Coming soon from Brazzers - Page 7 - GoFuckYourself.com

munki · 08-02-2009, 04:13 PM

fiddy 6x

xxxjay · 08-02-2009, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munki

fiddy 6x

Damn skippy.

xxxjay · 08-02-2009, 05:09 PM

Is this GFY's 1st 10k view thread?

Porno Dan · 08-02-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Is this GFY's 1st 10k view thread?

At least since you made that girl quit doing porn a couple years ago

xxxjay · 08-02-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porno Dan

At least since you made that girl doing porn a couple years ago

Did that one do 10K? I didn't think it did.

FlexxAeon · 08-02-2009, 05:15 PM

that alphasky thread is at like 20k

xxxjay · 08-02-2009, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

that alphasky thread is at like 20k

I missed that one.

Link?

american pervert · 08-02-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Looks like Brazzers knows about this thread:
http://www.extremetube.com/video/fucking-like-bunnies- (36 minute occash video with no watermark or link uploaded today)

http://www.extremetube.com/video/how-fat-can-you-be- (first video on page when i looked...occash)

I guess that is the name of the game now, everyone steal from one another to create a giant theft circle jerk?

I best get started.

yes, this is what you should do.

get a password to brazzers free

leech their site

make a tube site upselling to a bro's dating traffic

collect checks

munki · 08-02-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I missed that one.

Link?

Ahh the classic win that is the apple twins melt down.

V_RocKs · 08-02-2009, 06:59 PM

Consider it done.

Denny · 08-03-2009, 01:53 AM

JD · 08-03-2009, 02:39 AM

odds of anyone actually doing anything to stop them: 0:1,000,000

Relentless · 08-03-2009, 05:23 AM

Government intervention and a massive change in how digital content is managed would be the only real solution. When governments get pissed off enough at the lost revenue (of which porn is a tiny fraction, as compared to software and mainstream media) they will sit down with Intel, AMD, Motherboard manufacturers, etc and solve the problem from a hardware part of the equation.

Until then we are left having moral arguments over whether someone should or should not do something regardless of whether they are able to do it or legally allowed to do it. Those tend not to have teeth, especially in a tight economy.

Half man, Half Amazing · 08-03-2009, 08:10 AM

How long until those same fundamentalists that took down Max turn their eyes to the 'tubes'? How long until they realize that little Johnny can go watch hardcore german fisting in his bedroom without any age verification? How long until they realize that most of these tubes have Traci Lords scenes on them and are thus hosting child pornography?

Mohawk Steve · 08-03-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I'm just trying to milk this thing to 10000 views now.

xxxjay · 08-03-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

How long until they realize that most of these tubes have Traci Lords scenes on them and are thus hosting child pornography?

If you have a link to one of those, please send it to me [email protected] or icq 62835707. That would be easy.

RadicalSights · 08-03-2009, 12:09 PM

Tubes are here to stay

Miz_Wright · 08-03-2009, 01:25 PM

I don't know if it's got anything to do with this thread, but I'm coming up with a lot of dead files now on that site.

kenny · 08-03-2009, 01:25 PM

Good thread.

Bump for goodness

figweed · 08-04-2009, 07:47 AM

very informative read

DWB · 08-04-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadicalSights

Tubes are here to stay

As they should be allowed to, so long as they are not stealing peoples content.

V_RocKs · 08-04-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Is this GFY's 1st 10k view thread?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=896755
20K

Profits of Doom · 08-04-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD

odds of anyone actually doing anything to stop them: 0:1,000,000

The file sharing sites agree, because they are only getting bolder. Take a look at either of these sites...

http://milf-city.com/

http://allkindsofxxx.com/

Try downloading and watching any of the videos on either site, and they both have a nice amount of traffic. Not only are they stealing and uploading the videos, but they are watermarking the videos with their site's URL and logo.

That is pretty much the ultimate fuck you. They are so confident that nothing is going to be done that they don't even care about safe harbor, they just rip the videos, upload them themselves, and watermark them with their site's URL so when they do post them on pornbb or the like they are getting more traffic. Pretty fucking ballsy...

_andy_ · 08-04-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

How long until those same fundamentalists that took down Max turn their eyes to the 'tubes'? How long until they realize that little Johnny can go watch hardcore german fisting in his bedroom without any age verification? How long until they realize that most of these tubes have Traci Lords scenes on them and are thus hosting child pornography?

This is what I think about. What is the point of any organization that supposedly polices the internet for porn getting in the hands of minors when there are SO many ways for it to get there?? It's absolutely ludicrous.

xxxjay · 08-04-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Profits of Doom

The file sharing sites agree, because they are only getting bolder. Take a look at either of these sites...

http://milf-city.com/

http://allkindsofxxx.com/

Try downloading and watching any of the videos on either site, and they both have a nice amount of traffic. Not only are they stealing and uploading the videos, but they are watermarking the videos with their site's URL and logo.

That is pretty much the ultimate fuck you. They are so confident that nothing is going to be done that they don't even care about safe harbor, they just rip the videos, upload them themselves, and watermark them with their site's URL so when they do post them on pornbb or the like they are getting more traffic. Pretty fucking ballsy...

That's pretty fucked up.

V_RocKs · 08-05-2009, 07:54 AM

Crazy MILF!

tony286 · 08-05-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Profits of Doom

The file sharing sites agree, because they are only getting bolder. Take a look at either of these sites...

http://milf-city.com/

http://allkindsofxxx.com/

Try downloading and watching any of the videos on either site, and they both have a nice amount of traffic. Not only are they stealing and uploading the videos, but they are watermarking the videos with their site's URL and logo.

That is pretty much the ultimate fuck you. They are so confident that nothing is going to be done that they don't even care about safe harbor, they just rip the videos, upload them themselves, and watermark them with their site's URL so when they do post them on pornbb or the like they are getting more traffic. Pretty fucking ballsy...

well they have sponsors backing them up look at all the links and the sponsors on sites like that are still loved at the shows and some get awards so why should they not be bold?

tony286 · 08-05-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

How long until those same fundamentalists that took down Max turn their eyes to the 'tubes'? How long until they realize that little Johnny can go watch hardcore german fisting in his bedroom without any age verification? How long until they realize that most of these tubes have Traci Lords scenes on them and are thus hosting child pornography?

it will happen and the problem is they wont say the tube industry is doing this, they wil lsay the adult industry is doing this.This industry will not learn til there is a big smack down,its not will they take action its when.

Half man, Half Amazing · 08-05-2009, 11:16 AM

If you slap your watermark on a clip then as far as I'm concerned they should be considered a "producer" of that content and have to keep 2257 records. Makes no sense whatsoever that we all have to comply with 2257 and then everyone else doesn't.

I ask again...knowing what we know now...how many studios would like a do-over on the appeal to 2257 that made it so "secondary producers" wouldn't have to keep 2257 records?

Jet - BANNED FOR LIFE · 08-05-2009, 11:23 AM

cliff notes on this thread?

stever · 08-05-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet

cliff notes on this thread?

lotza tubes

xxxjay · 08-05-2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half man, Half Amazing

If you slap your watermark on a clip then as far as I'm concerned they should be considered a "producer" of that content and have to keep 2257 records. Makes no sense whatsoever that we all have to comply with 2257 and then everyone else doesn't.

I ask again...knowing what we know now...how many studios would like a do-over on the appeal to 2257 that made it so "secondary producers" wouldn't have to keep 2257 records?

When I was young and stupid (like 2 years ago), I was totally 100% against government regulation. Now I am 100% pro-regulation.

We had the FBI raid our office and came out clean in the first sweep of 2257 inspections.

We'd all be in better shape right now, had a few assholes been hauled off to jail.

topnotch, standup guy · 08-05-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

When I was young and stupid (like 2 years ago), I was totally 100% against government regulation. Now I am 100% pro-regulation.

We had the FBI raid our office and came out clean in the first sweep of 2257 inspections.

We'd all be in better shape right now, had a few assholes been hauled off to jail.

That would all depend on your definition of "asshole" in this instance.

If you mean tubes, or anyone else using stolen copyrighted adult content, than yeah, I'd love like hell to see those thieving bastards get an FBI visit.

But watch what you wish for.

There's lots of honest mom & pop operations out there (some of which are just barely getting by) that might not have all their 2257 i's dotted and t's crossed.

Hell, the newest version of 2257 is all but impossible to fully comply with and you know it.

Like I said, watch what you wish for.

Jet - BANNED FOR LIFE · 08-05-2009, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

When I was young and stupid (like 2 years ago), I was totally 100% against government regulation. Now I am 100% pro-regulation.

We had the FBI raid our office and came out clean in the first sweep of 2257 inspections.

We'd all be in better shape right now, had a few assholes been hauled off to jail.

They'd regulate your cross sales, mind you.

american pervert · 08-05-2009, 09:57 PM

it's amazing how many full scenes extreme tube has from the evil angel catalog.

xxxjay · 08-06-2009, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topnotch, standup guy

That would all depend on your definition of "asshole" in this instance.

If you mean tubes, or anyone else using stolen copyrighted adult content, than yeah, I'd love like hell to see those thieving bastards get an FBI visit.

But watch what you wish for.

There's lots of honest mom & pop operations out there (some of which are just barely getting by) that might not have all their 2257 i's dotted and t's crossed.

Hell, the newest version of 2257 is all but impossible to fully comply with and you know it.

Like I said, watch what you wish for.

When they did our inspection not every single record was in place by the letter of the law. As long as you can show reasonable proof that the people you were shooting were definitively over 18 you should be alright.

xxxjay · 08-06-2009, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by american pervert

it's amazing how many full scenes extreme tube has from the evil angel catalog.

It took just over 3 clicks to find 3 of our videos on there too.

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=1700933461
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=742552843
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...c3c095c9e6d59d

Some of them still had the freakin' watermarks on them.

Lame.

FightThisPatent · 08-06-2009, 06:38 AM

good summary of DMCA from a website owners point of view for complying with DMCA, but you can also view it through the eyes of a content producer looking to enforce DMCA:

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=74294 [view]

this was an interesting point of the article:

---

10. Do Not Receive A Financial Benefit Directly Attributable To Infringing Activity Within The Company's Control

If an online service provider has the right and ability to control infringing activity, it is eligible for the safe harbor if it does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to such infringing activity. The "direct financial benefit" issue is complex and necessarily dependent on applicable facts and circumstances. Although this issue still remains to be clarified by the courts, Viacom has made arguments regarding direct financial benefit in its lawsuit against YouTube. To the extent that the Viacom v. YouTube case results in a decision, this issue would be one of the more interesting DMCA legal questions the case addresses.

--

whether a legit community site that allows user uploads or an illegal tube site, both generate revenue from the advertisement around the content.

some illegal tube sites offer a "premium" version that gives access to longer videos, better quality, etc.. this would certainly violate DMCA safe harbour provisions for a paid-membership model using stolen content (oh the irony of paysites who used usenet content inside members areas and now crying foul about DMCA)

---

takedowns have to occur in a "reasonable period of time"... 24-72 hours.

content producers could coordinate their DMCA notices to do a "DMCA bombing" at the same time.

you would have to have a shared IP attorney ready to then file a lawsuit if the DMCA process wasn't followed. Having a large amount of complaints that were disproportionate to the "legal" content on a tube site, could show that the site owners do know about infringing material.

Fight the YMCA!

spazlabz · 08-06-2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sands

http://www.pornnewz.com/2009/03/conn...nd-tube-sites/

Darn, the link is dead. I wish I could find a list of all the biggest say 150 illegal tube sites

spaz

FightThisPatent · 08-06-2009, 08:04 AM

this thread inspired a Fight the Blog blog post.

i started a new thread for it:

Putting tube sites into historical perspective

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=920207

Fight the link challenged!

xxxjay · 08-06-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

good summary of DMCA from a website owners point of view for complying with DMCA, but you can also view it through the eyes of a content producer looking to enforce DMCA:

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=74294 [view]

this was an interesting point of the article:

---

10. Do Not Receive A Financial Benefit Directly Attributable To Infringing Activity Within The Company's Control

If an online service provider has the right and ability to control infringing activity, it is eligible for the safe harbor if it does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to such infringing activity. The "direct financial benefit" issue is complex and necessarily dependent on applicable facts and circumstances. Although this issue still remains to be clarified by the courts, Viacom has made arguments regarding direct financial benefit in its lawsuit against YouTube. To the extent that the Viacom v. YouTube case results in a decision, this issue would be one of the more interesting DMCA legal questions the case addresses.

--

whether a legit community site that allows user uploads or an illegal tube site, both generate revenue from the advertisement around the content.

some illegal tube sites offer a "premium" version that gives access to longer videos, better quality, etc.. this would certainly violate DMCA safe harbour provisions for a paid-membership model using stolen content (oh the irony of paysites who used usenet content inside members areas and now crying foul about DMCA)

---

takedowns have to occur in a "reasonable period of time"... 24-72 hours.

content producers could coordinate their DMCA notices to do a "DMCA bombing" at the same time.

you would have to have a shared IP attorney ready to then file a lawsuit if the DMCA process wasn't followed. Having a large amount of complaints that were disproportionate to the "legal" content on a tube site, could show that the site owners do know about infringing material.

Fight the YMCA!

I agree with all of this, in particular, on the premium areas and the "for profit" model.

DonovanTrent · 08-06-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

It took just over 3 clicks to find 3 of our videos on there too.

http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...key=1700933461
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=742552843
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.ph...c3c095c9e6d59d

Some of them still had the freakin' watermarks on them.

Lame.

Funny, the first one's gone already. You that quick on the DMCA trigger? Or are there eyes watching...

As far as regulation goes, I'd be perfectly fine with a regulation banning free adult content. All tours censored, any nudity behind a pay barrier, NO freebies... would be beautiful. Alas, all the non-US'ers would cover that base.

Robocrop · 08-06-2009, 02:13 PM

Just face it, Brazzers controls and ARE the adult industry.

V_RocKs · 08-07-2009, 08:47 AM

Wow.... I just followed the links you posted and watched quite a few of the FTVGirls videos. I have to say, the quality sucks but it sure beats paying $19.95.

tony286 · 08-07-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Wow.... I just followed the links you posted and watched quite a few of the FTVGirls videos. I have to say, the quality sucks but it sure beats paying $19.95.

I read an article in a mainstream video mag. They spoke about how the success of you tube and the relatively poor quality of the video shows its not hidef that matters is the quality of the actual content. You are correct and for some reason this industry doesnt understand that.

american pervert · 08-07-2009, 10:31 AM

why don't you hire some HA's in canada to sort them out?

dav3 · 08-07-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

As far as regulation goes, I'd be perfectly fine with a regulation banning free adult content. All tours censored, any nudity behind a pay barrier, NO freebies... would be beautiful. Alas, all the non-US'ers would cover that base.

But wouldn't this mean that all US sites lose pretty much all their traffic?

DonovanTrent · 08-07-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dav3

But wouldn't this mean that all US sites lose pretty much all their traffic?

(At the risk of sounding gay...)

Hence, my use of the word "alas."

DonovanTrent · 08-07-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

I read an article in a mainstream video mag. They spoke about how the success of you tube and the relatively poor quality of the video shows its not hidef that matters is the quality of the actual content. You are correct and for some reason this industry doesnt understand that.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, a surfer's going to rub a much better one out to a lo-def clip of something he's really into, than a hi-def crystal clear 1920x1080 clip of a butterfly. Content is much more important than quality. That's been obvious for years now with MGPs. If quality was more important than content, nobody would surf MGPs. Now, the fact that it's free also helps. But content will always trump quality in a head-to-head.

xxxjay · 08-07-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

I agree wholeheartedly with this, a surfer's going to rub a much better one out to a lo-def clip of something he's really into, than a hi-def crystal clear 1920x1080 clip of a butterfly. Content is much more important than quality. That's been obvious for years now with MGPs. If quality was more important than content, nobody would surf MGPs. Now, the fact that it's free also helps. But content will always trump quality in a head-to-head.

Very true. If the scene is hot enough, I can rough up the suspect to a low-def tape dub from 1970.

08-02-2009, 04:13 PM	#301
munki Do Fun Shit. Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OC Posts: 13,393	fiddy 6x __________________ “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.” -Oscar Wilde

08-02-2009, 05:09 PM	#303
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	Is this GFY's 1st 10k view thread? __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

08-02-2009, 05:15 PM	#306
FlexxAeon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,765	that alphasky thread is at like 20k __________________ flexx [dot] aeon [at] gmail

08-03-2009, 01:53 AM	#311
Denny Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 17,238	__________________

08-03-2009, 05:23 AM	#313
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,697	Government intervention and a massive change in how digital content is managed would be the only real solution. When governments get pissed off enough at the lost revenue (of which porn is a tiny fraction, as compared to software and mainstream media) they will sit down with Intel, AMD, Motherboard manufacturers, etc and solve the problem from a hardware part of the equation. Until then we are left having moral arguments over whether someone should or should not do something regardless of whether they are able to do it or legally allowed to do it. Those tend not to have teeth, especially in a tight economy. __________________ Website Secure \| Engine Food ICQ# 266-942-896

08-02-2009, 06:59 PM	#310
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,392	Consider it done.

08-03-2009, 02:39 AM	#312
JD Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 22,651	odds of anyone actually doing anything to stop them: 0:1,000,000

08-03-2009, 08:10 AM	#314
Half man, Half Amazing Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Capital Wasteland, DC Posts: 372	How long until those same fundamentalists that took down Max turn their eyes to the 'tubes'? How long until they realize that little Johnny can go watch hardcore german fisting in his bedroom without any age verification? How long until they realize that most of these tubes have Traci Lords scenes on them and are thus hosting child pornography?

08-03-2009, 12:09 PM	#317
RadicalSights So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Europe Posts: 1,595	Tubes are here to stay

08-03-2009, 01:25 PM	#318
Miz_Wright Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 593	I don't know if it's got anything to do with this thread, but I'm coming up with a lot of dead files now on that site. __________________ Sales Babe and General Nerd Wright Stuff Consulting [email protected] Mobile: (704) 918-5499 ICQ: 353902844 SKYPE: MizWright704

08-03-2009, 01:25 PM	#319
kenny Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,245	Good thread. Bump for goodness __________________ 7

08-04-2009, 07:47 AM	#320
figweed Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Montreal Posts: 90	very informative read

08-05-2009, 07:54 AM	#326
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,392	Crazy MILF!

08-05-2009, 11:16 AM	#329
Half man, Half Amazing Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Capital Wasteland, DC Posts: 372	If you slap your watermark on a clip then as far as I'm concerned they should be considered a "producer" of that content and have to keep 2257 records. Makes no sense whatsoever that we all have to comply with 2257 and then everyone else doesn't. I ask again...knowing what we know now...how many studios would like a do-over on the appeal to 2257 that made it so "secondary producers" wouldn't have to keep 2257 records?

08-05-2009, 11:23 AM	#330
Jet - BANNED FOR LIFE So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 7,515	cliff notes on this thread?

08-05-2009, 09:57 PM	#335
american pervert Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,830	it's amazing how many full scenes extreme tube has from the evil angel catalog. __________________ I can resist everything except temptation

08-06-2009, 06:38 AM	#338
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	good summary of DMCA from a website owners point of view for complying with DMCA, but you can also view it through the eyes of a content producer looking to enforce DMCA: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=74294 [view] this was an interesting point of the article: --- 10. Do Not Receive A Financial Benefit Directly Attributable To Infringing Activity Within The Company's Control If an online service provider has the right and ability to control infringing activity, it is eligible for the safe harbor if it does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to such infringing activity. The "direct financial benefit" issue is complex and necessarily dependent on applicable facts and circumstances. Although this issue still remains to be clarified by the courts, Viacom has made arguments regarding direct financial benefit in its lawsuit against YouTube. To the extent that the Viacom v. YouTube case results in a decision, this issue would be one of the more interesting DMCA legal questions the case addresses. -- whether a legit community site that allows user uploads or an illegal tube site, both generate revenue from the advertisement around the content. some illegal tube sites offer a "premium" version that gives access to longer videos, better quality, etc.. this would certainly violate DMCA safe harbour provisions for a paid-membership model using stolen content (oh the irony of paysites who used usenet content inside members areas and now crying foul about DMCA) --- takedowns have to occur in a "reasonable period of time"... 24-72 hours. content producers could coordinate their DMCA notices to do a "DMCA bombing" at the same time. you would have to have a shared IP attorney ready to then file a lawsuit if the DMCA process wasn't followed. Having a large amount of complaints that were disproportionate to the "legal" content on a tube site, could show that the site owners do know about infringing material. Fight the YMCA! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

08-06-2009, 08:04 AM	#340
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	this thread inspired a Fight the Blog blog post. i started a new thread for it: Putting tube sites into historical perspective http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=920207 Fight the link challenged! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

08-06-2009, 02:13 PM	#343
Robocrop Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Hollywood Posts: 2,785	Just face it, Brazzers controls and ARE the adult industry.

08-07-2009, 08:47 AM	#344
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,392	Wow.... I just followed the links you posted and watched quite a few of the FTVGirls videos. I have to say, the quality sucks but it sure beats paying $19.95.

08-07-2009, 10:31 AM	#346
american pervert Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,830	why don't you hire some HA's in canada to sort them out? __________________ I can resist everything except temptation