Do we, as an adult webmaster community, oppose supporting adult versions of YouTube?

[Greenguy]

I've read 3 separate threads on the topic so far this morning:
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=39291
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=39294
http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=39281

In each, I posted, assuming that we, as an adult webmaster community, oppose these type of site.

I understand that they are legal & that's not much we can do about them, but that doesn't mean we have to support them.

I think we've talked about this in the past (I can't find the thread) but if I remember correctly, the general consensus was that sites like this are of little or no benefit to the JoeBlow webmasters that we have here on the board. (most of us are in the Link List/Free Site and/or TGP/Gallery business)

So before I continue with my "this board is not for you" mindset when I reply to these threads, I'd like to know if I'm right in my thinking.

Please vote as well as post comments/questions

[Pendo]

too much free porn can't be good. I don't support them.

[Fonz]

I'm split but leaning over to the NO side more since it's giving away more free porn again but with less advertising possibilities for us small webmasters than let's say freesites or TGP galleries.

If you can put your watermark on the movies it might be another opportunity to get some people over to your site. But then again I can imagine it's not the greatest traffic ever...

I tested it once and am still waiting for the loads of traffic to come in

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Fonz

...If you can put your watermark on the movies it might be another opportunity to get some people over to your site. But then again I can imagine it's not the greatest traffic ever...

I think that was one of the few Pros that we came up with - assuming you have your own exclusive content, then you could slap your domain on the movie & get traffic that way.

I know that there's a few paysite owners & webmasters that produce their own content and if they wanted to try it & support it, that's their business (but I think that most of those - that I know anyway - would not support this)

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Greenie

I know that there's a few paysite owners & webmasters that produce their own content and if they wanted to try it & support it, that's their business (but I think that most of those - that I know anyway - would not support this)

I fully support their right to find innovative ways to promote their own sites, but they should not be advertising them or discussing them on webmaster boards. It's sort of a fuck you to affiliate webmasters. I realize they don't mean it that way, but really, if you are openly discussing such projects, which exclude affiliates, on a webmaster board, it's a fuck you.

I may not know what works , but I do know what does not work. Posting lengthy video clips of your exclusive content without a glaringly large adjoining tour link is asinine.

Also, why is it, if we create free sites/galleries with their content, we are allowed to promote only their paysite on those pages, yet they'll allow their movie clips to be viewed on a tube site where the predominant advertising is that of OTHER sites? Hmmm...

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by Greenie

I think that was one of the few Pros that we came up with - assuming you have your own exclusive content, then you could slap your domain on the movie & get traffic that way.

I don't think you would even need your own content Greenie. The surfers upload their videos, but when they embed the movie player onto their other pages or share them, then your watermark/logo is linked back to your site anyhow.

Which is why i worried about user uploaded content and 2257 as Toby stated.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by LowryBigwood

I don't think you would even need your own content Greenie. The surfers upload their videos, but when they embed the movie player onto their other pages or share them, then your watermark/logo is linked back to your site anyhow.

Which is why i worried about user uploaded content and 2257 as Toby stated.

Technically, that's a secondary issue & not really a major concern of anyone that doesn't own the copyright's. The very legit versions of these that (claim) do not allow copyrighted material to be posted unless you own the copyright.

So in a world where all the content has permission to be posted, that would bring us back to my main point

[MrMaryLou]

The only benefit would be to a pay site owner if any at all and just because of the watermarks on the movies. I really don't see it making money for anyone at all, other than a chance of a surfer typing in a URL from a movie but then again why would they if there is a never ending supply of movies.

[LowryBigwood]

Originally Posted by MrMaryLou

The only benefit would be to a pay site owner if any at all and just because of the watermarks on the movies. I really don't see it making money for anyone at all, other than a chance of a surfer typing in a URL from a movie but then again why would they if there is a never ending supply of movies.

I came very close to setting up a youtube type of adult site about 6 months back but ended up deciding against it. Mainly for the reason Toby mentioned about user uploaded content and 2257 worries.

Anyhow, they don't have to type in your url, you can embed a linked watermark to your site just like the youtube guys. So if they click on that watermark, it'll pop a new window sending em your way. The only benefit I can really see is I believe it would be a good way to gain traffic, but then again I am betting most them aren't going to buy porn anyways. But, I don't know..

I voted NO.

[Jim]

I really don't see any benefit to anyone other than the people that own these sites and the sponsors. Assuming that adult programs go the same route as TV networks (except viacom). They will be happy to provide the video clips. And really, who can blame them?

But sooner or later, these youtube type sites are going to see that they are offering too much for free and adjust. Freesites didn't start out with only a few pictures. They started with 5 - 30 Thousand and saw money slipping through their (our) fingers.

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Jim

I really don't see any benefit to anyone other than the people that own these sites and the sponsors. Assuming that adult programs go the same route as TV networks (except viacom). They will be happy to provide the video clips. And really, who can blame them?

But sooner or later, these youtube type sites are going to see that they are offering too much for free and adjust. Freesites didn't start out with only a few pictures. They started with 5 - 30 Thousand and saw money slipping through their (our) fingers.

the traffic for every video on mine goes to the sponsor that posted it

[Jim]

Oh yeah, I am kind of torn on the vote. If they were done right with tiny clips, I think they would work well for everyone and be a good source of traffic. But as they are now, they just offer way too much. I guess I will have to vote "no".

[JustRobert]

I voted NO.

I understand a paysite owner may want to use every resource they could to sell as well. Hoping the watermarks bring someone over to buy. I am a small fish and even I think somtimes that I give away to much free stuff with tgp and linklists. Still fall under the old thought of tease them with free and let the paysites please. Unfortunately I feel I am in the minority on this and may need to change. But untill they can come to a difinite agreement with 2257 and secondary producers I will stick to teasing nudes

[docholly]

ON behalf of one of my camhoes, I submit clips to a site called clips4sale.. they are anywhere between 120-240 seconds each depending on the material presented. While I know this isn't a "free" porn site, it's amazing the number of people who purchase clips. I think it would be much MORE effective if program owners wanted traffic to do it in these little sound bytes and sell them for 1.99 or whatever. then the surfer gets a "taste" and if they want more, go buy a membership.

On the weird porn surfer note: Monday a guy purchased 75.00 worth of 180 second clips. He could have bought a monthly membership to the website for 24.99 and gotten all 150 full length videos.

Soo NO to the free Adult YouTube

[plateman]

I oppose it, as more and more surfers find out about these sites, coupled with file sharing programs, this can only mean less money for us webmasters

sure the owners are making money off of some of the traffic on those sites....but those kind of sites are taking the traffic from the real sites that make us money like the LL and tgps and so on

[emmanuelle]

free porn = free porn = free porn

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

free porn = free porn = free porn

I couldn't have said it better.

Greenie was picking a fight with me over on another thread, but I don't really understand what the big deal is.

I have a "youtube style" site (www.snizzshare.com) - the video upload is closed. Every video that is posted link to the corresponding sponsor.

Snizzshare has 294 video clips on it at this point.

Link-o-rama has 24502 links out. If 20000 are to free sites, times say an average of 10 videos per site, then we are looking at 200,000 free porn clips online...the only thing that is different is the presentation.

I don't see what the big deal is.

Linklists and TGP were cutting edge 5 years ago. Now surfers want Web 2.0. You gotta keep with times or get left behind.

That's my 2 cents on this.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

...Greenie was picking a fight with me over on another thread, but I don't really understand what the big deal is...

I just found it really strange that a major Link List owner would not only support tube sites, but build one himself. But, I guess you stopped being a Link List owner & started being a Program Owner a long time ago. Sad.

Originally Posted by xxxjay

...Link-o-rama has 24502 links out. If 20000 are to free sites, times say an average of 10 videos per site, then we are looking at 200,000 free porn clips online...the only thing that is different is the presentation...

Well, I'm glad you know how many free sites I have as well as how many of them have movies, because I don't know that data. Thanks for posting your guesses about what's on MY site

(edit - I just looked: there's just over 23,000 free sites listed - that's a FACT. There's just over 8400 movie sites listed with 4-12 movies per site - probably an avg of 8/site - or 130,000 less than your guess)

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Greenie

I just found it really strange that a major Link List owner would not only support tube sites, but build one himself.

FYI: First, I shouldn't say that I support "tube sites" as you define them. I don't.

Shame on you for using your admin powers to post on the thread who voted how. If the goverment was so willy nilly with their voter information as you are, even less people would come out to vote.

Looking back I would have voted a flat "NO" actually.

If a "tube" site is a site that posts online a shitload of free content without giving the proper program credit or to leach traffic off someone elses content that is WRONG. That is where I stand there. We've sent plenty of publicly filed C&D's to these sites to prove it too!!!!!!!

That being said, I DIDN'T BUILD ONE MYSELF! Check your facts before you throw stones!

1. My upload is closed.
2. All of the sponsors get credit where credit is due.
3. Participation is by invite only.
4. The longest clip you will find anywhere on there is about 2 minutes, it non hardcore, and there are aren't many of them. Average clip is about 30 seconds - there are not hour long movies on that fucker!

Really, my site is a "fake tube" site.

Originally Posted by Greenie

But, I guess you stopped being a Link List owner & started being a Program Owner a long time ago. Sad.

That's news to me:

1. Did I shut any of my 3 links sites down? No.
2. Do I still take submissions daily for free? Yes.
3. Do I still pay to have a reviewer on staff to do reviews and correspond with webmasters on this board that want to be listed? Yes.
4. Do I add new categories to my linklist(s) based on the needs of submissions? Yes.

Just becasue I am not the "Johny Appleseed of free porn" doesn't mean I'm a sad case and besides where would the money for all these people owning linklists and submitting sites come from if it wasn't for us evil "program owners"?

Originally Posted by Greenie

Well, I'm glad you know how many free sites I have as well as how many of them have movies, because I don't know that data. Thanks for posting your guesses about what's on MY site

(edit - I just looked: there's just over 23,000 free sites listed - that's a FACT. There's just over 8400 movie sites listed with 4-12 movies per site - probably an avg of 8/site - or 130,000 less than your guess)

Whoops, excuse the fuck out of me. I arrived at my number by taking the total number of free listings (my guess was somewhere around 20,000) and multiplying it by 10 becasue each site might have that number of pieces of free content. I guess you got me on the photo technicality.

Whatever, it doesn't really matter. Now that I have the correct numbers, estimating on the low side:

8400 x 6 = 50400 free movies on LOR divided 316 Free Movies on snizzshare.com = 159 more times free porn online with LOR

How the fuck am I the bad guy? I just don't get it?

Come on Greenie? Let's face it. It is not 1998 anymore. Things must progress. We've both been doing this over 10 years now and in internet time that may as well be centuries.

Is Google bad becasue it killed Excite? Nope, just offered a better product.

Is Myspace bad becasue it killed Friendster? Is Greenguy and Jim bad beause it killed Adultnetsuprise (oh, that was a good one)?

No. They just offered a superiour product.

Better yet, is the internet bad becasue it killed magizine sales? I think everyone can agree it's been good for all of us.

Right as we piss away on this board there is generations of potential adult customers are turning of age that grew up on Web 2.0 platforms like youtube and myspace. They are not going to crawl their way through link-dumps and warning pages like their parents did. They are going to go with something they know and the more it looks like something they are already familiar with the more they will like the site.

At the end of the day, all you are really rallying against is the design of my site, becasue what I am doing isn't anything we both haven't been doing for years:

Putting free porn online.

Things change fast in this game. You can stand back and be bitter that your business model may be becoming obsolete or you can try to keep up with times. Either way those that stay tied to the tracks of Internet circa 2001 will get run over by a train...

It's called progress!

[Jim]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

free porn = free porn = free porn

I don't think that is true. I think all of can agree that "free porn" that allows the surfer to get the job done without visiting a sponsor is not good for any part of this business. It not only hurts the free site, tgp and linklist owners but it also hurts the sponsor. And when the sponsor is hurt, we all hurt.

But after saying that, tube type sites look like they can work well if they are built properly. Snizzshare looks like it should work well. I would be curious as to how much money it makes vs how much money it costs. The biggest part of the problem a larger percentage of these sites don't seem to be looking toward the future at all.

I don't give a rats ass about the linklist and TGP business model. If anyone really thinks that the current business model will stay the same as more and more people get broadband access, they are crazy. But, this business as a whole can't survive if nobody has to join a paysite to get the content that gets the job done.

As a side note, I voted "No". But, I never meant my vote to mean, "Let's get pitchforks and chase these monsters away". My "No" vote was "No", I don't like the way these sites are currently doing business. With these sites growing faster than anything ever has, wouldn't it make more sense to educate the owners than to close your eyes and pretend they don't exist?

[Toby]

I have a problem with any kind of site based on surfer uploaded adult content. A significant percentage will always be unauthorized by the legit content owners. They'll give you the old line, "we pull all unauthorized copyrighted content as soon as we're notified." Sorry, in my opinion, that's not good enough.

[Tommy]

you guys are a bunch of hypocrytes

I have seen so many webmasters defend porn by claiming free speech but now that their income could be threatened free speech doesn't matter so much

to much free porn is no good for the business but of course those very same webmasters are putting porn on the web for free.
but of course they are putting out just the right amount of free porn, so its ok


ohh and lets not forget the copyright BS
that's like telling Ford they cant build cars cause some of them might be used as get away cars to rob banks

you would starve technical innovation and progress because somebody might violate a copyright. what if they said that about the Internet as whole back in 1995

99.9 percent of adult content owners never bother to file any copyrights

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by Tommy

you guys are a bunch of hypocrytes

I have seen so many webmasters defend porn by claiming free speech but now that their income could be threatened free speech doesn't matter so much

to much free porn is no good for the business but of course those very same webmasters are putting porn on the web for free.
but of course they are putting out just the right amount of free porn, so its ok


ohh and lets not forget the copyright BS
that's like telling Ford they cant build cars cause some of them might be used as get away cars to rob banks

you would starve technical innovation and progress because somebody might violate a copyright. what if they said that about the Internet as whole back in 1995

99.9 percent of adult content owners never bother to file any copyrights

You're missing the point - we all know it has legit uses.

What I'm trying to see is that if my feelings are the same as most of the people on this board (aka community) as far as not supporting it.

Understanding something is completely different than supporting it & I find it really hard to understand how you could support something that would teach surfers that they don't need Link Lists or TGPs, seeing as you own one of the biggest out there.

[Tommy]

Originally Posted by Greenie

You're missing the point - we all know it has legit uses.

What I'm trying to see is that if my feelings are the same as most of the people on this board (aka community) as far as not supporting it.

Understanding something is completely different than supporting it & I find it really hard to understand how you could support something that would teach surfers that they don't need Link Lists or TGPs, seeing as you own one of the biggest out there.

I am not missing the point. I really think you are

you don't like it cause it might cost you some money

the company's that sold pay phones said the same thing about cell phones they were wrong then and you are wrong now

millions of companies or people have been put out of work because of progress should we have banned computers back in the 70s or ban robots today

just cause I make my living from a link list doesn't mean I am gonna turn myself into a hypocrite

so basically your argument is
my free porn is OK but theirs isn't cause I make less money

[Useless]

I don't see tube sites as progress. There is nothing new about the way in which they stream video. Hell, it's not even a good business model. Everything I've heard is that the ROI is very low and that dealing with the barrage of copyright and other legal issues is a huge pain in the balls.

I think most of us are anti-tube for the same reason we are against free sites with 1k pics on them. We should, as a community, have some type of barometer of how much free porn is too much compared to the amount of advertising the surfer must confront.