I declined a site listing recently because the guys featured on the site where very young looking and seemed to be amateur stuff (done by themselves), there was no way the owner of the site could know how old these guys are, but as a excuse he said, well “xtube and other sites use the same material”.
What do you respond to that?
It’s true, xtube and many tube sites offer out material that they have no way of knowing the true age of the performers. They are huge and get away with it, while these smaller guys gets declined services these bigers sites get.
I would respond and say “well this isn’t xtube, and I am not comfortable with it”. You could phrase it a little nicer, but that is really all that needs to be said.
YouTube is responsible in policing what is posted to their site. All it takes for these other sites is one media driven example of kids putting themselves on sites with no liability and things will change.
Xtube isn’t paying my legal fees, is how I’d respond.
And I’m waiting for the day when some news story hits the media about an underage guy being “preyed upon” after having posted his videos to Xtube. Like Chip said, “the bigger they are, the harder they fall.”
If the DOJ wanted to look for 2257 violations and fill the public coffers with fines, I’m sure the tube sites would be a great place to start.
That im not willing to take the risks that these firms do and the fact still remains how can he prove what age these guys are, no matter what site the video originates from. Xtube etc hasnt got 2257 documents for these amateur videos.
I tried to explain its one thing to use promotional material which is documented properly and then just take images and videos from which ever site they find and posting it without thinking about who or what age the people on them are.
YouTube is about to be in a world of hurt. I don’t remember where I saw the article, but it was basically Mark Cuban commenting saying that it wouldn’t be around forever. One of the flaws with the system of YouTube is that it is full of copyright videos, and they say they can’t possibly police them all, yet anytime one speck of nudity shows up on YouTube, it is taken down almost immediately.
Yes I’ve had videos taken down that had no nudity and a guy in jeans rubbing his chest
I’m sure they’ve enlisted the help of church members around America to police the site for them for free. seriously
Strange how erotic straight videos stay up forever and erotic Gay videos are taken down quite quickly or more limited then the straight videos, well not so strange, but it shows they are capable if policing their videos and discerning what to allow by a biased standard.
there’s a str8 program i used to promote and some of their sites were not nude, but were sexually explicit. the girls could well have been 18 but i wasn’t comfortable so i didn’t promote them after taking a closer look. lots of guys i knew at the time promoted them, and when i asked if they were confident about the models, their response was “the guys at that program know what they’re doing.” none of them KNEW the guys any more than i did, but the program and sites were well designed and they felt that level of organization meant that great care was being taken.
like the people responsible for the organization - the designers, programmers and affiliate reps - were shooting the content and checking the i.d. personally. oy veh!
to thine own beliefs be true. and besides, who knows who checks and double checks the videos at xtube? someone does, but i bet most of us don’t.
[QUOTE=gaydemon;19343]
I tried to explain its one thing to use promotional material which is documented properly and then just take images and videos from which ever site they find and posting it without thinking about who or what age the people on them are.[/QUOTE]
The other, really basic approach, is to say that you’re gearing up for the passage of 2257A/4472, and want to have IDs on file for any content you are hosting or promoting.
You know, as much as I hate the current state of governmental regulation of porn, in one way, if 2257A passes and holds up, it will pretty much decimate the tube sites that use content theft as a business model.
Until they move their servers and business overseas
I can’t see things continuing the way they are but if they do we’ll all adapt, meanwhile opportunists are taking advantage and doing the wrong thing for a quick buck at our expense while they can.
In a way I do agree, even it it wouldnt really apply to me as UK company it would be a pretty good thing to have anyway.
However as Squirt says, wouldnt the result just be that they incorperate in another country?
[quote=gaybucks_chip;19353]The other, really basic approach, is to say that you’re gearing up for the passage of 2257A/4472, and want to have IDs on file for any content you are hosting or promoting.
You know, as much as I hate the current state of governmental regulation of porn, in one way, if 2257A passes and holds up, it will pretty much decimate the tube sites that use content theft as a business model.[/quote]
FYI - XTube does have age verification on file for their “amateur” section - that’s the “amateur” tab that’s PPV with revenue share to the model. They’ve been trying to get me to put my stuff there. But apparently they only ask for age verification for the primary model - any “friends” he has in his cam sessions or uploaded videos lack documentation.
The problem area then are the general user videos in the “video” section. Those have no documentation. However, having posted a video of me with a young guy on there, I can say from personal experience there are people who roam XTube and challenge everything that looks possibly underage. Still, all that does is get a manual review and require the person posting to state formally that the actors are 18+.
Xtube has their head up their ass, and has for some time. If they’re trying to use the “We’re only an ISP” argument, they would lose that argument pretty easily, as they are actively moderating and removing content without DMCA or other takedown requests.
If they’re asking for documentation, then they’re not trying to use the ISP argument, and they have to be fully compliant, not just for one section, or just for some models.
Furthermore, they could arguably, under 2257, be considered “primary producers” (to the extent that term still exists) and in that case, they are required to physically inspect an ID, not just see a scan or digital pic of it.
Xtube is in Canada, so rules are slightly different.
There is the issue about how tube sites make money, though. Bandwidth costs are killing them. I talked to Kurtis and he said they all nearly lost their houses a few months ago to pay for bandwidth. Also, if YouTube hadn’t been bought by Google, they would have folded a long time ago.
They are in Canada, but they serve a largely US audience, and so Justice’s position is that they need to comply with 2257, and being as how we’re such great friends with the Canadians… well, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.
i don’t think 2257 is really the point. whether they have i.d. on file or not, the question was whether webmasters could judge that models on xtube were of age, which for porn modeling, that’s the same age in canada as in the u.s. and unless xtube - or anyone else - carefully checks every model i.d., i can’t see why a webmaster would consider having a video on their site as age verification of the model.
And again we fall into that age-old debate where the DOJ has no jurisdiction in Canada and no Canadian police agency is going to run around checking records on their behalf.
The Canadian police will investigate them on their own if there are reports of kiddie porn videos on the site.
So maybe we should post links on the Chinese bulletin boards and get those fuckers burning up tons of bandwidth so the rest of us can get back to making money after the tube sites start to collapse.
