Not that I would ever visit there, but edit now has a trailer for "Middle Men" running. Someone should have paid for a bootleg pre release copy and posted it up everywhere for download. edit relies on advertising. If you teach an advertiser a lesson in basic economics and file sharing, they won't advertise there. In the case of adult friend finder, maybe someone should copy all their videos from penthouse and the allied companies they own, hack passwords from the site, and post them, etc. You can find very talented russians willing to do about anything for a few bux. If a group of adult companies got together they could really put the hurt on these guys. If I owned an adult company edit would feel the pain, that's all I am saying. Pussies finish last. I don't want to go into details but long ago and far away, I had a business where one dickhead anti "free speecher" was really making life difficult. One allied programmer was russian and got into the guy's computer and lifted about everything. Pics got posted, flowers got sent to the guys mom, etc. The guy was never heard from again. Just saying........ [mod edit: name of tube site removed. We don't need to advertise for them. Thx.] Edited by - killbillvol69 on Feb 2 2011
I like how you think. However, I still like forcing the owners of the top five illicit tubes to eat each others dicks and balls while raw (after cutting them off) and then drawing and quartering them. Do all this in front of Chatsworth court house and video tape it. Then, post it on You Tube and the porn forums. I am sure there would be no problem finding enough cars and drivers to tie these scumbags arms and legs to and then flooring the accelerator, yanking their limbs from their bodies painfully. Then, leave them to bleed to death. I bet this stops the tube sites very quickly!
Back prior to my pre-porn days, I was in a rock and roll band with a little record deal, and a couple of songs on the radio. Every now and then, I still get a check from BMI for like $3, which represents the royalty payment they collect on my behalf from the radio stations. For 'Public Broadcast Rights'. Now, it's got me thinking about Tube Sites. Aren't these sites, more or less the equivalent of a Radio Station, but playing Videos, instead of music? They are 'Publicaly Broadcasting' Video Content, which is illegal under Copyright Law. What BMI and ASCAP (the two primary 'fee collectors' in the music industry) do, is they charge and collect 'Public Broadcast' License Fee's from the Radio Stations, Bars, Clubs, Mobile DJ's - pretty much anyone who plays music in public. In fact, the bar owners typically hate the BMI and ASCAP people, because if you advertise 'Live Entertainment' or 'DJ', they come after you, sometimes with steep fines. And if the Bar Owner doesn't pay up? They get slapped with a Law Suit for Copyright Infringement, for Playing Music in Public. The bars pay up, or they cancell their live entertainment. If there was such a group, working on behalf of Adult Producers that would monitor Tube Sites, and charge them a Licensing Fee per view. For radio airplay, it's literally pennies per play. What if for Porn Producers, it was a penny a minute, per view? 10 Minute Scene? That tube site owes the producer $0.l0 for each view. Pay up, or shut down, because the 'ASCAP of Porn' will sue the shit out of you. The producers get paid, the tube sites get instantly 'legitimate', or they close their doors. Either way... problem solved. Now of course... the reasons why it won't work? Outside of the fact that only about 6 Studios in the Porn Biz could afford to create such an organization, not to mention the overwhelming 'Every Man for His/Her self' attitude in the industry. But beside that... why wouldn't this work? - Mark Maddy G Productions
[Link]
x3094 Deactivated User
46 Posts 5/09
Posted - Aug 8 2010 : 1:24PM
It would be much easier for tube sites to simply move to servers overseas than to pay. And if they were closed down they would simply be put back up within a few weeks.
Mark, I don't think that would work because then you legitimize the tube sites, meaning those people who won't go there now will see it as okay to use the sites and collectors will only get $0.25 for a 25 minute scene per viewer. The producers will get even less after the collecting company takes their share. Now you need a ton of viewers to pay for the scene let alone make profit.
Thats kind of the thinking behind the uploader/downloader lawsuits being filed. A recent Hollywoood Reporter story claimed that more than 100,000 people in the US have been sued by the adult entertainment industry in the last year. The problem with your analogy is that the bars and clubs you discuss are located overseas on the Internet. Even BMI and ASCAP didnt sue foreign defendants. Its just impossible. The real issue is that the law hasnt caught up with the Internet yet. It takes years for precedent to develop in the courts. The answer is to make the ISP - Time Warner, Comcast ect, responsible for the downloading. They know where their users go on the internet and they know what their users are watching. ISPs could easily block tubesites or torrent sites but they havent. Same goes for Google. And they wont until a court determines that they could be liable for contributory copyright infringement. Thats going to be a hard fought battle though.
Actually the RIAA/MPAA have been pressing pretty hard to hold internet service providers, search engines, and user-uploaded content providers as partially responsible parties lately. For example search engines don't ask if you were about to type in 'torrent' any longer. Youtube polices uploads. What if instead of threatening the ISPs and search engines with contributory copyright infringement, which they have every reason to fight (it's a tough job, and practically impossible to monitor, let alone enforce) and a high probability of winning since such authority does not exist and it's not the ISP's fault a user is behaving illegally (their argument, and I agree), we deputize them? I know that European countries have flirted with deputizing ISPs finding that they will either comply fully (The UK) or allow violators to escape punishment by signing up for a subscription service owned by the ISP (Ireland). But no ISP is going to start up a pay site for porn, so deputizing them would work for this industry, and look like some kind of corporate tyranny for others. Comcast telling pirates to sign up for Xfinity access or face a $1,500 penalty does sound a little ominous. Perhaps the best answer lies in having independent review boards, like France. It handles complaints, sends warnings to infringers, and takes pirates to court if need be. In one survey, 53 percent of violators said they had stopped or slowed their infringing activities. It's free from political pressure so there's no reason that porn pirates would not see infringement notices from the board. It still requires court action but instead of a owner vs. pirate case, it's a government bureaucrat vs. criminals one as far as I understand it.
Does net neutrality mean anything to anyone any more? Why not also target router/modem and other hardware manufacturers because copyrighted electrons might be transmitted through their devices? Surely that makes them responsible. In Sweden ISPs began experimenting with routing traffic through VPN. This ensures that ISP doesn't know who downloads what and from where. Edited by - Zoid on 2/3/2011 10:40:16 AM
Exactly. I don't see how you can win a case arguing ISPs are responsible. If Youtube can (correctly) argue that they shouldn't be held responsible for users uploading infringing content, than the ISPs can not be held responsible for the actions of their users. I only bring up deputizing them, because it's a compromise. and one they might actually like. You have to entertain the possibility. I favor a review board housed in the FCC, backed by a small but effective piece of federal legislation but that is just me.
California court: Free porn portals not unfair to paid sites California court: Free porn portals not unfair to paid sites Anthony C. Maki - The Daily Caller Anthony C. Maki - The Daily Caller Wed Feb 2, 11:31 am ET Entrepreneurs in the pornography industry aren’t happy about the explosion of websites offering vast stores of free porn to Interrs. In a lawsuit against RedTube.com — a site that resembles YouTube (except it’s for… you know) — a number of adult entertainment players alleged the free site violated California’s Unfair Practices Act, according to Ars Technica. “The ubiquitous distribution of free adult videos through RedTube.com has had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors,” the complaint read. “Now that consumers have the ability to watch high quality adult videos for free on RedTube.com, fewer are making the choice to pay other adult website proprietors for the same content.” The plaintiff, Kevin Cammarata, told Ars Technica that RedTube.com had caused “many millions of dollars of damages to proprietors of adult entertainment websites.” Unfortunately for pay-porn peddlers, a California appeals court dismissed the lawsuit and slapped the litigants, in more ways than one. The court ruled that the complaint was designed to stifle free speech. Cases like these are dubbed a strategic lawsuit against public participation or SLAPP. While the court didn’t side with subscription-based porn websites, it did agree with a former adult entertainment executive that members of the paid industry, in a manner of speaking, “have been brought to their knees.” More detailed article from here Appeals Court: free Internet porn isn't unfair competition to pay sites Edited by - zambi on 2/3/2011 1:58:36 PM
[Link]
DrexlSpivey Deactivated User
Face sitting is the Simon to pegging's Garfunkel 837 Posts 1/07
Posted - Feb 3 2011 : 2:02PM
While I don't doubt tube sites are hurting the porn industry. I was thinking about another factor for the decline today. Has anyone ever considered that the market both DVD and websites is simply way too flooded with product? There's too many distributors of DVD and many are complete crap. Same thing with websites, a million guys trying the same thing. I'd think all the small websites doing the same thing are just devouring each other and making the job of the tubesites, Brazzers, and BangBros that much easier. As far as DVD companies go, I kind of doubt the studios that I enjoy are going anywhere. I have faith that Elegant Angel, Evil Angel, and Jules Jordan will survive the porn apocalypse. Isn't it really just a matter of these studios offering their product digitally as well? Getting into amateur would be smart for each studio too. For instance why each studio didn't try to either start or buy an upstart webcam company about a decade or half decade ago I don't know? Who didn't see that fad coming? The problem is most porn studios are run by people that seem unwilling to expand their horizons on what the porn business is. I'm guessing most have been around since before VHS tapes and are stuborn to "move to the money". There's always going to be one enemy or another for the porn and music industries. The format just changes every decade or so. Some companies will go belly up, some won't. Being able to adapt is essential in any industry. Those that can't find new revenue streams die. Fact of life. Look at GE; they used to primarily deal in appliances and light bulbs and were suffering a slow death. Look at them now, they're into everything. Technology creation being one of them. Just saying. Edited by - drexlspivey on 2/3/2011 2:28:18 PM
The [ invalid url ]Or...steal intellectual property and charge users for it.Oh hardy har har, prick.Well, there's your problem right there An Unfair Practice charge? Really? That is the best they can come up with right now? There's plenty of copyright infringement on tube sites, that the owners are profiting from even. It's hard to win an Unfair Practice lawsuit. I mean, you have to prove that the business you're alleging is engaging in unfair practices is sort of out to 'get you' and sure enough,Later,And implicating defendants like Brazzers Technical and Friendfinder Networks Inc. Oh brother...Once those advertisers put the content on the site and made it public, the final nail was in this coffin.I'd have no problem with the SLAPP ruling if it didn't include this:C'mon now, really? Maybe the site in question, but if this is going in as precedent for all tube-related suits, then they need to take a good look at whichever site is involved. I know this wasn't a copyright charge, but is it not unfair business to steal content from competitors? Dismissing tube sites as just another business model is wrong even in this case. More Unfair Practice suits are probably in waiting (since the site in question is actually one of the best-known and near as I can tell worst ones), and they need a fair hearing.
at this point, trying to stop the porn tube sites is like trying to stop YouTube from carrying copyright material. it is futile. i am not saying that this is a good thing. but it is reality
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Feb 3 2011 : 11:28PM
Despite the fact that you can read a copy of the decision on the internet, it's officially not a published decision, so it can't be cited as precedent in any other case. Does anyone know who this Kevin Cammarata guy is, and what sites he owned?
I am not so sure. What do you think will happen in court? French HADOPI scheme so far only works with p2p downloading because it is possible to obtain IP addresses. So, basically, the only evidence (short of confession) HADOPI could have against an individual is their IP address linked to some supposedly suspicious activity. The problem is that French court, and as far as I know nearly all courts in the EU, have repeatedly ruled that IP address alone proves nothing. In case of tube sites I don't believe they can even get IP addresses. Edited by - Zoid on 2/4/2011 1:11:12 AM
^Well, it probably wouldn't really be useful for tube sites, and it does rely on acquiring the identities of downloaders. But the deterrent effect (53% say they have curbed illegal behavior) is really what matters. Having that fear that a government lawyer will charge you as criminal if they do acquire that identity is quite the fear factor.
The only positive thing I can see in this is that such law has the potential to at least raise awareness. There are many users out there who don't even realize they are doing something wrong by downloading 'free' stuff. But in its current form I don't believe this law is having that effect. When French users receive a warning, it doesn't say what exactly they did wrong, it just mentions suspected copyright violation. How are you supposed to learn if you don't know what the mistake was? There is also a [ invalid url ] available about the effects.
groin-grabbingly: YouTube *has* been effective in reducing copyright infringement. Anytime I upload a video with even a few moments of a copyrighted song in it, it is right on me within the first day after upload. Also, I occasionally search for mainstream movies on youtube (just for curiousity), but can never find any that haven't been taken down.
teaspoons in an ocean. there is so much copyrighted material on YouTube it is not funny. the truth is, YouTube built its audience on copyrighted material people don't post full length movies on YouTube often because of the time limit on upload length. it is a lot of work splitting up a movie into many 10-minute parts nevertheless, PEOPLE STILL DO IT this guy split up the HBO mob movie Gotti into 14 parts and uploaded the whole thing. fuck you very much HBO. you should watch the movie, it's a good biopic. Armand Assante as John Gotti. you will also recognize a lot of cast members from the Sopranos maybe you are in the mood for sci-fi/fantasy? here is the entire movie Krull, split into 13 parts look for Liam Neeson as a lusty bandit how about some action? Here is the Bruce Lee kung fu classic Enter the Dragon uploaded in 12 parts ... in HD! Edited by - groin-grabbingly on 2/4/2011 3:29:54 PM
the point is ... for every uploader they stop, there are a dozen more violating copyright at the same time, as we speak. clips from television shows, entire discographies of recording artists, remixes, compilations, tributes there is so much stuff on YouTube that was put there illegally. they are making gestures to stop it. but it is like trying to stop the rain unfortunately, i think the porn industry is in the same storm
All of those have the proper movie title in the YouTube post title. Easy to find using search on YouTube. Why hasn't the copyright owner requested this be removed from YouTube?? Yeah it's a lot of work, but if they are (supposedly) losing tons of money they can hire a bunch of lackeys to constantly patrol the web searching for unauthorized content. Or there probably exists automated ways of searching thousands of websites for thousands of keywords, then having humans look at matches.This may be more about those particular copyright owners being diligent than about YouTube being conscientious.
exactly ninja1. Groin...the examples you give aren't exactly the hot moneymakers for studios. Those 20 and 30 year old movies broken up into low-res 9:59 clips are not on any studio's radar. After reading all this new info on Manwin (owner of Brazzers, partner of Wicked and owner of many tubesites), I'm now not-so-sure about the evil of tubesites. If the industry is taking them over, isn't that a good thing? If 2 giants of the industry like Brazzers and Wicked ally themselves with tubesites, then there must be some kind of business wisdom to tubesites. And obviously, porn customers like them. Why not use tubesites like Music uses radio or like TV/movies uses Hulu? A lot of the big porn companies are 20-40 years old. Why not put your 10-20 year-old catalog out there in the same model that Mainstream movies do? Free on TV-style websites and getting ad revenue from them? If you don't think you can get money from the freeporn customers themselves, then get money from advertisers who want to have their product in front of all these free customers?
^I hear the argument that tube sites are somewhat like early radio. The appeals court judge said as much. But when I wanted to see for myself, I noticed most of the authorized clips are old or actually short previews. If it was like music, that would be the equivalent of the 99-second previews on iTunes. Those suck and the most well-known tube sites suck. Still, secondary consumers do like them, and advertisers love them. They're here to stay. But the big-named ones spawned lesser-known ones that definitely steal content and need to be brought down.
Yes she is but Brazzers, who distributes through JJV, is trying to keep things legitimate. Nonetheless, just now it took two seconds for me to find a flagrant theft of Jenna's most recent material on a site either ran by Brazzers or heavily favored by the internet giant.
Posted - Aug 6 2010 : 10:34PM
. [o\|]
