Is this stuff really HACKED?

Webmaster Discussion
, , , , , ,
#1

No! I promise none of the content in our new site http://HackedJocks.com was really sourced through hacking.

It’s just the concept, the packaging, that we’ve decided to go for. I wanted to say this from the get-go to clear any potential doubts :slight_smile:

Is going for a concept such as this okay for you affiliates? Would you worry about your blog readers reactions, or do you trust that they are familiar with the playing out of fantasies when visiting paysites?

Also check out the HackedJocks link on the http://RateTheseGuys.com affiliate program - http://RTGGold.com (or go straight to http://RTGGold.com/indexhj.htm ) - for the affiliate signup page to get your HJ code.

Feels good to now have two sites up and running.

As always, any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Wayne

#2

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

I wouldn’t promote it.
When someone adds an image to a site profile it might become accessible to anyone, but I don’t like the idea of another person making money from using their images without their permission.
I’ve gone back and forth on that a few times, but there is a BIG difference between a guy signing a document giving permission for his identity to be used and someone stealing pics of them to sell to other people.

#3

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

But these guys upload their own pictures on Rate These Guys. These aren’t stolen photos, or at least that’s what the site owner says, and I have no reason to disbelieve him.

I have no problem with this site, I’m doing a post right now.

If this content is uploaded by the user and the site has their permission to use it, it shouldn’t matter how one decides to package it.

As far as the intelligence of surfers … who knows?

Does anyone really believe that the guys in Out in Public walked into their corner grocery store and started fucking in the back aisle? Does anyone believe that the guys on Bait Bus aren’t totally set up and know what’s going to happen? Or how about some of the guys on Extra Big Dicks? I just had a surfer comment on one of my blogs, “If that’s nine inches, I’m packing 10 feet!” Are all the Broke Straight Boys really straight?

It’s all good, it’s all fantasy.

#4

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

You aren’t denying it is ‘stolen’ content from profiles though…?

#5

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

All you have to do is read their 2257

http://hackedjocks.com/2257.htm

Seems a bit dodgy

#6

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

I’m suspicious.
From the looks of things these are not the guys on RTG, and the pics they have of the guys on that site are not from profiles, they’re from content willingly submitted by performers who know where that content is being used and have given permission for it to be used in that way.

Can they say that ALL the guys seen in the pics on HJ have given permission for those images to be used in this way? I just doubt that.

Michael, of course I’m not naive enough to think that fantasy sites are real, and I wouldn’t assume any blog visitors to be that naive either. But, they are presenting the content there as being stolen from profiles and then used without the guys permission. If that is the case, it’s morally wrong.

I’d be interested to know whether the content is supplied willingly, with the permission of all those appearing in it.

#7

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

With RateTheseGuys.com all models are hired and paid.

With HackedJocks.com all the images used are sourced from the public domain.

We can verify their age from their original profiles, but certainly there is no ‘stealing’ since the images are uploaded by them with the understanding that they are sharing those images and the use of those images with the public domain.

If I may copy and paste a line from the world’s biggest social network website’s ‘Statement of Rights and Responsibilities’, paragraph 2.4 it says “When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”

This is just one example of many websites where guys upload these photos, and relinquish permission over them.

So what we have done with HackedJocks.com is aggregate this public domain content, provide editorial and sell our publication just the same as a tabloid newspaper or gossip magazine. If Lindsay Lohan gets her tits out in public, or Britney Spears forgets to wear panties, you can bet your bottom dollar the papers will run that image.

So for clarification, we haven’t hacked and/or stolen any images whatsoever. By uploading these images to Public profiles these guys have made them wholly available for use in the public domain, as stated by these sites t&c.

For those who still believe using images uploaded freely to the public domain by sane, able-minded adults is morally wrong, then I can’t convince you to promote the site.

For all others who want to make money off a compelling new site, welcome on board.

#8

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

Well if that is your stance, the answer to your original question is no, that is not ok to me as an affiliate.

#9

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

Thanks for being honest.

But, that doesn’t help the guys seen in those pictures who DIDN’T knowingly have their image published and then to be taken and sold on an adult site.

Why is okay for an adult webmaster to do this, knowing that the other guys in that image probably didn’t give permission for them to be sold on an adult site, but it’s morally wrong for a pirate site to share YOUR copyrighted content with others, when they work on the understanding that the person who uploaded it had the rights to share it?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?

#10

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

Frankly, I think there is a huge difference between using the images to comment, review, than in using it to make money for someone unintended to have those images or content.

All I know is that there is a difference between use for public consumption, and in making money from that use. I have a photo on Facebook, and if that was used in some adult site, I’d be livid. Specially if it was being used to gain a financial benefit.

As to the morality of it all, well double standards exist all over, but I’d be more worried about the legal ramifications.

My opinion.

#11

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

I believe the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that you refer to, doesn’t give you the right to sell the content.
Also, no USA based affiliate can officially promote this site.

#12

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

Rob, I understand and respect your choice.

Conran, the difference in your comparison is that our copyrighted content in RateTheseGuys.com is placed in a members area which people need to pay to gain access to. We have made it clear we are not putting the videos into the public domain for free, by ONLY presenting them in a private access area where we provide access to individuals who pay to see the content. The trailers and teasers which we DO send out into the public domain (on blogs, tube sites etc) we fully understand those will be passed around freely without our permission, and nor will our permission be needed. Regarding the guys on HackedJocks.com , they are uploading their naked images into the public domain and are purposefully sharing them for free with ANYONE, allowing all to access, take and use their images without permission. Completely two different sets of actions.

But I also respect your decision not to promote the site.

Cheers,
Wayne

#13

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

Dennie, Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities is a set of agreements that their users are accepting when they use the service. What it states is that the images they upload under the Public settings are now in the public domain. Facebook has no control over images in the public domain and whether external companies choose to make money from the use of those images.

Indeed many times in just the last few months, I have seen newspapers take images from a user’s public facebook profile (for example, a suspected murderer awaiting trial). What is that newspaper doing? It is making money by selling a story on that person and using their public domain image without their permission.

#14

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

It may be “legally” permissible to use an image uploaded by someone without having to ask their permission, but they didn’t get permission for the other people in that image.
What happens when one of those guys in one of those images files a law suit against HJ because they didn’t give permission? Is HJ gonna say “your friend uploaded it!”
In which case, stop attacking the file sharing sites, because their friends uploaded it without your permission too and apparently that makes it okay.

#15

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

Sorry, I meant Dennis. Apologies.

#16

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

good way for affiliates to get sued.

#17

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

I think a major site rethink is required to be honest.

#18

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

Conran, are you under the impression I have been attacking file sharing sites? You may have me confused with someone else, I haven’t said anything about them. But on that point, that is probably why we’ve seen some gay paysites now have in their t&c that the member is not allowed to share with their friends any content from that site’s ‘members area’.

On the point of other people in those images, if any guy from any photo approaches HJ and states they want their image taken down or obscured, that will happen immediately. They can’t sue HJ however, because the image was in the public domain when it was aggregated. The only person they can sue is the person who first made that image available to the public domain, who shared it without their permission: their friend.

Another line in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities is: “You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook.” By agreeing to this the user takes responsibility, stating their have the full rights to share that content with everyone in the world (should they upload it publicly).

#19

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

[QUOTE=RateTheseGuys Wayne;105670]Rob, I understand and respect your choice.

Conran, the difference in your comparison is that our copyrighted content in RateTheseGuys.com is placed in a members area which people need to pay to gain access to. We have made it clear we are not putting the videos into the public domain for free, by ONLY presenting them in a private access area where we provide access to individuals who pay to see the content. The trailers and teasers which we DO send out into the public domain (on blogs, tube sites etc) we fully understand those will be passed around freely without our permission, and nor will our permission be needed. Regarding the guys on HackedJocks.com , they are uploading their naked images into the public domain and are purposefully sharing them for free with ANYONE, allowing all to access, take and use their images without permission. Completely two different sets of actions.

But I also respect your decision not to promote the site.

Cheers,
Wayne[/QUOTE]

It’s hard for me to explain this very clearly or succinctly because it’s quite complex…
A pirate site works on the assumption that the person who uploaded a file has permission to use it. Most of them state this to their users and it’s ignored.
In our example, the guy uploading images of his friend with his dick in his face is acting as the pirate. He’s uploading pics that he might be allowing himself to be in, but his friends probably haven’t given permission for THEIR image to be shared.

I understand the difference between the theft of copyright content and using an image in the public domain, but what I’m talking about is the moral contradiction.

You’re saying it’s okay that the other guys in those images probably didn’t give their permission, and you know full well that they wouldn’t want their images to be sold on an adult site without their permission, but you condemn a file sharing site for ignoring the same moral obligations.

If a file sharing site says “a user uploaded a file they claimed to own, you can’t touch me” you’d be angry about that and want them shut down even though it was a user uploading that content. Yet it’s okay that the other guys in those images didn’t give permission?!

In this scenario the webmaster having his content stolen is the other guy in those pics. The pirate is the guy uploading them to a profile without the permission of his friends in that image, and you are the pirate site spreading that around while claiming that it’s “all in the public domain” while you don’t know what that guys friends think!

Do you see what I mean?

#20

Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?

I do understand what you mean Conran, and I fully appreciate your moral concerns.

However, morals are a very subjective thing and it is not my job to decide what is or isn’t morally acceptable (which varies from person to person). I’m here to promote the site I work for and ensure it makes a lot of money legally.

What I would say is that newspapers and gossip magazines do this all the time. If you buy any of those, you should probably stop so as to be consistent with your moral standpoint.