Gloves are off now. Enjoy. :thumbsup

Again, and for the last time. There are no tube sites in any of our members areas.

You are one funny guy, come and sue me and then we'll talk about this in court, how's that?

The "Man" is still in Manwin because the M is trademarked and branded in Montreal worth millions and Manwin.com was the best domain we could acquire.

As I have said in the past, none of the old owners are part of the business. Believe it or not, I do not honestly care...

And very sorry to tell you, but the assets are BY FAR not public-relation troubled. Just because some guys on GFY complain day in and day out does not make them troubled. The brand value BY FAR exceeds any kind of trouble GFY people could EVER bring to us...

Sorry again, but the tubes we run is not the majority of our business. And I can assure you, MANY MORE people in this business will be hurt than benefit from us closing our tubes.

Prove it. Close 'em down and let's see what happens.

You didn't answer my first part:

I start a thread on GFY keeping track of the usernames of all profiles that I have to DMCA Manwich on. Once a name gets 3 dings...you kill the username and ALL the other videos that user has uploaded. Or are you in the business of encouraging repeat offenders?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
I'm glad you just put it up straight finally.

i would actually consider this if it wasn't the fsc involved.

The fact that the FSC is involved I think is a great thing. First, who else would have put the time and effort into negotiating the use of state of the art technology for the benefit of the adult industry as a whole? Who else would have been able to get basically a huge group discount that fits with the majority of the industry's needs?

No private company in this industry would have had the time, energy or desire to spend months to work on something like this. And if a private company did do this, then there would be a whole slew of conflicts of interest.

The FSC has been nothing but accessible and helpful through the whole education process and finger printing process. They put you directly in touch with the people that handle the technology backend to be efficient.

And why I or Pink Visual encourages all content owners to participate is our belief that all content owners benefit from having less free porn out there and move away from the consumer mentality that porn=free.

I have nothing against the FSC. But you're kinda making it out like they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

Reality is that it would be a huge money grab if they could somehow pull this off and get all the pirate sites in the world to comply with it.

Step one would be to get some major content producers on board, which would be the conference you guys are having. Then step two would be to pressure some more tube sites into going along with it (the part that is going to be a lot harder).

That would then give SOME protection on some tube sites. And it would make the FSC some money.

I don't see anything wrong with any of that part.

I'd just like to say that there are much, much cheaper ways to do this that are more effective over ALL sites (including bit torrent sites and file share sites and all tube sites).
Not attacking or trying to belittle this little deal. I'm just sayin'...

And yeah, a lot of folks don't trust the FSC at all. They were supposed to be representing a consortium of adult companies in first ammendment cases before the courts. And we all saw how that kinda went.

And now they are jumping into something that they have zero experience with and apparently are still on a learning curve as to what, who, and how piracy is done.

I kinda wish they would go WIN some damn cases against the govt. assault on the porn industry like they are supposed to do. And I'm thinking that is what a lot of other folks are thinking too

Robbie, the FSC Anti Piracy Action Program is not currently the atomic bomb to kill all online piracy in one day. I agree that companies need to also use other solutions combined with this and take other feasible steps to minimize infringement from customers. However, this finger printing solution, unlike many others, actually prevents infringement seamlessly versus going after infringement after thousands of people have already viewed your content.

I also believe that the program will grow and it will be "pulled off" because the FSC actually doesn't have a learning curve when it comes to IP law. Also, we benefit from the fact that this industry is relatively small so getting the message out isn't that difficult. I'm already aware of more tubes looking to get started.

Not wishing it ill will...just saying that the FSC has always been the equivalent of the keystone cops, pretty much bumbling everything. lol

And having attorneys that understand IP law doesn't mean they are actual webmasters who have a few years of real world experience with this.

There are already some people here who actually know where and how and who is involved. For instance RYC already stated he has a data base of around TEN THOUSAND pirate sites right now. And those sites are being crawled as we speak.

The FSC is going to crawl a handful of tubes. And charge a lot more money to do it.

Meanwhile people are already crawling, looking, and auto dmca'ing very effectively and getting results because of relationships developed over time.

That's sort of what I'm saying when I speak of a learning curve that the FSC simply doesn't have. This isn't their field of expertise (some would say they have yet to show a successful field of expertise heh-heh)

I hope that the FSC does a good job on this. And I hope that there will be a way to somehow coerce those 10,000 + pirate sites to all join in and actually make that worth the $450 a month that is being asked.

Honestly? I'd rate that at about $50 a month IF it was hitting thousands of pirate sites. And then I'd want it to auto DMCA them down as opposed to replacing it with a trailer. Doing the trailer thing on a few tube sites doesn't help you over at porn bb dot org with entire members areas ripped, cataloged and linked up as millions of people download them. Hell, that's the kind of place they get the scenes to upload to the tubes to begin with.

But since all these new experts didn't bother to ask me...I hope that this partial solution works well for everybody involved.

God knows these sites such as Pornhub have ass raped most of you to the ground, and any relief is better than none.

Robbie,

the part I do not understand is simple... first everyone complains about tubes, how evil they all are, how much they suck and so on... then people bring a solution, and the only thing yo ucan do is bash the solution.

The FSC and Allison clearly know that there is a TON more stuff than tubes out there that is causing piracy, but we have to start somewhere, no?

All the hate is sad... Hate me all you want, but TopBucks and the FSC? That's just ridiculous.

hate is a strong word.

Regarding the tracking and removal, I think it's brilliant. It's the monetization I don't have much faith in at the moment. I base this on what myself as a surfer likes, and a blind link to anything will have be going back or closing a page down very quick. That is what I see as the downside. I don't think, and I may be totally wrong, that many eyes are actually going to see what is used as a replacement video, whatever that new video may be.

Right now it is $450 for 10 videos, across 9 tubes, and you own most of those. We're not even to 16 yet. Even then, while I do agree that tubes were the beginning of the problem, and I wish the illegal tube owners would die and suck cock in hell along with their mothers, I also know that the real piracy TODAY is happening elsewhere.

With the help of some software I already have and Google Alerts, I can handle 9 or 16 tubes on my own with little effort at all. Takes 10 mins a day for that little. It is not worth $450 to me for such little policing. Now, get up to 16 tubes AND add 16 torrents AND 16 file sharing sites AND 16 surfer boards, and you have yourself a great deal. But 9 - 16 tubes, I just don't see the value because that much is very, very simple to police once you've done the hard part of getting all of it removed once. Upkeep is easy, even if frustrating when the same videos keep going right back up.

Like I said, tubes and torrents started it, but tubes are manageable now. I can DMCA the shit out of a handful of tubes quickly, but file sharing... that takes a while. Search the board, find the links, find what pages they link to, then DMCA. THAT is time consuming. Tubes are not, once you have a system together.

Tubes, torrents, file sharing, surfer boards, porn saturation, bad economy, stopped making DVDs... lots of reasons for a drop in my income. I do not blame one over the other, but blame them all collectively, including myself for not doing something about it when piracy started to happen.

I just don't see the value in 10 videos scanned across 16 tubes (9 currently). This is new for you as well, and long term neither of us know what is going to work or not. Only scanning 10 of your latest updates may or may not work. As a porn surfer myself, I don't care if a video was just updated or is 20 years old, so long as it fits my fantasy at the moment. I hope covering 10 updates works for you, I'm just doubtful it will. You have a cock (I think) and if you actually masturbate you should know that it just doesn't matter when something was released, to get you off. Maybe the hard core "porn star" fans will care, but I've never been into that so I can't say.

I can't expect you guys to close your tubes. Wouldn't ask. It is a HUGE traffic source now. However, what pisses people off is how it came to be. Lets face the facts, while you personally may not have had a hand in it, the company you bought was one of the largest pirate operations ever. Those tubes would not have the traffic it has today if it did not steal everyone else's videos, and yes, at least at one time, the company had staff uploading for it, just like that had a tube section of stolen videos in the members area. You say you're changing that, time will tell. I hope you do. But to come in AFTER the "deed" was done and act like it's all kittens and butterflies, insults a lot of people and pisses them off.

Honestly, you bought what was at one time, a literal criminal enterprise, who screwed over just about every studio and producer in the industry. The company became a GIANT due to ripping everyone off, now you walk in and say it's over and lets all get along and make money together? THAT is what pisses people off. Sending DMCA's are just a hassle, but one we can live with.

I'm not blaming you for anything that was done before. But it was done before and it did help to create the problem we all face now. To not acknowledge that is an insult to everyone in the business and is the fuel that continues to get poured on the fire.

If some gang raped my sister, then got a new gang leader who said it's all good now and we don't do that anymore, and that he didn't have anything to do with the old gang... that just doesn't work. HE IS STILL IN THE GANG!

I agree, tubes are not the biggest problem for piracy. No doubt about that. Not anymore. Hence my reservation about paying $450 to scan a handful of tubes for 10 videos. While I see illegal tubes as a problem, I no longer view them as a large problem. That time has come and gone. I can manage the biggest ones now with little effort.

Hate? I don't hate TopBucks or the FSC. You're trying to twist words here. The FSC just never was able to successfully do what it was supposed to do all those years ago. And I'm pointing out a simple fact...they don't have ANY experience in dealing with content theft online. They are going to have to spend a couple of years building that knowledge, and a couple of more years is something that a lot of people don't have if things continue on.

I certainly don't "hate" them. They've never done anything to me. Or for me. Or much of anything at all from what I have read.

As for Top Bucks...I've been an affiliate of theirs since they first opened that program. Why would I hate them? I'm wanting these programs like Top Bucks to do something that will allow me as an affiliate to once again make sales the way I used to with them.

Is this gonna do it? No. Does it have some promise? Maybe, but again...$450 for a handful of tubes is not gonna fly. Not when I can get all sites spidered and dmca'ed for far, far less.
For instance, I COULD afford to go to a bar and pay $100 for a beer. But that don't mean I should.

And I don't hate you either. I don't even know you. Hell, I've never even HEARD of you before and I've been doing this a long time and had relationships with just about every adult company out there. Best I can tell you were once a grunt worker or something with TMM? And then you suddenly got rich and bought Mansef in a bad worldwide economy. Okay, I'll suspend my disbelief.

I'm just pointing out that IF people want to be serious about piracy...then just deciding to hand it all over to the FSC isn't the best idea. There are effective people out here right now and it seems dumb to me to ignore them and try to convince everyone to jump on with a legal group that was supposed to defend our industry in legal decisions before courts.

I do hope that this helps somewhat. But being in the trenches the last couple of years while you were...uh, doing whatever it was you were doing and Top Bucks was trying to figure out what to do and the FSC was doing...uh, whatever it is they were doing: I just don't see this having any real impact.

But again, I sure hope it does have some impact other than just putting more money over to FSC and then achieving negligible results.

Nathan:

Since you STILL haven't answered my challenge. I shall ask again. If you are REALLY honest about wanting to cut down on the piracy on your sites:

I start a thread on GFY keeping track of the usernames of all profiles that I (and others) have to DMCA Manwin on. Once a name gets 3 dings...you kill the profile and ALL the other videos that user has uploaded. Or are you in the business of encouraging repeat offenders?

C'mon dude...do you have any idea how drastically this would cut down the piracy on your sites? Pretty simple solution, doesn't cost anyone any money and you rid yourselves of the repeat copyright offenders. Why wouldn't you take me up on this?

Amazing. Now you have to pay the host to stop piracy on it.

I?ll begin with the complaints. First, signupdamnit writes, ?I think the digital fingerprinting technology should be far cheaper and more open.? I find this statement to be the most ironic comment in the entire thread, yet it seems to represent an attitude that is quite pervasive. Vobile, the software company with which FSC has contracted, expects to be paid a fair price for their intellectual property. They have invested millions upon millions of dollars in this technology, there is an expense to operating and administering these information systems, and they are business people who would like to see a return on their investment. One would think that a group of content owners could sympathize with the fact that Vobile is not willing to give away their intellectual property or to sell their services at a loss. (If you think that Vobile?s prices have been inflated, that they are making more than a reasonable return on their investment, I strongly encourage you to check out the other providers?BayTSP for example, an excellent company that offers a product/services very similar to Vobile?s.)

Second, signupdamnit believes that he ?should not be required to work with any one organization or provider.? Yes, in order to participate in APAP, you must be a member of FSC. FSC invested months upon months of work and incurred significant expenses in order to design APAP as a Member?s Benefit. Membership Benefits, for any membership organization, are available to those who pay membership dues/fees. Again, I would think that this would be a relatively simple concept for webmasters who run membership sites. Would you open up your ?member?s only? area to people who haven?t purchased a membership simply because they don?t think it?s ?fair.??

Third, several people have claimed that APAP is a cash grab. Others claim that it is a struggle for FSC?s relevance. And yet others claim that it is outside the scope of FSC?s Strategic Plan. The Free Speech Coalition is a 501(c)6?a membership organization/trade association. More specifically, FSC is a group of adult entertainment companies that came together to collaborate on litigating, lobbying, educating, collective bargaining, bulk purchasing, etc. It is a group of adult companies, funded by adult companies, and governed by adult companies. (Here, I have to correct Robbie. Robbie claims that FSC is ?supposed to be representing a consortium of adult companies in first amendment cases.? FSC was never and is not now limited to First Amendment issues in its mission. I?ll be the first person to acknowledge that this name is misleading and unfortunate?I wish to hell the founders had chosen something different. While the founders were right in that the name is more politically palatable to the mainstream than something like ?The Pornographer?s Union,? it has led to nothing but misconceptions within the industry. I want to be clear on this. FSC?s mission is: to lead, protect and support the growth and development of the adult entertainment community.

Every year, the entire FSC membership elects members to its Board of Directors. Every three years, these elected representatives develop a Strategic Plan. In the Strategic Plan, they answer the questions, ?What are our highest priorities?? They ask, ?What issues are relevant to us?? ?Over the next three years, what should the scope of our work be?? ?How do we want to spend our money--the money that we, collectively as members, have pooled for this purpose??

The vast majority of issues/problems addressed by FSC require a tremendous expense, and membership dues are used to cover those expenses. When FSC fights .xxx, we don?t make any money; we spend a great deal of money. When FSC fights Cal/OSHA, AHF, and the LA Country Department of Health in order to prevent mandatory condoms, we don?t make any money; we spend a great deal of money. When FSC fights Calderon and his 25% tax on adult products, we don?t make any money; we spend a great deal of money. Despite the fact that these issues affect the entire industry, those companies who pay FSC membership dues shoulder the entire burden. And, it?s important to note that FSC?s membership dues have not increased by one single penny in 30 years. Now, FSC has developed a program to fight piracy, and because we developed a pricing structure that covers the cost of hiring an attorney and administering the program, we are being accused of a ?cash grab.? Unbelievable.

If, despite the reality of what FSC is, you believe that FSC is some sort of nefarious group of parasites feasting on the profits of the adult industry, if you believe that FSC is really some secret group of opportunists living in million dollar Malibu mansions, do not join. Do not become a member. Do not give FSC one single penny. Problem solved. You have nothing more to bitch about.

Now, for those interested in looking forward and who are open to a thoughtful and organized approach to addressing the problem of piracy, both Robbie?s and Allison?s comments make is clear that I have done a poor job in communicating exactly how we got to where we are today. So, I?d like to take this opportunity to correct my mistake and tell you the story of how APAP came to be.

It began, not months ago, as Allison wrote, but rather two years ago, when FSC?s Board of Directors acknowledged the fact that ad hoc approaches to the problem were not working, that FSC had been remiss in not addressing this issue earlier, and that an organized strategy against piracy would be one of the coalition?s strategic priorities. As directed by the Board, I immediately began work on a piracy project plan.

While I do have some expertise in collective bargaining and negotiations, I have limited knowledge of that for which I was negotiating?tools that could be used to fight piracy. On Nov. 18, 2008, FSC hosted an anti-piracy summit. Speakers included Dean Garfield, Executive VP, MPAA; Lawrence Kanusher, Senior VP, Sony Music; David Kaplan, VP, Warner Bros. Studios; David Ring, VP, UMG Recordings; Steve Kang, Senior Counsel, NBC-Universal; Alasdair McMullan, Senior VP, EMI Music, Michael Huppe, General Counsel, SoundExchange; Jennifer Pariser, Senior Counsel, Sony Music; Scott Coffman, President, AEBN; Steve Hirsch, Managing Partner, Vivid Entertainment; and a number of attorneys from Jenner & Block and attorneys from Mitchell, Silbergber & Knupp.

In addition to educating myself and others about the technological solutions available and what other industries were doing, I began to ask our members, practically individually, how we should approach the problem of piracy. In January 2008, at AEE, I had dinner with Scott Coffman (AEBN), Ilan Buni (Gamelink), Eric Johnson (Sureflix), and Richard Cohen (Hotmovies). We spent hours talking about how piracy has affected their companies and the various ways that they would like FSC to proceed in finding tools and developing programs to fight it.

Then, at the xbiz conference in February, we held a meeting with producers, to discuss approaches to piracy. In attendance at that meeting were Phil Harvey and Bob Johnson (Adam & Eve), Steve Hirsch (Vivid), Theresa Flynt and Michael Klein (Hustler), Ali Joone and Samantha Lewis (Digital Playgroung), Rob Novinger and Tony Rios (Channel One), Steve Orenstein and Avi Bitton (Wicked), Bruce Lehay and Keith Webb (Titan), Frank Koretsky (IVD/Pleasure), Christian Mann and John Stagliano (Evil Angel), and Christopher Alexander (Anabolic).

Over the next year, we continued to meet. This group came up with ideas, met with our mainstream counterparts to see what they were doing about copyright infringement, met with tube sites, piloted a few mass-DMCA takedown targets, and organized multi-plaintiff litigation.

It became immediately apparent to all involved that our industry was underdeveloped as far as the technology needed to combat piracy. We met with the companies our mainstream counterparts recommended. During our initial conversations with these companies, we found that, typically, studios pay $30,000 monthly for their services. We negotiated with a number of companies and were able to develop a system where FSC would purchase the product for participating members. Through aggressive negotiations and bulk purchasing we have been able to save FSC members tens of thousands. Throughout the negotiations we made it clear that if the program did not work for the smallest of companies, it would not work at all. Now a studio can track their material, send takedown notices and receive the rest of the APAP benefits for as little as $400/month. That is a marked improvement over $30k for software alone.

FSC contracted with Gill Sperlein a very successful and aggressive copyright infringement attorney and Gill oversees the program that launched last April. APAP is a month to month program because we want to make sure that adult businesses do not feel trapped into a program they don?t like. No one has dropped the program since its inception and we have had many new members. APAP continues to grow and change as we are in constant contact with participants responding to their needs and feedback.

This week we announced that a number of tubesites have agreed to utilize APAP?s software program to block content from going up on their sites. Not only will the software block pirated content from going up, but also offer an opportunity for the content provider to monetize the traffic-the multi million viewers coming to these sites.

At the request of our participants, we are developing the same platform for filesharing sites and will roll that out by month?s end.

Working with Vobile, FSC?s APAP program will stay on the cutting edge of copyright infringement technology and working with our member participants we will continue to build on this ground-breaking program.

Thanks for addressing the issues.

I think everyone understands the desire to make a profit. But one thing which really troubles me is that I have yet to see an accounting for how these fees will be distributed among all parties involved. Not just generalities but exact figures and percentages. For instance is Manwin getting a % of all fees even when Manwin neither owns the tube in question or the content? What's the exact agreement and where exactly are the monies going. Full disclosure of fee disbursement would help a lot. I'm sure you have some sort of contract already in place among the key players so it seems odd for it to be some sort of secret if you seek industry wide participation and support.

I'll touch on technological issues once I've read more on the technology and any other options available so I will save that for a later time.

Good post DDuke...however, the companies you had meetings with in Jan. of 2008 had not YET felt the impact of piracy to the extent it became by the end of 2008/beginning of 2009. So those meetings don't mean much. Hell, I talked to so many paysite owners over the last couple of years and I can tell you flat out that at the beginning of 2008 I was still being told to "not worry about it" and "it's good advertising and branding"

Also, in regards to the cost.

Yes, I'm sure that Hollywood studios with giant budgets are getting milked pretty good pricewise. And it's great that you were somehow able to convince the software people to give us such a great break.

But again...it comes down to how effective it is versus cost.

A major studio releases "Iron Man 2" for instance. Hell yeah it's worth 30 grand to them to try and keep it down to a dull roar on pirate sites.

I release "Claudia-Marie Gets Butt Fucked By Pornhub" this week. Next week I release "Claudia-Marie Blows The FSC" and next week I release something else and so on and so forth...
BIG difference. So explaining how much the software fee for Hollywood vs. Adult is kinda pointless.

Bottom line is simple business: How much is it worth? The answer: Whatever someone is willing to pay.

Are there better solutions to keeping stuff off of ALL sites for a quarter of the $450 a month? You better believe there is.

Bottom line: You need to get this rolling on THOUSANDS of pirate sites. I'd forget the "replace vid with trailer" bullshit. That is doing nothing but forcing you to beg pirates to comply. Use the software the correct way: Auto DMCA.

And to do that you're going to need the data base of the pirate sites. Something that you don't have yet.

That's my point. You've went out and secured fancy software. And you don't have the means to implement it correctly yet (a handful of tubes so far).

It's sort of like if I went out and bought a NASCAR race car. I wouldn't have a clue what to do.

You've got a bazooka in your hands but no target at this point.

That's what I'm saying when I say you have ZERO experience. Having meetings and attending seminars isn't going to suddenly smarten you up.

I honestly think you need to drop that price WAY down real quick and try to get tons of folks on board. Otherwise I can't see the cost effectiveness of paying $450 to play video switch-a-roo with a few tube sites. And yes I know you plan on it growing. Well, like ALL businesses you need to have the correct price point for that.

And $450 ain't it. And joining the FSC to bolster you guys up a bit more...well, that's pretty smart on your part. But again...the $450 a month is gonna stop that from happening on a major scale.

It doesn't matter to me or anybody else that runs a business how fancy and "cutting edge" your software is. If I can get better results on over ten thousand pirate sites for a quarter of your price and I don't have to join anybody or anything...well, it's a no-brainer on that one.

Again, I'm not discounting the wonderfulness of this software. Just pointing out the real world here. You're asking people for a premium price and delivering about 9,990 LESS pirate sites being impacted.

You're gonna start out delivering tiny results, you may want to re-think this "Well Hollywood pays a LOT more" business strategy.

I am certainly playing devils advocate here with this discussion. I sincerely wish that you had brought this to the table with at least some of the people who have been actively dealing with piracy while you were having meetings and attending seminars. No offense. But come on man. This thing needs some pit bulls who are hands on experienced and it needs to be tweaked out to start going after ALL pirate sites.

Others have and are doing it. But best of luck on this. Maybe in a few months you'll get it all up to speed. Fastest way would be to set that shit to auto dmca and flag it after a certain period for litigation if it doesn't come down.
That would get REAL results and wouldn't depend on asking pirates to play nice. You could instantly be going after ALL sites instead of a handful (well, that is IF you had the databases of the sites all filled in with dmca info on each of the 10,000 + of them)

Just a quick point here is that you realize you get the funds first in the form of the membership & you then pay the FSC APAP, not the other way around? So you would be tracking each sale via your program & the unique identifiers to associate each sale with where it came from.

Understood. :) The main question is simply where are the fees paid going exactly? Say a content provider chooses the 35% option.

What percentage of the 35% in this example (if any) goes to............

1. The host tube.
2. The FSC
3. Vobile
4. Manwin (Where neither the host tube or content owner)
5. Your company (Where neither the host tube or content owner)
6. Any other party (please break down individually)

Knowing this might help considerably. I think some of us have our suspicions and the lack of this information only feeds them.

Content owner gets the 55%. Remaining % you pay to the FSC who distributes a portion to Vobile, the host tube, and the FSC retains a portion. I don't remember the exact % for each, but I recall it being close to a even split of 15% each.

Pink Visual is not a party to it. We are just a supporter seeing a larger picture that behooves the entire adult industry to minimize piracy and change the consumer perception that porn is free.

Thanks for that information. I'd really like to see something more specific though and I'd bet many reading would too. So if you or someone else could find out and state the exact % figures going to all parties that would be helpful.

Just to make sure because I guess some earlier info was wrong: 55% to content owner then and not 65%. So on the "rev share" option they pay 45% to this program then and not 35%, correct?

So you're not getting a % of any of this other than if you own the tube or the content. If so, great. I think that helps matters. But what about Manwin and their associated companies. Is the same true for them?

Manwin would get the % only on their tubes. Fabian has already posted why they are interested in using the technology on Manwin tubes and why he envisions more tubes doing the same (see page 1) There is an agreement on the technology

Fabian and I agreed to start this thread purely to educate as the technology is new to the adult industry despite years of use in mainstream.

And yes it is 55/45. I asked my earlier mistake to be corrected, I'm not sure that it was.

I could not agree more. :2 cents::2 cents:

:2 cents::2 cents:

See thread title. See those words "Manwin"?

This is why no one wants to be involved. Content owners don't need the company RESPONSIBLE for ripping them off telling them how much they have to pay them to stop doing it.

If Manwin is involved = FAIL.

Another very valid point.

So to the question of whether you're going to delete all videos uploaded by a user who's got 3 strikes, the silence is the answer.

How predictable.
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I would think DDuke and Allison would be encouraging their newfound friend to enact this as well. I guess a no-cost solution implies a 'no-profit solution' to certain parties and thus no one wants to get on board.

i don't even bother with pornhub anymore. everything i want is on slutboat. hardsextube, wankdb. your solution sucks.

RE Robbie
"Bottom line: You need to get this rolling on THOUSANDS of pirate sites. I'd forget the "replace vid with trailer" bullshit. That is doing nothing but forcing you to beg pirates to comply. Use the software the correct way: Auto DMCA."


First, the monetization factor is a key component to why this solution is affordable. I'm not sure how many times we've said it, but this technology normally costs each individual content owner $30,000 per month. And it costs that much because it's effective, state of the art, and consistent with the legal remedies that courts have ruled on in copyright cases.

Regarding thousands of sites. Of course the program intends to increase tube and torrent site participation. No one ever said it would be just these 8 and that's it. The fact that amongst these 8 includes many of the most traffic'd tubes is huge, many more will follow.

Now just a general note. There's a lot of irony going on here, especially with the most recent comments.

Let's take a realistic scenario like how some torrent sharing sites will blacklist a certain studio's content to minimize users from sharing it. Wouldn't you try and get on say those 8 torrent site blacklists despite the fact that there are 1000's more torrent sites? You don't have to become best friends with that torrent site.

So the the FSC APAP system is basically very similar. I think the only difference is the fact that people put a face and name to Manwin or other tube operators & then take it personally.

I have never heard of any successful business that overcame their obstacles through bitterness. In fact, I'm pretty sure some of the worst business decisions on record have come from too much emotion.

The FSC supports the "Principles for User Generated Content Services". Pink Visual also supports the use of these principles.

http://www.ugcprinciples.com/


Happy reading...

Hey Allison, let me apologize to you if I'm coming across like a dick.
I don't mean to do that to you in any way at all. I am a fan and supporter of what y'all did in going after Mansef/Manwin like you did.

As I said before though...the average business person is going to look at that and not really care how much MGM or Sony paid for that software. 30 grand isn't even 1/10000 of their advertising budgets.

What we all care about is cost effectiveness.

Now the revshare thing doesn't sound bad. Mainly because it won't make any money for the tube site which I'm VERY happy about. How can I say that? Well...Pornhub is my affialiate. I put up several videos on there, fully watermarked. They then put up a single small text link with their affiliate link.

But of course since tubes rely so heavily on prepaid ad spots, the page is so spammed from top to bottom with dating and cam ads and Live Jasmin popping up everywhere...that after several months my vids have had millions of hits. But Pornhub as an affiliate has only made 6 sales. LOL!

Those guys have NO sense of marketing. And all of the big tube sites are exactly like that. They are all cookie cutter clones of each other in terms of marketing and presentation.

So yeah, the revshare option is nice....IF it means you don't have to pay $450 a month for something that is far less effective than just hiring RYC to go out and find your stuff for you for MUCH MUCH cheaper and far more effectively.

But yeah the revshare thing is fine. Even joining the FSC isn't that big of a deal (though it sure would be nice if the FSC were working on First Amendment issues instead of being distracted with trying to monetize piracy)

So IF a person were to want to get involved in this particular thing. Would it be possible to do it simply by 1. Joining the FSC 2. Choosing revshare option 3. NOT having to pay any monthly fee for the "APAP"

What is the exact cost for someone wanting to go that route? Because that wouldn't cost a person anything other than the fee to join FSC because I can tell you right now from my own experience with my vids on pornhub that there won't be any sales coming off those pirate sites on the affiliate link.

And again...I am NOT trying to make you angry or be a pain in the ass (though I can see that I am being a pain by not jumping aboard). I don't want to hurt Top Bucks in any way at all or get you irritated with me. I'm not trolling, I'm just saying what my own experience in this business and in my own dealings with piracy of my stuff has taught me.