Respect! :thumbsup :2 cents:

GFY will not allow me to post the million :1orglaugh's that that statement makes me want to post.

So I will settle for a single one.


:1orglaugh

Done right that could be 3000 years of earning off pirates.

Maybe Steve is right and it's a cash cow waiting to be milked. Time will tell.

Yes of course you do. Which is why you allow Joe Shmoe to upload anything he likes. Or have you blocked unauthorised uploaders? If you had 400 studios uploading content you would have loads of clips with adverts allover them.

Someone is going to build a war chest and come after you. You're too big and too rich to ignore. The gap in your DMCA protection is that you don't monitor what is being uploaded. If you did monitor, your site would be full of films that would have the FBI knocking on your door and clips with full blown adverts in.

Good or bad you gotta give Steve Lightspeed some props. Instead of sitting on his hands and bitching about a problem, he is trying to do something about it. Steve gained my respect one night by the pool in Miami many years ago.

very true indeed

new boyfriend $.02


new girls are earning much, much more than that in LA. then they start hooking and make much much more


not so sure this is true

I was trying to be conservative and not going for the top.

Seen a lot of good and some special girls shot by average and mediocre shooters who just never got anything out of them. OK some girls will always pull out that extra little bit that makes them special. But if the shooter isn't able to put that into a scene that has something extra to offer it's still very often average porn.

And those girls earn a lot more than $1,000 a week. A lot lot more. :1orglaugh

Yes Steve is standing up and doing something which is more than most do. Steve has always been like this. Remember who took a stand against Acacia?

Maybe if he's successful a lot more will jump on the bandwagon. kazbalah it won't take 3000 years if 400 content owners go down the same route. :thumbsup

Suing random people didn't work for the RIAA or MPAA. They spent almost $30 million last year and had a return of under $4 million.

I hope this doesn't bust Steve out in the long run.

I could be wrong, but when someone gets a notice because they stole "Hurt Locker" it's a little different than if they get a notice for stealing "Black-Tgirls.com." How you gonna explain that one to your wife?

You can bet your ass if they have a family, they are going to pay up. :2 cents:

He's protecting his property - his content - and going after people who view it without paying him for it. It's no different than the big movie studios going after YouTube or the music companies going after people who downloaded their music and listened to it without paying for it.

The music industry is a great example. Zillions of people downloaded music without ever paying for it. That music is owned by someone and it's not to be given away. It needs to be paid for before you can listen to it. It's no different here.

Wow! You are a real piece of shit. You make a thread knocking the efforts of one of the greats when you yourself are nothing. Here is a big fuck you. Your nothing but a surfer. No wonder you have a green name, you do nothing but flap you mouth like a whore.

Let me emphasize the big FUCK YOU!

I really wish people like you would just pull your heads out of your assholes and wipe the residue shit from your eyes and see what's really going on. But, my guess is you like being nothing more than that shit hence your reason for a thread like this to begin with.

Again... Fuck you asshole.

Nathan, I gave a thought for a moment about actually joining your program and sending you video, but if your seriously defending the people stealing others works and trying to bitch-slap the people who are trying to make an effort to stop the madness (or at least make a few people think twice about uploading and stealing in the first place) then I really want nothing to do with you.

Kind of makes me think that the truth is coming out here and your upset the these cases might actually help in setting a precedence?

Why else would he be posting so much in all of these anit-piracy threads?

anyone else feel like the OP is a wanker? lol

QFT...

I've been saying this was the way to go for years. I never had the cash to pursue it so I'm glad someone who does getting the ball rolling. Once he starts winning, it will make the road a LOT easier for us little guys. Once lawyers realize that they can make money off this they will start coming out of the wood work "Porn copyright chasers" I would gladly give them 50-60 even 70% of any winnings just to fight this.

He was a programmer just a few year back. He's not the moneyman in this game. He's just the mouthpiece...which would be why he's here in every thread doing what you pointed out.

Gerco, not sure which part of what I am saying you do not understand.

I have absolutely nothing against suing people that are stealing and uploading the videos to sites they have no rights for. None of this has anything to do with suing surfers though that download torrents. (I am not even talking about tube surfers since you can simply NOT SUE THEM... accept that finally, if you could, viacom would have sued all of the US already because everyone on this planet goes to youtube)

There is no precedence here and it has nothing to do with any truth...

I put in an effort to stop the madness going on with our own content too... it just is not that simple and just suing people left and right will NOT FIX THE PROBLEM...

At some point in the near future, most of you will hopefully understand that... for everyone else, there is no saving you... sadly.

RIAA and MPAA has been suing surfers LEFT AND RIGHT the past years.. Do you see _ANY_ change in the amount of torrents out there? NO! Of course you do not, since those people sadly do not care, we have to fix this problem in another way...

I wouldn't give two shits if someone told my wife. If someone from this IP was surfing trannies, it was her. :1orglaugh

Sucks being jealous huh? :)

Point, torrent users, while download said stolen work, are in turn sharing it to others. Making them the infringer.

As to tubes, you sue the UPLOADER for damages. (which you could base on the number of views said tube site is reporting) I'm sure that one could get the uploaders information by going though legal channels. I'm also sure that you yourself have record of who uploaded what. (what IP's it came from etc.) You even have verified email etc. Since I believe this to be the case and your saying that you are NOT backing these illegal uploads, then I assume that you would be willing to give such information over freely to those of us that can PROVE ownership of said content being infringed upon?

You have no reason to deny that information correct? I mean, what would be the point of protecting a thief basically fencing stolen good? I know you will try and come back with it a privacy issue with the uploaders... Really? What are they going to come and sue you if you gave that information out? Do you give that information out for any other reasons like marketing etc?

If your not protecting this thieves then make a stand publicly and help us that are being torn down by their actions.

Gerco,

I already said this on this forum before, to steve. As long as I can legally give you the info (as you said, privacy laws) which means you will have to subpoena it or I would break a law... And yes, OBVIOUSLY they will sue me? You just sued them and the only reason you could is because I gave out their info without a court order.. Why do you think Steve has to subpoena hosts to get info on the IPs of infringers?!?!

And no, we do not sell our member database...

So, just as I follow DMCA law, I follow privacy laws and I follow other laws which have to do with tubes...

And we are one of the few people that follow DMCA to the t, except that we do not use stupid excuses like malformed DMCA notices...

Ok, so what's stopping you from putting a simple disclaimer into your TOS taking away said privacy of the infringing uploader? Stop all the bullshit "we need a subpoena" crap. Your already verifying email etc, so there is nothing stopping you from taking this next step.

Because I do not like it when obvious privacy rights are taken away hidden in some TOS text... Also, it is hard for me to 100% verify that the copyright info is real, so a subpoena will always be required.. if a court tells us to give out user info we have, we will obviously comply.

Why do you not just upload your videos to the tubes and use them as traffic generation?

ive always enjoyed your sig :thumbsup

yes, because thats how the law works. You can void any privacy rights with a simple tos :)

"Terms and conditions....

4. Conduct

You agree that Pornhub shall have the right to determine in its sole and unfettered discretion, what action shall be taken in the event of any discovered or reported violation of the terms and conditions contained herein."

Looks to me to be the very thing I'm talking about. By this line are you not taking away any rights to privacy anyways? I mean, giving legal owners the information of the infringer, regardless of a subpoena would tend to fall under "sole and unfettered discretion, what action shall be taken".

Gerco, sorry, but we can legally not do what you claim we can... we need a subpoena for it... just because we say we can do what we want, does not mean we can break a LAW...

He's got lawyers doing this on a no win no fee basis. If he loses it costs him nothing, if he wins he's in profit from the first $.

How the RIAA or MPAA spent $30 million is beyond me. Isn't this a simple case of getting the IP address and sending out letters? If the person receiving it decides not to pay it's time to go to court. To fight in court cost both sides money. So the pirates that chose to fight are in for a big bill. Those who don't turn up automatically lose, unless a lawyer gets a postponement. Then it's time to receive the checks or send the bailiffs. Who sends the bailiffs, the court or the winner of the damages?

RIAA or MPAA probably lost because they didn't enforce the damages.

The porn industry has no problem looking like the bad guy, we are already the bad guy. The publicity would be great and put the fear into the pirates.

Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm no lawyer. But do it with more than "You don't understand." Like Nathan does.

Yes, I'm a surfer because I didn't want to own a porn site during the Bush years. :1orglaugh

Son, I promoted sites with non nude images and made more money than I knew what to do with. I have always (to this day) been able to find the traffic and convert it better than most, I just do not want a site I have to fuck with 2257 on. That has fuck all to do with making money in this industry, I just leave that bullshit to someone else.

I agree, one can not do something legally if it's breaking the law... kind of a redundant statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Under the law I thought that safe harbor was afforded those with user uploaded content who did not monitor said uploaded content and had no control over it?

If this was the case, why are these tubes not filled with Beast, CP, Hate, etc? It would seem to me that the very lack of this illegal content would show a direct monitoring and editing going on? How is it that this type of content seems to be completely gone, while another type of illegal activity is allowed to flourish?

Look, I'm not just trying to bust your balls here. I actually would simply like a direct strait forward answer.

Also, show me where in the LAW users of a porn tube (or any other site) are provided a default blanketing protection to privacy anyways.

Said user is already hiding behind an IP etc, So you would really not be giving out all that much, Now, getting the REAL NAME, address etc from that IP, would require said subpoena to the ISP...

You have made it very clear that you are not part of this industry. So your points, comments etc, are really meaningless. You have nothing (by your own words) to loose or gain in this fight. In that sense your nothing but that fat kid standing on the sidelines trying to egg it on for your own enjoyment.

Pathetic.

Let me break this sentence down a little...

Your an affiliate, who only promotes none nude images that some people seem to be willing to spend money on... a lot of money... Now, what types of "clothed" images would that be I wonder...

For some reason all of my videos never got listed on the larger tube sites... Funny since the uploads are un-monitered...

ouch!!!!

So if I upload a video clip with a clear URL in the start and end it will go up, as you don't monitor the uploads. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Steve is doing the right thing. I have Sexxy Brandon and MILF Mia and Amazing Cleo and Chubby Blondy and a shitload of others, and I spend countless hours getting their shit taken down and it's still all over the fucking web. Robbie is right in his fight just as Steve is right in his. I support them both (tho neither needs me to say a thing about their biz).

Tubes should be held to the same laws as any other content provider (radio, tv, certain websites). Stealing is stealing so let's stop with all this defending of (illegal) tubes, shall we?

All you've said is that illegal tubes are bad but you can't do shit about them with the current laws. Steve is suing torrent users, I doubt he's suing people streaming vids on tube sites.

It's good to be King -- keep it up, Steve :thumbsup

Uhm.. no idea what you are trying to tell me... but....

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=1727395752

video added today...

Actually, you are mistaken. DMCA law clearly states that content can be REMOVED under certain scenarios, like for example illegal content. What we are not allowed to do is for example out of 400 videos take 10 and throw away the rest simply because we do not like them... Meaning SELECTING is not allowed. If we have good reason to believe that a certain video is INFRINGING (please, I did NOT say COPYRIGHTED), we are not allowed to let it go up.

General privacy laws say that identifiable information, which includes the ip address, can not be openly shared with others. That is the whole point of privacy laws. Identifiable information. Which is why for example tracking cookies are ok to share for advertisers, since you can not call anyone and ask them what name is behind that cookie.

Also, regardless of all this. Sending a DMCA notice is no proof that you own the copyright. Which is why its not enough to get the info of an uploader. Only a court can decide if the uploader really broke the law. If you send fake DMCA notices to sites, which you had no right to, the site will have the ability to sue you over this too.