Everytime I read one of your posts.. I get to your sig and I forget what I read. Making me have to re-read it again. Stop distracting me!

No seriously don't... I luv that sig of yours :thumbsup

Zyber,

what I am saying is very easy... suing a downloader does virtually nothing against piracy. The only benefit is making money from them. Suing an UPLOADER though, thats a whole different thing! I can totally understand that.

Exactly. It makes money. A positive ROI. Duplicate this concept 10-fold.

Even though it might not stop piracy, then this is a way to make money. I would sue downloaders till I turn blue in the face, and laugh all the way to the bank.

Currently I'm looking into what options I have and setting up a plan.

Maybe hire 'No Cure, No Pay' lawyers in as many states and countries as possible. Put the lawsuits and settlements into system. Gain experience and solid routines.

If done right this can be a great revenue stream. As there are millions and millions of violators there are endless possibilities. The sky is the limit.

When/if the DMCA laws are improved then tubes and hosts can also become targets. While we wait for that miracle to happen we can just use these piracy hubs as sources to find copyright infringing end-users.

Let the end-users who steal bleed.

search for "jordan capri sex tape"
check out the 1st result.

sue THOSE bastards

We're going to find you...
 

A message to the downloaders..



:1orglaugh :winkwink:

How many people have your attorney's sent a letter to that chose not to fight in court and chose not to pay...but simply chose to not appear in court and lose by default...and just say fuck it...try to collect the judgement? They then will have minimal exposure.

I have sued more than one person in small claims court that did not appear and lost by default...and have yet to collect a dime from the judgement against them...except for one person...who voluntarily paid the judgement.

Yeah,why don't you try upload 1 FHG with 15 photos or 1 minute movie clip on Pirate Bay. With your website or affiliate code attached. Lets see for how long the torrent stays. :thumbsup

If suing the uploader is ok, then why not expand it up another level in the hierarchy?
Let say the owner of that "road" is charging the bypassers and credit the ones who use the road to give out copied DVDs. How he finance the road does not matter, one way of another he needs to finance it, and what he need (and encourage) is motivation for using his road.
Shouldn't the owner of the road also be stopped, if he motivates and knows what is going on, but ignore it or simply hide behind a law that protect his lack of morality? For his own gain?

The point is that eveyone know what is going on, including the downloaders. They are not the biggest part of the problem but still a problem. Their demands increase along with the creation of it, and by doing so, they need to learn to say no. Age, mentality or simply-gives-a-fuck, they all have in common they need to learn.

The uploader is subject to bigger punishment because he creates more damage. However he is not that easy to get to and usual it should be a job for law enforcement because of the size of damage he make. It is criminal. But law enforcements do not have enough time or ressources, they have to make priorities.

The host is the biggest problem if he allow it to happen. And that is the reality in many cases. He opened the can of worms, the destruction of internet and rights - not the little guy who try to stop it and fighting for his own work :2 cents:

Because suing the maker of the road is rediculous, why not sue the people that produced the materials needed to build the road? Or the ones that sold the land for the road? Or sue the truck-manufacturer why you are at it...

There is only one reason why the downloader is sued, to make money. Its not to fight against piracy, that's just ridiculous to claim. You can not sue the website unless it ENCOURAGES uploading infringing content (see the recent lawsuits)... You can in theory sue the tracker provider I guess, but thats hard too I think, you can obviously sue the uploader, which is the only thing that in the end does anything against copyright infringement.

I disagree with your host comment, that's like suing the ISP of the user. Obviously never going to work either.

But we are not discussing this, we are discussing downloader / uploader... the rest is something that we should never start discussing since it will just end up in a big useless fight that helps noone and just pisses you off...

In plain English. = Suing downloaders could mean you suing people who download from my Tubes and that might fuck my business model of fucking the rest of you.

Suing downloaders and uploaders is legal. As legal as it is to set up a site that relies on "Uploaders" and downloaders of pirated material while hiding behind a 2257 law to make money.

Making money out of someone viewing/downloading pirated porn. What a terrible concept. :upsidedow

Like selling space for an advert on a site that makes money off pirated porn. :1orglaugh

You know what would happen if you got subpoenaed to give out the info on downloaders on your Tubes. So please no crocodile tears about the poor downloaders. Illegal Tubes make their money off them.

Actually, no, suing downloaders from my tubes is just ridiculously stupid since you would never ever win in court.

Torrents are completely different...

What illegal tubes do, is none of my business, since I own no illegal tubes... and as I said before, you can not subpoena info from surfers/viewers of our tubes, there is no legal basis for you to do so, none whatsoever...

You clearly do not understand copyright law...

These companies are interesting, they might prove useful one day.

There is a reason he is called clueless.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Nathan you just got exposed yet again bro!

Sorry to let you know, but there is nothing exposed nor is there anything TO expose...

It is scary to see how few people understand tubes and dmca though..

How many people have your attorney's sent a letter to that chose not to fight in court and chose not to pay...but simply chose to not appear in court and lose by default...and just say fuck it...try to collect the judgement? They then will have minimal exposure.

I have sued more than one person in small claims court that did not appear and lost by default...and have yet to collect a dime from the judgement against them...except for one person...who voluntarily paid the judgement.

I think you should distinguish between piracy and pirate. Taking action against an individual is not the same as taking action against a worldwide crime. No one can fight piracy alone but they can do whatever they can to police their own work and get the money they are rightfully entitled to. This is about peoples work, ie. money, not secret documents at Wikileaks, so question the motive is pointless. If everyone else were doing the same, then fighting piracy will have bigger effect. Maybe organize it and ultimately go for the host who encourage it, like Pirate Bay.

Pirate Bay has been sued, the founders face possible jailtime, their host has been fined, the website and its tracker have been ordered by courts to be blocked by ISPs on DNS level. They are part of the problem, bigger problem than uploaders, and don't tell me all of that happened without reason.

If A is more damaging than B or C, we could still leave out A from the discussion, but that doesn't change the fact that A is still the one creating most damage. Each case is individual and unique, "what if" "then..", but the logic doesn't change. Even ISPs or software developers can be targeted if there are good reasons to believe they are bigger part of a problem.

Can you be subpoenaed of lists of people downloading content on your site you allowed others to upload and you don't own? If so you might want to inform people they are in danger of getting sued.

I fully understand why you're against this as it could screw up your business model.

Whatever man. You're right...guys like me don't understand dmca. While you, you've now owned Brazzers for like how long? A cup of coffee? And you are an expert?

How about this...since you are saying you sincerely don't agree with what happened in the past and want to do the right thing...Why don't you simply have your programmer redirect that URL that shows up for Jordan Capri in the search engines as number one, back to it's rightful owner. That would seem fair to me. Redirect it to Jordan's site. It's obviously a screen capture of the vid right off of Lightspeed.

That is simple to do and wouldn't hurt you one bit. My programmer could do that in 10 seconds time (and then claim it took him an hour so he could fuck off playing video games). So now that that particular URL to a vid on Pornhub has been shown directly to YOU (the owner), there is absolutely no excuse for it to be there or for it to EVER be allowed there again...right? I know I could have my guy script that up so easily it's a joke. You must have at least one smart guy working with you don't ya?

Robbie, again, you do not understand the point of dmca... If the copyright owner sends a notice about this clip, it will be removed in a matter of a few hours.

But it does require a dmca notice, for various reasons I am not going to post here... It also can not be redirected, completely regardless of if this is technically possible or not...

Paul, you have simply repeated the same thing you said before without even reacting one bit about my reply, so you clearly have no arguments...

Dirty Dane, you are right that we need to distinguish pirate and piracy. I also think a downloader of a torrent is not always a pirate, an uploader though clearly is! I disagree regarding your ISP and software developer comments though. Unless again they actively advertise to pull in pirates.

Starbucks does not ask for ID when you use there wireless internet and Cable companies don't ask for ID when the set up internet in your home. Who do you sue?

Why is Pink Visual suing Brazzers?

You didn't answer that from before. Do they also not understand the law and simply sued your company for shits and giggles?

Examples:

Forum:
I noticed on a porn piracy forum that a filehost was personally advertising their service. "Upload to us, and we pay you X per Y downloads". The thread was even sticky. At their website, however, their TOS said something like "do not upload without authorization, blah blah...". It's quite clear that such statement is only for cosmetic and legal protection. But the thread is evidence of encouraging piracy, also the context since it was only pirated files linked on the forum.

Tube:
"Upload to us, become a porn pimp/king". While that slogan and other "prizes" is not directly commercial, it still encourage and motives the uploaders to get a "name", just like the torrent sites or newsgroups. If additionally the tube uploads are to be approved before published and there are tons of full movies from different sources with same uploader, the chances of piracy (and the hosts knowledge of it) is close to 100% in most cases.

Torrent sites (and some tubes):
"You are not allowed to upload for commercial purpose. We delete "spam" ". That statement alone leave out anything else than piracy. Well, maybe 0.01% of the porn uploaded is someone made themselves...


It's not these activities alone that bring it to the next level, ISPs or software developers. If that happens, it's mainly a consequense of criminal investigations, ie. size and amount. The number of private lawsuits and reports and the number of users is a good indicator. An ISP can be ordered to block or close a website. Law enforcements can monitor traffic live if they believe there is a good reason, no tube, p2p, Rapidshare or even Google is excempt or protected from this. A software developer can be targeted if he construct or instruct users to obstruct police investigations etc. Together with changes in laws, that's not a situation most people want, especially the pirates but ironically they are the ones partially creating the situation. Pirate Bay was originally a "host" for pirates and laughing at US laws, today they hide in caves to withstand nuclear bombs and they are resellers of the illusion called VPN. Don't you see the patterns?

Nathan...You OWN the site. You don't have to have a DMCA for ANY reason. You can simply remove it. How long have you been in this business again? lol

As far as you can not redirect it...BULLSHIT. You could do it right now. Nothing stopping you legally in any way. It's your site. I can take shit down and put it up on any site I own. So can anybody...but now you're going to claim that because of DMCA you can't do anything? What a joke!

Please explain to me what you would do if CP were involved? You would take it the fuck down is what you would do DMCA or no DMCA.

Why do you want to act so ignorant?

Anyway, I see now where you're coming from. You are going to keep fucking people. Fair enough.

This isn't about DMCA or you at all anyway. This is about COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT plain and simple. And the people uploading that to YOUR site are the criminals under copyright infringement. And the DMCA law doesn't apply in any way.

Yeah, Steve can definitely subpoena you for info on the person that uploaded that Jordan Capri vid. And you will comply. DMCA isn't even involved. Better get ready.

Yes Robbie, but because you don't understand DMCA or the law, and are probably time-shifting as we speak, you lose. Noob. :321GFY

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

Yeah, there are laws...that can't be discussed here, that prevent a person from changing anything on their own website. So he is powerless to remove Steve's video or redirect it to Steve's site. But the reasons can't be discussed here.

WTF?!?!?! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Goddamn. Just say straight out that you aren't gonna do it because you don't want to. Cause that is straight up bullshit you're spinning.

I can go in my admin on my tube site and hit "Delete" on any video I want to. And NOBODY can do shit about it. But Pornhub must be "special" and just because you own the site doesn't mean you have any real power, but it's reasons that can't be discussed. I'm gonna have to re-read the dmca law to see that part, it must be in invisible ink when it got to the section that says you can't change shit on your own website. lol

I don't have a problem with you Nathan/Fabian, but please don't act like that around me. Save that crap for the people who didn't pave the block you've been around.

He either doesn't want to and it's business as usual as everyone expected, or he can't because he doesn't actually own it.

Otherwise it just doesn't make any God dammed sense.

sometimes i am ashamed to be in this biz, i swear :1orglaugh

Actually, cable companies ask for two pieces of ID when setting up a new account. Even if they didn't, you just sue whoever the account is registered to.

The law on the subject is very clear. It is a criminal and civil offense, in the USA, to make an unauthorized copy of a copyright work. Downloading fits the definition of making a copy. The law doesn't care what you think.

With that being said, the criminal penalties for distribution (uploading) are much harsher than for downloading. The criminal penalties for infringing copyright for profit are even harsher.

It amazes me how many discuss copyright without fully reading the DMCA as well as Title 17 and Title 18. Here is how things look for a tube owner that uploads copyright content without permission:

Pink Visual is suing Mansef and Interhub and not Brazzers. Why they decided to do that is their problem. The only thing that matters here is what a court decides.. I could sue you tomorrow, does that make you guilty?

Regarding the other people that claim they understand DMCA and are little lawyers... sorry, you do not see the big picture, its not that easy. I am not going to explain this here, and why should I, get educated by a real lawyer if you want to 100% understand it... Every single post here laughing at me about DMCA and copyright law has simple false understandings of the DMCA law _OR_ is not seeing the big picture. You have to see the law as a whole and not rip it out of context.

Robbie, regarding your comment about steve being able to subpoena me... I _TOLD_ him to do so. I also told him to send DMCA notices.
And Robbie, you are one of the few people that at least talk about the right thing.. yes, this is about copyright _infringement_ and not about copyright itself.. you all should educate yourself what the difference is.
Regarding me being ignorant, I am not, you are simply missing a part of DMCA. Also your CP comment does not fit at all. A basic misunderstanding of DMCA and/or 2257.

RK, as you said, "for a tube owner that uploads"... which is why I keep saying we do not run an illegal tube...

Fabian you are still avoiding the fact that you CAN remove that video of Steve's. You know it is his. You are the owner of the site. Just go to the admin and hit "delete" then it's gone. Don't dance man.

If you're going to stand behind the dmca and say "I'm not doing anything illegal" and blatantly disregard the fact that that is Steve's video, and force him to take action then what kind of shit is that?

This isn't the same as claiming that you didn't know it was there...it's been pointed out to you specifically. You're not only stealing his content to make money off of prepaid ad spots...but you've also taken his spot on search engines. A double slap in the face.

Nothing wrong with out-seo'ing somebody...but you got that spot simply because that is a one of a kind video and was NEVER meant to be seen outside of the members area.

You know that. And you should have the decency to pull that shit down without having to have a guy who busted his ass all these years beg you to take it down...only to have it re-uploaded minutes later.

You SHOULD take it down and make sure it never shows up again. That is what a person with any sense of dignity and class would do. Instead you are spitting in his face. There is NO law that keeps a site owner from removing a video. Why not just do the right thing in this one freakin' instance and act like a gentleman?

If I understand the game as long as Nathan doesn't take down without a dmca he can claim safe habor. Now if he starts filtering uploads then safe Habor doesn't protect him. They have to change the law and they will not change it for us but for the motion picture biz. It also helps when you have VP of the us that calling it straight up theft it sets the tone.

Yeah, I get that. But Jesus Christ...there are plenty of times that I see one of my vids on a tube site, and instead of bothering Eric...if I know the guy, I simply icq him and ask him to take it down. Boom, I get an apology and the vid comes down. It's just simple courtesy. Nobody getting their "safe harbor" threatened. He could just hit "delete" because it is a video that he knows for a fact that someone stole from a peer in the industry. Nothing is stopping him. He's not "filtering". He would just be doing the right thing.

I will try for the third time.

How many people have your attorney's sent a letter to that chose not to fight in court and chose not to pay...but simply chose to not appear in court and lose by default...and just say fuck it...try to collect the judgement? They then will have minimal exposure.

I have sued more than one person in small claims court that did not appear and lost by default...and have yet to collect a dime from the judgement against them...except for one person...who voluntarily paid the judgement.

Because keeping it the way it is makes him $$$ and because he doesn't care what you think. But you already knew that.

Everyone I know that has a wireless network has it in a anonymous name. You can order cable online then when the installer comes out he dose not care about ID.

Why would you put anything like that in your name? :disgust

Robbie,

I am sorry, but Steve has _NOT_ icqd or contacted me OR posted here to remove this video!

_YOU_ have.. since when do YOU own lightspeed?

PLEASE understand DMCA, if you do not, stop posting your nonsense... You might actually want to consider that steve read this and decided NOT to contact us about it.. ever think of that? Why might that be? You do not understand DMCA or at least not the point of it, I am sorry.