old school G money.



i gotta dooddooooooooooooo

Nope, and in the last 2 yrs of running adult tubes I have never received a single DMCA. Play by the rules and all is well.

you look like someone that couldn't produce anything of value and would resort to stealing other people's work.

oh, and you better lose a few hundred pounds before you start shit talking me fat ass! i'd wear your ass out.

Why? are you some kind of bad ass? Tubes ruined original content.

I think very carefully about tubes giving away free content in which take away from the resources necessary to produce fresh new content.

woah! that kind of thinking requires some business sense. i never gave these guys that much credit. he's the guy that's stealing from us remember. the only thing you can steal from him is some shade.

Well he needs to steal content to feed his fat fucking ass.
He runs tube sites, so he comes in here talking shit defending tubes making a very weak attempt at trolling.

He does not like what you said as he his very close neighbors with
Joshua Lange
34 Fingerboard Rd FL1
Staten Island NY 10305
(212) 920-1666

DukeDollars is in NJ

the only way he could understand how a content owner feels is if someone stole his bucket of fried chicken but that will never happen because i bet he guards his food with his life.

Be very careful of what you say, you may end up in the pinta or getting sued ha ha ha ha ha

not surprised. birds of a feather...

I am truly impressed by your thoughtful, yet original comebacks. Bravo sir, I have never been called fat before and my e-feelings are crushed.

Yes, Duke Dollars is in NJ, but I live in Ca. So they aren't exactly my neighbors. Surely you aren't suggesting that Duke Dollars is stealing your works? Are you?

Where did I defend tubes that steal content. All of my tubes are legal and run by the rules set forth by the sponsors I choose to promote. Don't worry boys, I don't promote either of you.

Now you boys know the rules right? Please post proof that I steal from you or any other content producer. I'm waiting.

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?