Basically they were file storage units, for 10-15 dollars a month you could upload anything you wanted to your account and keep a copy of it there.  You [...]]]> Stories are going to be coming up that will be benefited by an understanding of how sites like Megaupload and Filesonic worked and what they changed.

Basically they were file storage units, for 10-15 dollars a month you could upload anything you wanted to your account and keep a copy of it there.  You could also download all you wanted.  This included hollywood movies, dvd rips, website rips, porn, whatever.  On the surface that doesn't seem so bad...BUT they also let you "share" these files with anyone you wanted, and pay you for doing so.

once you uploaded a file the system would create a link to that file, think of it as a pointer to the file you uploaded.  That pointer was unique to you so it provided a way for the filesharing site to track your downloads.  These sites typically paid $40.00 per 1000 downloads.  Smart uploaders would rip a dvd, split the rip into 3 or 4 parts that way a download of the dvd would equal 3 or 4 downloads thus increasing the money they made.

They would post these links along with boxcover photos to piracy sites like hornywhores or pornbb.  Most DVDs on a big piracy board would get 2000-3000 downloads.  As you can see posting 100 DVDs a month could be fairly lucrative.

Now if you understand the DMCA you know that a copyright holder can request that the material be removed and the fileshare site had to do so promptly.   But they werent removing the files.....only the file POINTERS, what this meant was that the original uploader could go in and in a few seconds generate a new pointer, update his posts and the files are back available for download in a matter of minutes.

Fileshare sites that specialized in porn even facilitated purchases made from sites like hotmovies and clips4sale, you could buy a movie and move it to the fileshare site without ever having downloaded it, the filesharing site would do it for you and auto post it.  This led to clips4sale and others blocking numerous IP addresses from being able to download.

Now when the Department of Justice shut down megaupload it was things like the affiliate program (paying uploaders for downloads) and deleting the links to the content instead of the content is largely what got them nailed.

Filesonic, Oron and other sites that were primarily porn took note and either cut off downloads by anyone other than the original uploader or terminated the affiliate programs, or both.  Needless to say if this holds, these guys are out of business, and so are the uploaders and piracy boards that made a living as affiliates.

Recent information has surfaced accusing Manwin of owning at least one of these large filesharing sites, Filesonic, more on that is coming, including a statement from Manwin denying any such ownership and why it is falling on deaf ears.

According to documents filed with the court asking the court to dismiss the Manwin/Digital Playground lawsuit They did:

“Thylmann again approached ICM, ostensibly interested in doing business with us,” Lawley stated in his declaration. “He also said that he was planning to start his own adult industry trade group, consisting of the two [...]]]>  

According to documents filed with the court asking the court to dismiss the Manwin/Digital Playground lawsuit They did:

“Thylmann again approached ICM, ostensibly interested in doing business with us,” Lawley stated in his declaration. “He also said that he was planning to start his own adult industry trade group, consisting of the two or three ‘powerhouses’ of the industry (including Manwin), using organizations such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America as models…. He said that such a group was necessary because the Free Speech Coalition (a trade group representing certain segments of the adult industry) was not in a position to provide any real value for its members.

“After making these statements, Thylmann then set forth a list of ‘nonnegotiable’ demands to be met by ICM in order for Manwin to consider conducting business with ICM,” the declaration continues. “Thylmann stated that he would ‘tie up ICM in litigation’ if ICM did not meet all of his demands.”

According to both Lawley and Dumas, by October the demands included:
•    Allocation of several thousand dot-xxx domain names to Manwin free of charge.
•    ICM’s commitment to circumvent its policy development body, the International Foundation for Online Responsibility, particularly with regard to the operation of tube sites within dot-xxx.
•    Across-the-board discounts on dot-xxx domain registrations.
•    Allocation of so-called “premium” domains, including Tube.xxx, to be operated by Manwin under a revenue-sharing agreement with ICM.
“Thylmann further stated that in order to explain Manwin’s change of heart regarding .XXX, ICM had to agree to concessions that would put a positive ‘spin’ on Manwin’s involvement, namely, that it would appear that Manwin accomplished some positive impact for the adult industry when news of the deal was announced,” Lawley’s declaration notes.

Now I am no fan of Stuart Lawley, he is a known liar and scum bag, but then Manwin isn't exactly known for being forthright either.  In a perfect world they will both kill each other but sadly that wont happen.

There's more coming on Manwin  LOTS more and at least one of them is a BOMB....stay tuned.

let the demagoging begin...

from www.patch.com - Councilmen Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz introduced an emergency motion Tuesday seeking to dismiss Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich's lawsuit against a ballot initiative that would require the city to enforce the use of condoms during pornographic film shoots.

Koretz said the City [...]]]>  

let the demagoging begin...

from www.patch.com - Councilmen Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz introduced an emergency motion Tuesday seeking to dismiss Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich's lawsuit against a ballot initiative that would require the city to enforce the use of condoms during pornographic film shoots.

Koretz said the City Council was blindsided by the suit filed last Thursday by the city attorney's office asking a judge to consider whether the city has jurisdiction to enforce the state law through its Police Department permitting process.

"I don't know that that was intentional, but I think we were all taken by surprise," Koretz said.

The council briefly recessed into closed session to get an explanation from Assistant City Attorney Valerie Flores.

Flores said the council was notified that litigation was a possibility, but "we do believe that we should have also notified the council immediately before we filed the lawsuit. I think we learned our lesson and in the future will be have better communications with the council."

Still, Koretz said the effort to assess the initiative before it is considered by the City Council or put to voters is "highly unusual."

"It's pretty rare that a government entity will seek to halt something before it actually gets to the ballot," Koretz said. "I think it sends the wrong anti-democratic message."

Flores said that during closed session the two branches of government got past the communication issue and discussed the substance of the suit.

The state Division of Occupational Safety and Health has argued the city can enforce state workplace safety laws requiring actors to use condoms during porn shoots via the city's permitting process.

However, Flores said there is a body of law that suggests local governments are pre-empted from enforcing state laws through the stricter permits.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has submitted more than 70,000 signatures in support of the initiative that would require the city to enforce state workplace laws requiring adult film performers to wear condoms.

The city is certain to be sued by the pornography industry if the initiative is approved by the City Council or voters, Flores said, adding that defending against the suit would be extremely costly.

"The only purpose of the lawsuit was to get judicial clarity about whether the city has jurisdiction to enforce Cal/OSHA state standards," Flores said. "We want to do that before we expend any taxpayer funds to enact or put the measure on the ballot. We are not anti-condoms on adult film sets."

Koretz called the legal interpretation debatable.

"I think with it being that questionable in either direction, we should let the people decide first," Koretz said.

The city attorney's office will present a judge with a request for an expedited ruling schedule Thursday and hopes to have an opinion by late January.

UH OH!  I got several tips today that several girls "working" for Derek hay got subpoenas.

Online Impersonations Are Now Illegal in California

Watch out, West Coast Web jesters, because a new California law prohibiting online impersonations officially went into effect this weekend. Violators of SB 1411 will face a fine of up to $1,000 and/or a year in jail. Governor Arnold [...]]]> Look Out Donny Long you little shit stain

Online Impersonations Are Now Illegal in California

Watch out, West Coast Web jesters, because a new California law prohibiting online
impersonations officially went into effect this weekend. Violators of SB 1411 will face a
fine of up to $1,000 and/or a year in jail. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 1411
back in September, and immediately drew the ire of free speech advocates from around the
country. While the law doesn't explicitly address free speech concerns, it does specify
that perpetrators must demonstrate a clear intent to harm, intimidate, or defraud the
individual being impersonated -- or, for that matter, anyone else.

The law's structure lends itself to obvious debate. How, for example, will a California
court distinguish satire or parody from fraud or slander? On the other hand, it does
provide targets with newfound (and sorely-needed) legal recourse. "Almost all
cyber-harassment goes unpunished," San Francisco lawyer Erica Johnstone tells ZDNet. Many
cyberbullies, she adds, often ignore lawsuits, or force "default," monetary judgments,
which can be difficult to enforce. But SB 1411, Johnstone argues, could radically change
that. "[T]he criminal aspect of SB 1411 means that those who impersonate others online
will face real-world consequences for their actions," she explains.

Nevertheless, the intense controversy surrounding the measure suggests that SB 1411 may
face substantial hurdles in the future. And, like pretty much anything else, its fate will
likely be determined before in court.

Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings LLC says Tyler Schwaller uploaded films produced by the Corbin Fisher studio, a Liberty affiliate, to [...]]]> A man alleged to be one of the main online distributors of stolen gay pornographic movies has agreed to pay $250,000 in copyright infringement damages, according to a stipulation filed in California federal court.

Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings LLC says Tyler Schwaller uploaded films produced by the Corbin Fisher studio, a Liberty affiliate, to file-sharing networks.

”Mr. Schwaller is not merely one of many who steal the plaintiff’s copyrighted work online — Mr. Schwaller is one of the primary sources of the stolen Corbin Fisher works circulating on the Internet,” according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Pursuant to a joint motion for entry of consent judgment filed four days after the complaint was filed, Schwaller agreed with the allegation that he illegally distributed Corbin Fisher films.

The parties estimated that Liberty suffered at least $500,000 in damages, but they stipulated that Schwaller would pay the company half that amount.

The consent judgment provides that the $250,000 total can be reduced if Schwaller makes regular payments on a schedule to be determined at a later date and does not engage in any further sharing of Liberty’s content or “anyone else’s.”

Schwaller also agreed to be permanently enjoined from further infringement of any of Liberty’s trademarks or copyrights.

Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. Schwaller, No. 10-CV-2625-LAB, stipulation of settlement filed (S.D. Cal., San Diego Dec. 24, 2010).

Looks like RemoveYourContent has the right idea, go after the repeat offenders.

Shining a light on repeat piracy offenders, Remove Your Content kicks off 2011 with a more aggressive strategy.

Irving, TX, Jan 04 2011: Remove Your Content will begin filing mass DMCA 512 (h) subpoenas on behalf [...]]]> I don't usually run press releases because in all honesty most of them are worthless. This one isn't.

Shining a light on repeat piracy offenders, Remove Your Content kicks off 2011 with a more aggressive strategy.

Irving, TX, Jan 04 2011: Remove Your Content will begin filing mass DMCA 512 (h) subpoenas on behalf of its clients.

The purpose, of the new course of action, will be two-fold. One, to discover repeat infringers who continually re-upload stolen client content to tubes, blogs and file-sharing sites with impunity. Two, to notify pirates they have been identified and to share this information with rights holders. "Gross negligence will not be rewarded.

All the current technology available will not address the ultimate issue at hand...the person uploading the content" states Eric Green, President of Removeyourcontent LLC. He adds, "Some organizations feel amnesty is the solution to content theft. Our counterparts, in mainstream, do not share that same philosophy and we aim to put these repeat infringers on notice." Removeyourcontent plans on filing its first round of Federal subpoenas this Friday, January 7th, 2011 in U.S. District Court, 5th Circuit Dallas.

Removeyourcontent has been serving the adult industry since 2007 with targeted piracy removal. To date, Removeyourcontent has removed over 30 million links of piracy online and ranked 6th in the world for piracy removals from Google in 2010.

For information: http://www.removeyourcontent.com or Contact: info@removeyourcontent.com

This may be the second of even more busts to [...]]]> Info is flooding out of Philly now that the parent company of Hotmovies also owns escorts.com and that is what the raid is all about.  It has long been rumored that the feds are building cases against some big escort and porn agency websites.

This may be the second of even more busts to come, the first being an agency in FL a few months ago.  Word is they are taking their time in order to build three RICO predicate charges.  More as it develops.

CBS News is also reporting that it is prostitution related.