DWB you're right.

And for the second time I'm gonna have to admit to being a hypocrite. I kept gideongallery around because he made me laugh. But I have to follow my own code so I was forced to put him on ignore.

He's a clown and doesn't have the abilities to ever be able to enable me to make money with him. So off to IGNORE he went.

Nathan/Fabian is the same damn thing. A clown who won't make a dime for me. He's useless and has no knowledge of this business. I almost choked on my soda when he said HE is going to lecture to US about the DMCA law!!!

He's been a "managing partner" for a few months and he's an expert? But he can't answer any questions? LOL! Fucking clown!

Goodbye Nathan/Fabian. You were insignificant before and now you return there because you don't exist to me. Welcome to my ignore list.

Ouch, that hurts, I do not exist for Robbie :/ poor me...

Where in DMCA does it say that you can't boot a user and his submission for any or no reason, and why aren't you telling the uploaders the same as you tell here?

Curious, when one of your users loads a video onto one of your sites of a minor, do you just ban him, or do you just delete that one video, or delete all of his videos? Since a minor is involved, I would expect a different reaction than to a copyright issue.

Eh.... maybe more like concentric ovoids; the same points approached from a slightly different angle in each subsequent repitition.

Or maybe it's like the message board version of the instructions on a shampoo bottle: "blather, rinse, repeat." ;-)

I could remove your movies for ANY reason, if you agreed to that contract between us. Any private company or individual running a website or service can set their own rules and limit free speech. They can say "you are not granted unlimited backup "rights" on our servers" (ie they can also remove it for NO or ANY reason if they agreed). In case you didn't know, that's called a legal contract. You would not win any lawsuit, because you signed the contract.

That is exactly what it is. I know for myself, I enjoy watching Nathan's replies and how he dances around. We place bets here in the office on what he will say to boogie around a topic. "The Nathan Side Step" we call it. Almost better than playing Call Of Duty.

But most of all I enjoy wasting his time. He'll never get that back and it's the one thing I can steal from him with no recourse. Every minute he wastes on GFY being a smart ass and not spending time with his family, is a stolen minute. It's one more minute stolen from his life. He'll regret all the time he spent here later on. It's the least I can do for all the time I've wasted sending DMCAs to his sites. I render videos while I post so I'm still being productive, so no skin off my back.

Everyone who posts in these threads knows nothing will change. It never does. But we all love to waste his time and enjoy watching him dance. He's quite the ballerina.

DWB and Robbie why dont you stop wasting your time and try to work with Nathan?

He could send you both serious sales and traffic.
Tubes are going no where. They have sucked up all the traffic that 10000's of little tgps used to control.
Deal with it.

Already tried that. I put up 6 videos (pornhub is an affiliate of mine). The videos together have so far been viewed 2,131,924 times over the last 9 months.

From all those views on pornhub it has sent a TOTAL of 13464 uniques and SEVEN signups in NINE MONTHS.

I get more than that in type-ins in 15 minutes.

Do you think I haven't already checked all of this out, and I'm just talking out of my ass? Well, I'm not. This is a business and I'm damn good at making money at it. Pornhub is USELESS to sell paysite memberships off of the videos.

Two reasons...
1. They don't know how to promote it (the page is so full of pre-paid ads that you can't see the trees for the forest of spammy shit...also there's nothing to promote the actual site but a TINY text link above the vid)

2. The people that go to Pornhub have now been conditioned to think that they don't have to pay for porn anymore.

Here is one of my vids on pornhub...see for yourself...I can get more traffic to the site from the lowliest blog post than all of pornhub can send:

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=1028809565

I wonder of those seven signups how many are just surfers who typed your main terms in google and clicked on the pornhub link to see what they could get for free before signing up. That is, people who probably would have bought a membership anyway.

Now that is something that is unknown. Hell that's how Freeones gets all their signups is from people searching for models names on search engines. Difference is they know how to put together a page that sells memberships. Nathan doesn't.

But conversely...I can't prove that I don't get a shit ton of type in traffic from those videos either. Especially since Pornhub's guys don't have a clue how to market. (just look at that page with my video on it...no way that's ever gonna sell)

Hell, that's why I still leave them up there. The thought of a few people watching the vids...and then typing in claudia-marie in google and hitting my link in the number one spot and denying Nathan a sale kinda warms my heart.

Don't get me wrong...if the guy had a clue how to do what I do as far as being an affiliate then he COULD be making a fortune just on selling paysite memberships. But he's a programmer. Not a pornographer or a promoter. His skills aren't in sales, entertainment, and understanding how that all comes together. So he leaves millions of dollars lying on the table.

http://howiwastetime.files.wordpress...snap-chart.jpg

Oh, Snap!!! :1orglaugh

ADG

No editorial rights, and to be as protected in the tos as the law permits.

You get 13464 type-ins in 15 minutes to claudia-marie.com? Or you talking about some other site? 1.3 million type ins a day?! Or you mean 7 type-in signup in 15 minutes? 672 type in signups a DAY? All of claudia-marie.com does not even get 100k hits a DAY man... what are you talking about...

Or do you have some site with a traffic rank of 1500 or less on alexa hidden somewhere? Definitely not grampland.com or claudia-marie.com

Gee wiz, never thought about that before.

I stopped trying to work with their tubes before Nathan was in the picture. Never was able to get a video up there. Oddly, 100s of my videos would get put up my someone else who usually have over 1000 submissions in a short period of time.

That said, I have tried working with some honest tubes, and even a few dishonest ones, and I wasn't impressed with the results. I know some guys can work them with results, but I have not seen success. However, their success could also be relative. What is great for them may be horrible for me. Just the same as my greatest day ever in sales would probably cause Pimp Roll Dave to commit suicide.


I don't have a problem with tubes. I only have a problem with tubes who steal my videos, over and over and over again. I have a problem with people who devalue my content. And I have a real problem with them when they are arrogant pricks about it.



Right. The honest people should just "deal with it" and let everyone just ass fuck them. We shouldn't even bust the balls of those who are criminals or who have literally ruined the entire industry. Better to bend over and take it. Why even fight it? I mean fuck, Robbie, you just wasted all your time protecting your video stream, and so did I, we should have just continued to get hammered from behind.

Good logic. :thumbsup

I had to admit, you guys really lucked out with DMCA.

Anyone can create a total criminal enterprise with 100% stolen content and so long as they show no editorial control and remove any infringing video/photo if notified, you get free content and get to profit from it. Seriously, this is the best business model in the history of business models.

However, it is still unethical and built on thievery.

You slithering behind DMCA is the same as a person not paying taxes to the IRS but they don't avoid them and continue to file simply so they don't get brought up on tax evasion charges. Meaning, they use the existing law to do things they shouldn't be doing.

Slavery was once legal too. That doesn't mean those who owned slaves and beat them daily were doing the right thing simply because it was legal to own Negros. But they did it anyway. And that's the the sort of issue that divides the ethical people from the unethical people.

Robbie, are you taking into account that a significant part of those type-ins you get could be people that viewed your videos on Pornhub or other tubes and then typed your URL in the browser? Your videos have been viewed 2.1 mln times and that can be considered good branding. You didn't get many sales from the link above the video (thus saving you affiliate payouts to PH), but users can view your watermark and go from there. You can't track it, but you can't deny it.

True, hes got you there, you can't quantify the value you got from that kind of exposure and branding.

Why not just be a good guy and make uploaders agree to something like this...

...before they are allowed to upload?

So if i were to start a tube site and say put it in my TOS

by using our service to view videos you claim copyright ownership of, you agree to put all your content into the public domain, that should supercede all laws including the DMCA.

you do realize that if i were allowed to do that, the safe harbor provision would be turned into a trap that forces you to put all your shit into the public domain.

no copyright holder would be able to make a valid takedown request EVER

because a valid take down request requires you to identify the video exactly confirm that you have viewed it enough to know that it is not fair use, and declare that you own the copyright holder ,


you would meet all the conditions that my TOS requirement that you put all your content into the public domain.

and since i don't have to obey any take down request that is invalid, i wouldn't have to take the content down either.


That type of action would be just as invalid as when microsoft tried to take away backup rights and forced people to pay them 19.95 for replacement media of their software.

Microsoft lost their case , and i would lose mine.

actually technically because the DMCA says you must declare you have a good faith belief i might actually win (have the right to blanket ignore all your takedowns) because as long as you keep claiming the TOS supercedes the laws, there is no way you could ever have a good faith belief that content infringes your copyright, because you would believe (wrongly) that the instant you made your complaint your content would be in the public domain, and the uploader would therefore would be fully authorized to upload it.

or your just to clueless to realize how to properly sell your shit on the new medium

you need to change your content so that it matches the medium.

personally if i were NAT

i would put the if you view it you must put it in the public domain trap clause in TOS just to see how many of you guys would argue that TOS supercedes DMCA when it used against you.


and how many of you guys would backpeddle like little bitches argueing that would not be valid for some made up reason.

As you can see...I already covered that. As for their "branding"...Claudia-Marie.Com was already the number one alexa ranked traffic site for big tit girls in the world before pornhub was around. I have never had problems with branding. Also, since people are deliberately looking for her vids on pornhub...I don't think that they are bringing that many NEW eyes to her. Just old ones that want to see if there's any free vids of her.

Damn this is GREAT! I shoulda done it long ago!

Today, 02:49 PM
Remove user from ignore list
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 03:03 PM
Remove user from ignore list
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 03:08 PM
Remove user from ignore list
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

cliff nodtes ?

I cant read the watermark on your video

Also I am by no means a porn expert but I think BBW fans are looking for girls a little bigger.

Just trying to help and understand why you seem so angry at these tube sites.

It's all older footage that I put up there and was an old text watermark that I used to use two years ago. I guess after they process the vid with their tube script it kinda lowered the quality and made the watermark a little blurry. Not really that big a deal for us. CM is pretty well known and branded amongst my target audience (big tit lovers) and a quick Google search brings her up (we rank number one for her name thanks to my cleverness lol )

I didn't put it in there that way. Their marketing geniuses did. A lot of webmasters don't understand the BBW niche at ALL. Claudia-Marie has never done well on BBW sites that tried to promote her. True lovers of big women look at her and she is waaaayyy too skinny for their tastes. She might could be a smallish plumper, but even then she ain't what they are looking for.

When I submitted the vids I put them in the big tits category where they belong. But Pornhub marketing geniuses put it in BBW. Some webmasters have such a thing for little teen girls that are super skinny that they think any woman over 105 pounds is "fat"

Unfortunately for them...bbw enthusiasts do not. Like I said...Nathan's people have NO idea how to sell paysite memberships.

At the height of my tgp's right before tubes destroyed my traffic I had 1.2 million uniques a day. And I was making right at 100 grand a month in sales to paysites for almost 10 years at that point. I was also selling text links, banners, etc. for an extra 50 grand a month.

The rumor is that Pornhub gets 10 million uniques a day. It makes my mouth water to think how much money I or another skilled webmaster could make with that kind of traffic. I'd dwarf what they are making for damn sure as far as paysite sales go. Wouldn't even be close.

And that's what Nathan/Fabian can't understand with his mathematical programmers brain.

EDIT: And I think you know why people are so "angry" at tube sites.
They steal content.
They use your content to sell OTHER things like cams and dating.
They have destroyed sales for everybody by giving away full scenes for free.
Should I keep going?

i just went to alexa and tried to compare your site to scoreland.com and your not even close

where are you getting this number 1 ranked for big tit girls.

scoreland.com is way bigger

danni.com is way bigger

gideongallery (and Nathan), the safe harbor is only at risk if you remove user submission by same time making official statement that the reason is infringement (your belief or assumption).

That is editorial. Removing for any other or no reason is not editorial. You can say "I don't like you - therefor I deleted you and your submission", and there is no law preventing you from doing that.

no competent lawyer would say that
1. that doesn't even meet the dictionary definition of editorial control

by definition editorial control is the ability to edit or change the expression of the author based on the desires of the editor .

i don't like you so i am going to censor your expression completely is still editorial control.


secondly there are more then just DMCA laws to worry about

the eharmony lawsuit proves that, they choose to deny their services to gays because (as they claimed) the cost of doing the research to define the compatiblity questions would not be recoverable given the small size of the demographic (10% of the population).

That is a hell of a lot more defendable position then i am doing it because i don't like you

AND THEY STILL LOST

my lawyer says their a liablity, NAT lawyer says their a liability, your just Guy on GFY who has been proven wrong multiple times already.

btw i noticed you dodged the question

if i were to put a TOS clause that would force you to put your content into the public domain if you filed take down notice

should that TOS supercede your rights under the DMCA.

every "piracy" site in the world would therefore get away scott free for every

because the first time you submitted a takedown request you would be agreeing to put all your content into the public domain

which means i would be able to put it right back up and never have to take it down again.


IF TOS supercede the free speach/Fair use rights (law granted) of submitter, why couldn't those same TOS supercede your rights as a copyright holder (law granted rights) especially when the only way you could identify "infringing content" would be to use my services.

Ok, I better watch out for gays suing me because I do not allow gay content submission on my female tgp/tube.

:1orglaugh

Jesus....

oh right i forgot Gays are the first and only minority.

oh and wait gay people would never choose to make money or be able to comment about straight porn either.


for example i could splice together matt bixel AKA Danny Rhymes into a fake threesome, compare and contrast it to one of his real threesome scenes, to comment on/bring attention to the anti -gay mentality of the female porn stars

i realize the idiot who you hire as a lawyer might be too clueless to see how i could portray that removal as a "deliberate attempt to censor the commentary about a clearly anti-gay policy within the porn industry" but my lawyers are actually competent.


The fact is even with your deliberately scope limited view, i can produce a liable situation proves how wrong you are. BTW that another time you have just been proven wrong.

Add in race (of the submitter not the content) and you would have tons of potential liablities from "taking down content for any reason"

btw i notice you dodged the question

if i you truely believed that TOS should supercede the DMCA, why hasn't a single torrent or tube site simple put in their TOS that by using their site to view content you claim is your copyright you agree to put all your content in the public domain.

IF you can TOS can force conditions dam your legal liabilites, why couldn't a tube site simple force you to put your content into the public domain, if you filled out a valid take down request against them.

It would totally end the problem, because the only way you could keep your content out of the public domain is to not file a takedown request for any content.


basically get the full benefit of the safe harbor, and no work taking shit down.

Robbie, your last posts.. Man... I do not know what to say.. 1.2m unqs. 100+50k a month... And that back in the day when "everything" was so great??? Maybe we should teach you something instead of the other way around, LOL!

You just totally made my day! Almost as good as you saying claudia Marie is number one for big tits on Alexa, lol.

I disagree, it is not such a clear thing!

I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one.

big tubes pay famous rippers for uploading videos

duh

What like this guy?

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile...188_7526_n.jpg

Oh wait you said ripper - not rapper :1orglaugh:1orglaugh