Fucking LOL!

All a download limiter does is piss off your legitimate customers.

As your the comments on your review on rabbits proves


Comments by: Sam - Score: 5/100 - Date: 8/20/2007
If you like downloading stuff and have broadband access, forget this site. It has a huge archive and new stuff everyday but they don t want you to download it. you can only download 1 file at a time and if you download too much they suspend your account for 24h! and the limit is like 500mb per day! Plus downloads are very slow, i rarely get more than 200kB/s and on other sites i can DL at 1200kB/s

http://www.rabbitsreviews.com/s867/P...ham-Teens.html

I agree, download limits just piss off paying customers and slow down thieves. i finally got a response from motherless so we'll see how long it takes before they re-activate the exact same videos under a "new" user.

I've DMCA Motherless a few times and they take content off fairly fast. Something to look for is the thumbs being cached and not removed on sites like nude vista. Have those dead thumbs does show on SE results

I'm amazed motherless is hosted in the US, it's 4chan's go to tube for dodgy shit, I had assumed it was hosted somewhere deep beyond the Urals in an old soviet missile silo or something like that

these fucks are a real piece of work. they claim to take action against infringing "uploaders" but yet they don't remove the uploader. they remove the content you send a DMCA for but they allow the so-called "uploader" to go about his business.

do they have a 3 strike rule in place?

you have to love their disclaimer:

"Welcome to a moral free zone where anything legal stays! All content posted to this site is 100% user contributed. All uploaded content is previewed by admins before being posted and anything illegal will be reported. If you want to blame someone for the content on this site, blame the people of the world, not us."

This is an odd statement to post for surfers to read. Why would a surfer care if a sponsor's content is uploaded? Do surfers complain that there's too much free stuff?

i can only hope that some day this motherless fuck will be pennyless.

Yeah, seriously.... I was thinking the same thing. :2 cents:

they use to be hosted by NTT America but are now hosted by Motherless Inc.

any relationship? hmmmm

funny how some hosts frown upon being flooded with DMCA Take Down notices.

This thread is about a piece-of-shit tube site that does steal content and does ignore DMCA notices.

If in fact you don't do business that way... why are your panties in a bunch?

Chill out. This ain't about you :)
.

I didn't realize horse fucking, underage cams, snuff, real incest and other odities were considered |LEGAL| in the US of A. Wonder when it became so..

And that's just from looking at the home page.

So they say they review anything before it goes live; thus, wouldn't that make them responsible for copyright infringement AND for charges on the illegal content?

This makes no sense how that site continues to operate. Only thing I could think of is it's part of a sting operation??

Wow they have zoo and they do promote livejasmin.com. Very "nice"... :disgust

everything goes, as long as it's "user" uploaded.

Well, the whole point of the DMCA is to give some classes an immunity from suit. If they don't comply with the Notice and Takedown provisions (and if they don't have a registered DMCA Agent and if they don't have an infringement policy for users) you sue them and they can't interpose the DMCA as a defense to the "innocent infringement" they will claim at the hands of the third-party uploaders. They become fully liable. So, sue them.

I'm sure you registered your copyright within three months of first publication because you recognized its value, right? And so you can recover attorney's fees, right?

And yes, all the steps against hosting companies and internet connections that do caching are excellent ideas. Don't forget the image hosts for vidcaps. Don't forget the privacy escrow registrars. Hell, if you are on a roll, send a DMCA to the domain registrar.

it's a ridiculous game. you send a DMCA, they de-activate your content then re-activate it a few days later under a new "user". i'm sure tubes have that part covered or they wouldn't be around very long.

So how come some tube sites owners are getting sued without the taken down notices?


ex: -Pink Visual VS Two Point Oh Ltd (FreePorn.com, BadJoJo.com, BoysFood.com, FreeViewMovies.com, StileProject.com, PornRabbit.com and PornYo.co)
-Private's Suit Against DrTuber.com
-Corbin Fisher Suit Against ViniGay.com
etc etc...

Could you restate your question?

What host doesn't reply to DMCAs? Start by outing them if you don't have the desire or penchant to hire a lawyer.

Brad

Also, what legal course of action is available if they comply with the DMCA but continue to post the same content you had removed under different "users"?

what i was trying to understand here is;
Are DMCA take down notices the only way to get illegal-non authorized content Off a tube?
Can a lawsuit be filed right away without a DMCA notice?

Seems that other tube sites have been sued in the past, not sure if the ignore the DMCA notices or got sued bright off the bat...

thanks for your input :thumbsup

I was curious about this to. I always thought the first step was a DMCA, then if that was ignored you can pursue legal action. I think if the email was ignored then you'd have to send a registered letter.

It's a ridiculous game because they pull your content and then repost it a week later under a different user. Not only do they steal your content but they also steal your time.

The best thing you can do is send a DMCA email and cc as many people as you can in the chain (i.e. site, host, registrar, google, etc). Eventually the site will start taking heat from many angles and possibly leave your content alone.

The short answer is yes, you can sue without first issuing take-down notices to the target of your lawsuit.

I'll let JD cover the question of when such an approach might be appropriate, or better/worse than starting out by sending notices, but I can tell you this much: Sending out defective DMCA take-down notices (which many rights-holders and/or representatives working on behalf of those rights-holders have done and continue to do, unfortunately) is a great way to end up litigating the nature of your notices before you get anywhere with litigating the actual claims of your complaint against the other party in your lawsuit. :2 cents:

We have no affiliation with Motherless, nor do we steal content. :disgust

Quentin's right. Look, people are normally responsible even for innocent infringement. That's the basic rule of law. Even if they had no idea that an image or text is owned by someone. But no one would become a host, and the Internet never could have been built if innocent hosts were liable for the infringement. So, Congress enacted the DMCA to give them a defense against innocent infringement, conditional on compliance with the notice and takedown provisions. It's not a sword, and noncompliance with it by a host does not gum up the works so that you can't sue them. It's only a shield for innocent infringer hosts who comply with the notice and takedown provisions. Perfect a proper DMCA Notice and sue them for infringement. If it stays up after your perfect Notice, it's no longer innocent and punitive damages are available. The law imposes a liability on them for doing nothing to cure the infringement with actual notice from you even despite some formal defects in the notice, but you will, as Quentin noted, make it go faster and smoother with a perfect notice.

I agree that repeated, serial uploads of the same content make it a devil of a problem in real life, and the litigation in that direction has not been encouraging to copyright holders.

Joe have a more complete answer, but I'll summarize:
If the "host" (who may be tube) plays by DMCA rules, you'll lewinsky lose your suit against them. You want to send a DMCA notice first to see if they'll play by the rules before you sue.

If they only pretend to follow DMCA rules, such as by taking content down but putting it right back up, or by actively soliciting stolen content, you can win a suit.

what does this perfect DMCA notice look like?

if they re-activate your content under a new "uploader" that was previously removed as per the DMCA, how can you prove it's not a different "uploader". isn't the tube still protected by DMCA if they claim it was a different "uploader"?

i'm sure tube programs have a feature that allows them to do this. if not, then the owners would have been busted long ago because they are the ones that do most of the uploading of stolen content. how do i know this? well, after several of my videos were "removed", the exact same videos were uploaded with the exact same titles and the exact same descriptions by a different uploaders.

they claim to review each and every video posted. really? the guy doing the "reviewing" wouldn't recognize videos from a specific site being uploaded by many different people and get suspicious? does he just assume all of different uploaders have permission to upload these full-length videos?

try uploading a video to youtube with music in it and see what happens. it won't stay up long. but how does youtube know the uploader doesn't have permission to use the music in that video? they assume you don't have permission, pull the video and let you know you can protest their decision to pull the video if you can provide proof of authorization.

why does youtube do this? can't they just bury their head in the sand and hide behind the protection of DMCA?

A bunch of my videos showed up on tube sites, over and over again by a former paying site member. I also noticed that he was posting other sites videos in the same way. I contacted a few of them and they all told me that he was an affiliate of theirs (he's no affiliate of mine) and they allowed him to take their videos, recut them and put his own url on them. These sites (big cash programs) told me that they thought it was good business to get exposure on the tube sites. Some of these sites had 100's of videos about 7 minutes long on tube sites. I personally don't think that tube sites are good for business. Unless there is a click through people just won't take the time to type in a url. Tube sites are bad for business.

i think tubes sites can a great way for affiliates to promote many different niches if done properly, similar to TGP/MGP with samples and teasers. i don't care if they buy content and want to devalue it by putting up full length videos because that's their choice. i'd even be up for donating a few full clips if they put up an affiliate link to my site and did it properly.

the illegal tubes have absolutely no regard for content producers and are not interested in supporting the very industry that is making them money. they are leaches who hide behind legal loop holes.

Larry's got some automated process up on his site, firstamendment.com, and though I've never run through it, considering the source, I'll bet it's quite good.

But the problem is not so much the template or form, anyway, its the specificity with which you identify the name of the work and the filename - sometimes different - and the specificity with which you identify the location where it is published. It's hard to be perfect in respect to many things in life, but it's not so hard to prepare a perfect DMCA Notice. As I recall, the statute even cuts some slack somewhere for huge and repetetive listings, but don't count on that till you look at the exact text.

nice work! thanks

Total BS
 

I own motherless.com and i know how much time and effort goes into removing DMCA take downs. Whenever we get a legal take down notice the file is removed that day, unless something comes up and even then it's removed ASAP.

We never upload content through created user accounts to help the growth of the site. Any file that is removed from a DMCA notice is MD5 hashed and can never be uploaded again.

We have a registered DMCA agent and many ways to contact us. The issue with the OP was he was sending his first emails to the wrong place and not using the correct DMCA format...'I here by....under penalty of perjury..'

Once they were brought to my attention I deleted them regardless of the format of his emails.

They are now deleted and the OP has my personal email so that in the future if he finds any other content uploaded it can get removed right away.

To the other tubesite owners who stood up for us, thanks.



DEWEZ

Do you plan to implement DFP too?

You see that's the problem. There are no affiliate links. These sites just think that people will type in their url. Not gonna happen.

Knowing that you currently cant answer, i leave my reply as a rather rhetorical statement. What you wrote though is so full of bigotry and unvoluntary irony, that i simply cant let it unrefuted!
As any porn-tube of ur sort, you live entirely of the copyrighted material that ur members upload, and always did - in fact, "motherless" wouldnt be able to survive a single day w/o contect stolen from other websites! You have been accused, and more recently convicted, more often as i cant count with the fingers of one hand... the last time now, a californian judge made earnest!
The plaintiff there was ventura content ltd for pink visual - and using ur own searchbox, i by the date get several thousands of results when searching for 'pink visual' or its most common titles and actresses! And the real funny thing is, that while you officially dropped out now as registrant of "motherless", ur successor 'headz' uses the very same links and habits, and even tells members in siteintern tutorials how to remove watermarks (!)... same time that hes still accused as 'doe' in the PV-trial! Now, how much longer you think you could hoax not only any of the people here, but the american justice-system?!
Sadly, admin forbid me to post my knowledge here; so i PMed and emailed dgraves, nikki and several other members, who were very outspoken in the threads here - but all i got so far, is ONE, rather uninterested, answer! Seems some folks here used to fulminate verbaly, are rather reluctant when things become serious?! Anyone here though, whos interested by now, or knows a place where i can inform VCL's lawyers, is abundantly invited to contact me!

""Welcome to a moral free zone where anything legal stays! All content posted to this site is 100% user contributed. All uploaded content is previewed by admins before being posted and anything illegal will be reported. If you want to blame someone for the content on this site, blame the people of the world, not us.""


I dont know if this is still on the site....When we were thinking about making a tube our lawyers assured us if we monitored or edited content in any way we would not be covered under DMCA rules....the content HAS TO BE A FREE FOR ALL or else it doesn't apply....as a tube owner you can only be notified of infringing content. you have to allow ALL content to be uploaded without editorial oversight.

This comes directly from THE BEST layer in the biz on this topic....so....those tubes that THINK they are covered may want to think again....all its going to take is one well placed suit to see what sort of precedent can be set.....and if you don't know this one little fact and are hosting in the US....its not a pretty picture.