Secondly… how do you KNOW that the “overwhelming majority” of content placed on Usenet is placed there by content owners? How do you know it hasn’t just been ripped out of a member’s area and posted there?

While I know of some paysite owners who see doing so as a legitmate marketing exercise, I also know of plenty of others who do not distribute their copyrighted content via usenet and who object strongly to others doing so.

A lot of people put watermarks on their content to try and counter content theft. That way, if the content is stolen, it is at least acting as a pseudo advertisement tool.

Thirdly… it is acknowledged by a lot of porn industry veterans that trying to advertise a paysite to people who are accessing a shitload of free (possibly stolen) porn is hard work. So again, I question the idea that the majority of stuff on usenet is legitimately placed there.

This is why I made my original comment post.

One more thing… is there a problem with my adding my URL to my name? Every other commenter got to do so… I feel so rejected. Yes, I’m a pornographer, but I’m not a spammer…

I continue to believe that GUBA does not sell usenet access, that usenet access is not generally free in any case, and that GUBA makes money by offering a better interface. Since we’ve both stated our position twice now, I’d like to suggest it’s a dead horse in this forum.

I’ll concede that your first two sentences were not literally lies, since you apparently believe them to be true and they are debatable propositions. However, as your most recent comment reveals, you know your arguments are hotly debated, yet you presented them as fact. That was, at best, rhetorically disingenuous, especially when followed up with the insincere “I thought you should know.”

And finally, I don’t understand why you feel like a “lowlife” because I won’t give your commercial operation free advertising. With rare exceptions, I *charge* commercial operations for their advertising on my blog. No insult in that. I didn’t call you a spammer, I just removed your unwelcome link.

Which is not to say that there isn’t a lot of unapproved content on Usenet also. Even if I’m right about my huge majority, that still leaves a very large minority. One nice thing about GUBA, at least, is that they make it fairly easy for aggrieved content owners to have content removed from the GUBA search results — something that’s virtually impossible with respect to the underlying Usenet groups.

Now, about your link. I treat that “homepage” linkbox as a narrowly-granted privilege, not a right. Non-commerical bloggers are welcome to post their URLs, but any URL I see that’s commercial in nature (porn or not) is highly suspect and most likely will be deleted. Since your page popped two banners above the fold, it wasn’t a tough call.

Of course there is a bit more too it than that. Commercial links from operations I know and respect are sometimes allowed, especially if they accompany a comment that’s on-target and helpful. See, e.g., Tony Comstock’s comment and link in this thread. On the other hand, commercial links that accompany comments that are short, off-topic, rude, hostile, or unhelpful are *much* less likely to survive.

In your case, you posted a three-sentence off-topic comment that, read in the most uncharitable light, contains two lies and an implied insult, while defaming one of the solid sponsors who helps pay the ErosBlog bandwidth bill and keep me in whiskey and bacon. And for this you expect in return a slug of commercially valuable traffic? I don’t think so.

I also shouldn’t be making another post. But I can’t let that last sentence go. My comment was not off topic. It was about GUBA. I have to take exception that you’ve said I posted “lies” or “defamation”. GUBA charges people money to look at content for which they don’t own a licence. It’s not like Google images. There’s money changing hands. And why is it the responsibility of the copyright owners to contact GUBA and demand their stuff be taken down? That’s a case of “Anything’s OK until you get caught.”

I originally posted because I found it a little disappointing that you were promoting a service which I (and many other adult webmasters - read Netpond) believe is unethical. Especially since I’ve always thought ErosBlog was about discussing and encouraging good quality adult material, and I wholeheartedly supported it because of that.

Why should I care? Because I’m a copyright owner and copyright theft is an issue I deal with.

I advertise on my blog (above the fold… I didn’t realise this made me some kind of lowlife). I make a living from advertising porn. So do you. We make choices about what we advertise. You are obviously happy to promote GUBA, so it was a mistake for me to try and change your opinion.

As I said, I did not intend to piss you off, but I suspect that its too late. A shame. Enjoy your bacon.

I noticed they have implemented the ipod feature and am hoping that Santa brings me one!

They don’t need to own licenses any more than Google does, because they don’t claim to own the stuff; all they do is offer an easier way to get at the usenet groups.

And for what it’s worth, the overwhelming majority of the porn on usenet is placed there by the content owners to attract attention. See all those little url watermarks on the videos? The content owners put clips out there for free, hoping you’ll like what you see and surf to their websites for more.

Besides, I could be wrong, but those look like instructions for Mac users, and most of my readers here are in the PC world.

I do appreciate the helpful spirit of your linkdrop, though. Thanks, Viviane.

http://diveintomark.org/howto/ipod-porn-conversion-guide/

-TC

Just thought you should know.