left plenty of semantical wiggle room for himself to claim to not be lying (Sam like Nathan uses more than one name/alias), and is therefore still susceptible to cynicism from people that have observed how he has spun other simpler issues (few people would openly acknowledge that they are involved in a criminal enterprise).

The people that have indicated that Sam and Dan may be silent partners, do not appear to me to have any particular axe to grind with Nathan/Fabian. Their focus seems to be on Sam and Dan.

It may take some time for all of this to play out. Until concrete changes are observed coming from the Mansef/Manwin network of companies, which Take Down Piracy has attempted to document, I would recommend everyone to proceed with extreme caution with regards to Manwin.

ADG

ADG

I am sadly on my iPhone, so hard to comment..

I am going to reply to you continuous accusations soon, I have no idea why you have a problem with me or why you think trying to destroy my reputation will in any way benefit anyone.

Rest assured that you have stepped out of bounds here, I remembervyou acting similarly in other threads on completely different subjects. You seem to have the time to waste countless hours in here to try to make me look bad. I expected this kind of reaction from at least one person on gfy. You seem to think that you posting full names and private personal information somehow pisses me off. It does not. Big players in the market are always looked at with a somewhat negative eye and I understand that. It is the same in Germany.

Other big and important players usually know this as you can see in this thread. They react very differently than you would hope I guess, which is why you keep trying to repost the same stuff claiming I had never replied although I have. You hope that people read your posts and do not think about your claims and realize they are wrong.

I suggest the following:
We let your claims stand. If any of this were true, which it is not, it should not take too long until it all blows up in my face.
In 1 year, July 1st 2011, we revisit your claims here on gfy and see how many of them pan out.

During that year, I will continue to follow my cause with the tubes and other things and show you that I mean what I said.

I would also like to see you face to face at AVN show, I will pay your airfare and hotel in case you did not book yet. This way we can discuss you mr issues much faster than on here.

Tell me what you think.

The whole point of an asset sale is NOT to inherit the liabilities of the former company. :2 cents:

So you wont comment on what he just wrote?

Are you saying Bob Rice or zbix arent telling the truth?

As much as I appreciate your kind offer Nathan/Fabian, I do not wish to in any way appear to be perceived as being bought off with an expenses-paid trip to the AVN show. I assure you that I can easily afford to travel there on my own funds, if I so wish to.

How about instead, you respond here forthrightly, and 100% honestly, in public, to some questions which I and others have posed, such as:

1) Who are your partners/investors in Manwin?

2) What is your plan (besides hiding behind the ridiculous provisions of the DMCA safe harbor provisions, which hopefully will be changed soon) for ensuring that your Manwin company, and known/suspected associates/entities/properties (such as Brazzers, JuggCash, KeezMovies, PornHub, Xtube, ExtremeTube, Tube8, MovieBox, Sex In Your City, etc), quit screwing over the rest of the industry by seemingly engaging in allowing obvious non-copyright holders/employees to post long scenes (or any scenes for that matter) of videos which they have no copyright to on any of your sites?

3) What role, if any, do Stephane Manos (Man) or hahahahahahaha (oops, forgot, for some reason O-u-i-s-s-a-m, without hyphens, appears as hahahahahahaha on GFY) Youseff (Sef) play in Manwin's current operations?

4) Does Virage Media Limited still exist? If not, when did it cease to exist, and why? Are the former Virage Media Ltd properties now part of Manwin?

5) When did Manwin come into existence, and who are the partners/investors?

6) When did Manwin acquire Mansef? In March or July, or whatever date?

7) Is Bob Rice still a part of your Manwin operation? If not, when did he leave?

8) What business relationship/association(s) have you, or any companies associated with you, (such as Virage Media or HQtube and Xtube) had with Envisionext/Stan Fiskin?

9) What business relationship, if any, do you have with Jain Shaileshkumar (aka Sam Jain) or Bjorn Daniel Sundin (aka Daniel)? Some people here seem to think there is a money connection somehow.

10) Would you consider contributing some of Manwin's profits to an industry-wide anti-copyright/anti-piracy effort?

I have other straightforward questions, but I will save them for now. If you can straightforwardly answer the questions above, I will refrain from posing any additional questions, since I do not wish to cause you or your family any personal embarrassment, nor possible legal issues.

I assure you that I am not attempting in any way to destroy you or your reputation, as you maudlinly claim (I suspect, in some way to gain sympathy/pity).

I'm simply asking questions which I perceive that you have repeatedly ducked, dodged, and otherwise parried from.

None of the information I have posted is personal (even if you or anyone else chooses to take it personally).

Most, if not all, of the info I have posted about, came from easily accessible public sources on the internet, such as LinkedIn, and Google searches of your name, your nicks, and your various company names, plus names of people associated (or said to possibly be associated) with you.

I assure you that I have not hacked into anything that is private or otherwise secure information. That is outside of my nature/proclivity, and skill-set.

If you wish to be perceived as a respectable member of the adult industry (and I know many already do respect you for some of your past achievements - some of which I respect as well), by answering forthrightly, the simple questions which I have posed here, and prove yourself to sincerely and aggressively stand against content/copyright piracy (not just for your own content, but for the entire industry), then you may be surprised to find a strong ally in me.

Respectfully yours,

ADG

I did not read the entire thread and do not need to.

2 words for you.... FUCK YOU

I do not care about DMCA laws, that is not DirtyWhiteBoy's point, nor mine, nor anyone else!!! Our point is you have content you do not own on YOUR sites. Content you do NOT have the copyright to and that you did NOT produce or pay for.

You are using other people's money/work/content to profit from. Everyone knows it is wrong, period!

Hey, I think I'll buy a membership to Brazzer's, download a ton of those nice hi-def exclusive videos you have and use them to add updates to my members areas. That okay with you? Just to make us even?

Amen! :thumbsup

Let me add a second FUCK YOU to all those companies doing biz with these tube sites in the name of keeping their longer scenes from being listed. Just the fact that such an arrangement is possible puts their DMCA safe harbor status in question.

Lol at Nathan referring to himself as a "big important person".

That's one of my favorite That 70's Show, it's when she and Kelso break up.

the truth will set you free.

http://trickyrelativity.files.wordpr...ng_day_002.jpg

nathan is living by the denzel characters mantra in training day.

"it's not what you know.....it's what you can prove"

remembre that.

I liked that movie:thumbsup

The thread that just won't die.

This is better than a Brazzers $1000 contest thread. It will end up having more bumps and views by the time it's over.

Brazzers wins again. Well done Nathan.

Nathan, if it is against the TOS for all your assorted tube sites that users are not to upload copyrighted material, then how about when a content owner reports a video being used without their permission, the uploader of the video is banned and all their videos deleted. If you were such a standup guy and all that seems like a no-brainer.

But here's what I predict will happen. You won't do that because you know you can't actually populate your tube site with legitimate videos and have anyone give a shit about your site. If you did enact the policy I outlined above, I'll bet anyone in here a bag o' donuts that within a week the tube sites would change their layout so that you can't see who uploaded the video so that the copyright holders couldn't hold Nathan accountable for this policy. That or all uploaders would mysteriously be labeled as "anonymous".

Fuck 11 pages of a lot of BS bickering. At the end of the day the proof will be in the pudding. I don't trust Nathan/Fabian/Brazzers/Mansef/Manwin or whatever their name/face will be next week. They can say all the shit they want here, but its their ACTIONS that will speak louder than anything. I will stand by hoping to see favorable actions to the adult biz/community. Thats how you earn trust.

loldumb.

This reminds me of 300 when Xerxes says "You will find that I am kind. Unlike the cruel Leonidas, who demanded that you stand...I require only that you kneel."

Better yet sounds like a game of hot potato with diarrhea.

I love hearing how working with Brazzers must mean we are desperate and willing to do anything for traffic. That just makes me happy because it is the kind of assumptive diagnosis that leads people to guide their efforts based on what they think other people are doing rather than clear analysis of what actually works for them.

If any one actually took an easy perspective of us and did some due diligence, then they would realize we don't rely on Brazzers, we don't rely on affiliates, and we are not only solid but growing, slowly but surely, and with a strong foundation that sustains us in even the worst economic times.

At the end of the day, all of this debate and denigration comes down to one thing... who is going to get to say "I told you so".

And for the record, if we weren't making money on tube traffic we wouldn't put time/effort/cash into producing clips for them. If it cost us too much more than sending out an email to take down unauthorized clips then I would take a different more agressive stance to protect our marks.

Quick question... how many here that are bitching about stolen content have actually paid for a trademark or actually copyright their content?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

why is that guy wearing a fern on his head?

cant the army afford real helmets anymore?





.

reminds me of a gay ex-colleague who told me how all the other guys just grabbed some fern or grass to put on their helmets and he showed up with a nicely arranged flower bed.

atk does all that... I personally own very little content and NONE of it is hosted..

If making money matters to you more than the fact that stolen full length clips are responsible for driving the traffic that is makling you that money, then you'll do whatever you have to in order to justify it to yourself in your own mind.

It may not be technically illegal, but it's ethically deplorable. It's dirty money. Spin it however you want, but it still boils down to making money from the use of stolen content.

Sleep well. :321GFY

Is this thread turned into epic backfire?

How would that matter? If someone copyrighted their content, does that mean the tube sites wont steal it then?

On North American producers my guess would be less then 5 that post on GFY.

Under US & Canadian law all European producers are automatically considered to be under the Copyright law/Protected.

No but if they have a copyright they actually stand to make some serious cash if suing, much like Pink Visual is doing.

To copyright your content costs almost nothing, most people are just too lazy to even look into it.

Nope 25 of the latest 30 videos on PH are sponsored vids looks like PH is cleaning up :thumbsup

No that would be this thread... http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/978028-mike-south-step-inside.html

we should recommend this thread as an introduction to the adult industry

Never thought I should hear the 'likewhoa' word again without going off like a bomb.

Yes that is my personal opinion. You (and all of the other companies) working with them are more concerned about making sales, no matter who you do business with and how that business conducts itself today and did so in the past. As long as you can make a buck from it. Hey I have no problem with that. Some people are only concerned about making a buck no matter what the cost or the thieves they partner with. If that is you then more power to you, just be up front and honest about it. Don't try to pretend you have good business ethics and are doing business on the up and up when you are working with tube sites that are or were stealing everyone else's content and profiting off of it.

lol, you are the one spinning everything and just for the convenience of trying to insult us. I don't consider that to be unethical, unless of course your goal is to discredit us through unsubstantiated and false assertions, but I do think you are being a dick.

However, you are right about one thing... it is not, under current US laws "illegal", and while you may deplore the fact that people post the content and consider it unethical, under the circumstances I only find it to be unethical if the tube site doesn't take down anything that we notice them about when necessary. What makes our views about the "ethics" of the situation different in so far as you can claim to be "right" while I am somehow "wrong"? Clearly, if it is not illegal, then how is it unethical if we take advantage of the traffic our clips generate? Because you don't like them? You don't like the big bad tubes? Cry me a river. Maybe when you get off your pedestal of reactionary arrogant accusatory insulting posturing and lose the holier than thou aura you will see the situation more clearly.

My position is based on facts. I don't know for a fact who puts up our clips without authorization. I consider it unethical to blame someone, based so far on circumstantial and not factual evidence, which also happens to be the standard for the US legal system. For us it is a fact that if our clips went up without persmission then they were taken down promptly with notice. That might make the situation a pain in the ass but it is not necessarily unethical. If we figured out how to turn that negative into a positive then that doesn't make us unethical either; business-wise, that simply makes us pragmatic.

I suggest you crack open the books again to learn what "ethics" really are. If it makes you feel better then you can tell me a great big "i told you so" if Pink Visuals prevails. I already said before though that my hunch is that will only result in a settlement that will be in Pink Visuals interests and not yours, mine, or anyone elses. Is that unethical? No, that is what we call business as usual.