Comment Replies (3)
|
Replies to the user comment above. |
| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
Regarding all the videos have the site logo: I assume it's fairly easy for a site to put its logo on a video or set of photos. That doesn't mean much beyond implying that the video or photos are part of their content or inventory. But that content could also be at other sites as well, with a different logo.
A lot of site webmasters do not have English as their primary language. So when you say the webmaster states the content is exclusively theirs, he might not be understanding clearly what you were asking. That's just a thought.
What logo do the videos you downloaded previously, that are also at this site, have? Do they have this site's logo? A different logo? Or no logo?
There are different types of leases, with different rights to that content. I'm not in the porn business, but I would assume that some leases might give the holder exclusive right to that content for a specified period of time.
Or someone could buy the content outright. Which would give them exclusive rights.
But what the facts are in this specific case, you would need a clear dialog with the webmaster/site owner. And like I said, some of these gentlemen have only a rudimentary understanding of English.
|
09-17-11 08:54pm
Reply To Message
|
2
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
(I'm putting this in a separate reply, because I passed the time limit for editing my first reply.)
I looked at the reply of the webmaster you mentioned in a previous comment. The webmaster is supposed to be from IL. But I still wonder if English is his primary language. The English he uses in his reply is OK, but would not pass in an English class in high school. But that's common in today's internet usage.
He states there is no leased content. But if you downloaded many of these videos from another site, and some PU members mention some of these videos are at other sites, I would assume those videos were legally at the other sites. So the content at this site is definitely not entirely exclusive.
|
09-17-11 09:08pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #2 - lk2fireone :
Thanks for all the time you put into the response, lk2fireone!
Your last paragraph really sums up why I wrote the comment. I could not reconcile the webmasters emphatic insistence that the content was exclusive with what I had sitting on my external already from a different site.
Strangely enough that site was Porn.com which was removed from our listings because it was a hybrid of free tube porn and paysite. This one appears to be the same.
The webmaster himself brags about all the free content that is available to anyone who registers. If you are a picture lover that free content is quite limited (three small updates since May) but all the videos I've come across can be streamed in their entirety, albeit in terrible quality, but not downloaded without an upgrade for a very steep $30.00 a month.
In my eyes the "free" site presently listed is nothing but a poor commercial for the real, expensive one behind it and I wouldn't take a chance on an upgrade, not after the deception by the webmaster.
|
09-18-11 09:58am
Reply To Message
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
