GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   RemoveYourContent News: April 5, 2010 (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=962263)

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 05:42 PM
RemoveYourContent News: April 5, 2010
 
Quote:
Removeyourcontent begins removing illegal tube google serps for clients, by the thousands, this month. We will begin targeting illegal tube placement in google and have them removed for infringement in mass.

If you're a legit tube owner, you have nothing to worry about. If you are concerned, please contact your content provider.
:GFYBand

Ladyboy King 04-06-2010 05:55 PM
Great news. Hit after hit, drill those cock suckers.

Killswitch - BANNED FOR LIFE 04-06-2010 06:07 PM
That guy is a tardo.

tiger 04-06-2010 06:13 PM
Interesting. They must have a new angle for this because I'm sure many have tried it before.

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger (Post 17011625)
Interesting. They must have a new angle for this because I'm sure many have tried it before.
It is not hard to do. Do a search on chillingeffects.org, and Perfect10. They have managed to do it time and again. Anyone (company with copyright material) can do it really. You just need some proof, and to file a formal complaint.

However, 90% of this industry simply rattles the sabre on message boards about their content being stolen. If that does not work, then they post daily about it and think that will somehow stop it.

Just Mike 04-06-2010 06:21 PM
this is great news

L-Pink 04-06-2010 06:23 PM
Good news in my opinion.


.

Brujah 04-06-2010 06:25 PM
Celebrity sites could start using RYC, to take-out the competition.

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17011650)
Celebrity sites could start using RYC, to take-out the competition.
Huge fines on false DMCA's.
:2 cents:

gideongallery 04-06-2010 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17011656)
Huge fines on false DMCA's.
:2 cents:
including those that infringe on fair use.

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 07:14 PM
Quote:
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.
:glugglug

Brujah 04-06-2010 07:22 PM
That's what Perfect 10 did. Names of celebrities they didn't even own the content for, so I'm sure it could be done and has been done. There are no fines on false DMCA's unless you counter file and sue and prove you have a right to the content.

More importantly though, why would anyone with a celebrity site or that sells celebrity content applaud RYC so much for their aggressive DMCA filing and now adding Google to the mix?

Si 04-06-2010 07:24 PM
If they can really do it, and prove they can do it. Then even more reason to use them.

If this is true, then it's a good step for everyone. :thumbsup

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17011745)
That's what Perfect 10 did. Names of celebrities they didn't even own the content for
You think that Google would have all the info on chillingeffects.org, and remove hundreds if not thousands of sites from an index, and risk all kinds of lawsuits based on false claims?

:1orglaugh

No offense but thanks for the laugh.

Agent 488 04-06-2010 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17011753)
You think that Google would have all the info on chillingeffects.org, and remove hundreds if not thousands of sites from an index, and risk all kinds of lawsuits based on false claims?

:1orglaugh

No offense but thanks for the laugh.
google did. i knew plenty of people personally who had their index pages removed due to a false claim from perfect 10.

Brujah 04-06-2010 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17011753)
You think that Google would have all the info on chillingeffects.org, and remove hundreds if not thousands of sites from an index, and risk all kinds of lawsuits based on false claims?

:1orglaugh

No offense but thanks for the laugh.
Sounds like you don't understand DMCA. :2 cents:

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent 488 (Post 17011764)
google did. i knew plenty of people personally who had their index pages removed due to a false claim from perfect 10.

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17011771)
Sounds like you don't understand DMCA. :2 cents:
Unlike you, I am a content producer. I also send out DMCA's every week.

Safe to say I know it a lot better than you.

:2 cents:

Robbie 04-06-2010 07:44 PM
RYC kicks ass.

DMCA'ing stuff off of Google is a tricky thing. You have to ask yourself the question: "Do I want it off Google, or do I want it down off the offending site"
If you take it off the site then you can't dmca google for something that doesn't exist.

So you have to first get it off google and then get it off the offending site. Eric and RYC have done a great job for us coordinating that task and helping me make sales by keeping piracy in check for me.

Brujah 04-06-2010 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17011781)
Unlike you, I am a content producer. I also send out DMCA's every week.

Safe to say I know it a lot better than you.

:2 cents:
Obviously not if you think that Google doesn't respond to fake DMCA claims.

The DMCA provisions are pretty clear cut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_...ack_provisions

Quote:
Takedown example

Here's an example of how the takedown procedures would work:

Alice puts a copy of Bob's song on her AOL-hosted website.

Bob, searching the Internet, finds Alice's copy.

Charlie, Bob's lawyer, sends a letter to AOL's designated agent (registered with the Copyright Office) including:
contact information
the name of the song that was copied
the address of the copied song
a statement that he has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
a statement that the information in the notification is accurate
a statement that, under penalty of perjury, Charlie is authorized to act for the copyright holder
his signature
AOL takes the song down.

AOL tells Alice that they have taken the song down.

Alice now has the option of sending a counter-notice to AOL, if she feels the song was taken down unfairly. The notice includes
contact information
identification of the removed song
a statement under penalty of perjury that Alice has a good faith belief the material was mistakenly taken down
a statement consenting to the jurisdiction of Alice's local US Federal District Court, or, if outside the US, to a US Federal District Court in any jurisdiction in which AOL is found.
her signature
If Alice does file a valid counter-notice, AOL notifies Bob, then waits 10-14 business days for a lawsuit to be filed by Bob.

If Bob does not file a lawsuit, then AOL must put the material back up.

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 07:54 PM
I knew we'd get some Robbie action. :winkwink:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17011787)
RYC kicks ass.

DMCA'ing stuff off of Google is a tricky thing. You have to ask yourself the question: "Do I want it off Google, or do I want it down off the offending site"
If you take it off the site then you can't dmca google for something that doesn't exist.

So you have to first get it off google and then get it off the offending site. Eric and RYC have done a great job for us coordinating that task and helping me make sales by keeping piracy in check for me.
:thumbsup

hawkadu 04-06-2010 07:58 PM
I'm wondering which content they are talking about and even when the biggest tube sites are owned by the biggest sponsors themselves, who has asked them to remove the content?????

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkadu (Post 17011824)
who has asked them to remove the content?????

Robbie 04-06-2010 08:04 PM
Huckleberried. lol

Robbie 04-06-2010 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkadu (Post 17011824)
I'm wondering which content they are talking about and even when the biggest tube sites are owned by the biggest sponsors themselves, who has asked them to remove the content?????
When you hire RYC to remove your content from offending sites that's what they do. And to answer your question: NO. They don't just go around working for people who don't pay them! lol

You have to pay them as a client in order to get their services.

hawkadu 04-06-2010 08:09 PM
Hey Robbie, I know they won't work for anyone without money. What I wanted to say is tubes are full of content from biggest sponsors and they do nothing to remove it. If the industry has to get back on track, big sponsors must take action but they won't as long as they are making money.

Klen 04-06-2010 08:13 PM
I would love to see pornhub and keezemovies from google,but seems google doesnt care for some reason.And there is a plently of valid reason to remove them according to google rules,starting from copyright infrigment,lack of 2257 documentation,and buying hardlinks.

Robbie 04-06-2010 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkadu (Post 17011852)
Hey Robbie, I know they won't work for anyone without money. What I wanted to say is tubes are full of content from biggest sponsors and they do nothing to remove it. If the industry has to get back on track, big sponsors must take action but they won't as long as they are making money.
You are absolutely right. It's killing affiliate sales to those particular sponsors. But you have to realize that a lot of them make their money in ways other than selling a membership to a surfer. It's a numbers game for the ones you are referring to and they don't give a damn about the actual "porn business"

It's just the reality of the situation. All I can do is make sure my stuff stays in the members area as much as I can so that when somebody joins up they have a membership that is actually worth something.

And if there are any affiliates left, they can at least know that if they send traffic to us they have a fighting chance of making a sale.

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkadu (Post 17011852)
Hey Robbie, I know they won't work for anyone without money. What I wanted to say is tubes are full of content from biggest sponsors and they do nothing to remove it. If the industry has to get back on track, big sponsors must take action but they won't as long as they are making money.
That comes down to WHO holds the copyright per licensing agreement.

Not all companies license exclusively, nor do they all shoot their own content. So it would come down to the license and who hold the copyright for each individual production. Which a lot of times, not always, would be the original producer. So it would be up to them to enforce it.

If you shoot exclusively for a company, and they hold all rights including copyright. Then it would be up to THEM to enforce it. To understand why a lot of enforcement is not done, you actually have to understand the back end of content production and licensing.

:2 cents:

hawkadu 04-06-2010 08:32 PM
I just wish all the copyright owners of the content take some action to bring all the tubes down. Those motherfuckers have almost killed the biz...

Barefootsies 04-06-2010 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkadu (Post 17011896)
I just wish all the copyright owners of the content take some action to bring all the tubes down. Those motherfuckers have almost killed the biz...
You see, that's where it starts getting tricky chief...

Keep in mind how many small to middle market content producers there have been over the years. Not to mention those who've left this business and went back to day jobs. Most of those guys do not have the time, money, staff, or interest to enforce copyright. More over chase down every site that some BROgram owns.

This does not get into affiliates, and affiliate programs, and their use of said licensed material. Do you think the smaller productions companies are going to spend all this time playing Sherlock Holmes to chase down all this information?

Not a chance.

chaze 04-06-2010 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink (Post 17011647)
Good news in my opinion.


.
:thumbsup Tube sites are really killing so much business. It's important not to give too much for free or people never spend any money.

TeenCat 04-06-2010 11:44 PM
excelent ... the best thing is when company who have nothing to do with your content is blocking sites that are promoting your content only cause the company dont know that you are allowed to promote the sites that way ... as happenned to me already. lets pray that those removecontent guys will be not in fire and report everything like some bots ... :2 cents:

Barefootsies 04-07-2010 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeenCat (Post 17012226)
excelent ... the best thing is when company who have nothing to do with your content is blocking sites that are promoting your content only cause the company dont know that you are allowed to promote the sites that way ... as happenned to me already. lets pray that those removecontent guys will be not in fire and report everything like some bots ... :2 cents:
:Oh crap

andrej_NDC 04-07-2010 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 17011753)
You think that Google would have all the info on chillingeffects.org, and remove hundreds if not thousands of sites from an index, and risk all kinds of lawsuits based on false claims?

:1orglaugh

No offense but thanks for the laugh.
Google can remove anyone they want from the index for no reason, its their site, their rules.

Barefootsies 04-07-2010 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrej_NDC (Post 17013047)
Google can remove anyone they want from the index for no reason, its their site, their rules.
True dat.
:pimp

Barefootsies 04-09-2010 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkadu (Post 17011896)
I just wish all the copyright owners of the content take some action to bring all the tubes down. Those motherfuckers have almost killed the biz...
:Oh crap


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123