-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]


[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 6467)
Message
File
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 2000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 614 unique user posts. View catalog
  • Post screening is enabled. All posts and replies must be approved by staff before appearing on this board.


File 150238629954.jpg - (792.10KB , 1152x1728 , abby-156-001.jpg )
6467 No. 6467 ID: 19cbb8
Is it just me or is this Douche Bag from NewStar a royal prick , Threatening to shut this site and that site down for posting sets of his models causing him to not get rich off the exploiting of his models, are you kidding me ? He sounds like a little hall monitor gonna tell on everyone if we dont do what he wants . Since when did we need his approval to post anything ? Ill post what ever I want it costs him a lot of money to go through the process of shutting chans down and on top of that he has to put himself out as a common pimp wanting the govt to protect his right to exploit little girls online !?! F him in his A ! I'm going to start dropping sets of Abby and Gabrielle around so be looking for em . I got vids too .
Expand all images
>> No. 6468 ID: 81bbc7
>>6467
F*** Yeah!
>> No. 6475 ID: a09b6d
de girls gots small pay one time for per set. he get all da profit mon
>> No. 6480 ID: 2d17b3
File 15024512338.jpg - (845.80KB , 2000x1045 , fashionlandlies.jpg )
6480
>>6475

its even simpler than that: he buys the sets from some photographer in eastern europe, same as that fashion [email protected] dude.

its very simple, go on vk.com find a photographer, buy sets, put your own stupid watermark on it and sperge out like fashion [email protected] does with stories of mountains of gold for these little girls and fake "sponsoring" of the girls you can do and "have your own studio".

and make lots of $$$ shekellllllsssss $$$
>> No. 6481 ID: a2e79e
File 15024545657.jpg - (445.74KB , 1824x1216 , abby-152-041.jpg )
6481
I agree with OP I never gave a shit about the Company I was stealing and sharing sets because of the dicks that exploit these girls in the first place They always have this holier then thou attitude like they are doing us a favor when They are truly in every since the worst kinda parasite their is, a common pimp he's just doing it from the safety of his mothers basement/NewStarWorld Headquarters The Corporate office where with the pathetic whine and a whimper he can shut down chans like his hero KIM JUNG Ill thats who I picture when he goes on his rants about how he supported some model thru the years of maximum mind fukk and manipulation until she figured out what a pimp is and that there were never any quarters in his front pocket for her no matter how hard she looked that's the lunacy in all this how he's the hero and were at his behest for over the years of over charging his ppl for the bare minimum in creativity effort and bizness skills practices and ethics in theory of course but please can I get a video of a confused little kid nervously dancing with an air of confusion that you cant script even if you wanted to and the person who chooses those musicl numbers should be taken out back and systematically be shot in the head (in the ears anyway) and set on fire in the street .Now I dont want to seem to critical But at no point in time will i ever feel sorry for him or even consider that dude a hero or even a human he' has no power over what I post who I post or where I post Im gonna start dropping abby sets in various threads that have nothing to do with Ns models in places like SW or Spam or anywhere I want I have up to 277 of Abby and up to 289 for gabby and videos of both .so be lookin in the last places you would expect Ill do it at weird times its a lot of work to do when itll be taken down by all the mods he has on his dick ! Shame on all of you for fearing his empty threats it cost between 5 and 8 grand for an attorney to do anything and how many attorneys are gonna go along with a nazi douche bag crying that ppl are exploiting his exploitation of sweet little girls who actually believe there careers might make it out of this douche bags basement but alas they still have yet not one has been able to breach the world of fashion modeling through all of his hard tireless work on their behalf It's almost comical and disturbing at the same time I think thats why I cant help but to fuck with this heavyweight in the fashion industry the level of self righteous douche bag this guy maintains is almost impressive and he needs to fade back under what ass hole he crawls out of to tell me what I can do with the sets I stolen from him because he makes it easy. I dont need a little bitch motherfucker to tell me what to do ... .
>> No. 6483 ID: f3b30c
>>6481
>wall of text
wew lad
>> No. 6486 ID: 486268
>>6480
Looks to me FL posted the photo 2 days before the guy on vk. So he probably stole their photo not vice versa.
>> No. 6487 ID: 86fc47
>>6481
We don't "fear his empty threats". We know both Newstar and WALS are full of hot air but we remove their DMCA's because it truly is their hard work. If they took the time and effort to monitor the board and reported a post then it's only fair for us to remove it. We're trying to make an honest buck by running a fun board without hurting anyone financially or psychologically.
>> No. 6490 ID: 4e317f
fucking freeloaders trying to get shit for free smh get a job
>> No. 6492 ID: 14e7e9
File 150247230527.jpg - (597.12KB , 1216x1824 , abby-169-001.jpg )
6492
do you have this set?
>> No. 6508 ID: 105d3e
>>6481
I have never visited those boards. Are you gonna do it on all three sites? I have A up to 157 and G up to 259. Try to drop some hints, okay? Thanks!
>> No. 6513 ID: 105d3e
>>6487
'without hurting anyone financially or psychologically' Personally he's hurting HIMSELF financially because he's not letting those who have posted the models in the past join any sites, hence, psychologically, he's already a broken man.
>> No. 6532 ID: c9773e
What a stupid thread. :o
>> No. 6533 ID: cb8606
This seems to be the thread to "air out" about NS.

It's funny how re-posting sets wasn't such a big deal prior to 2014, I mean he didn't lurk and threaten the boards, or pull down posts, or whine like a little school girl about loss of income.

NS insists his revenue loss is due to re-posters, when it's actually the loss of the old photographer's eye for pretty girls and those types of models. He had a good relationship with the girls, but the new one doesn't have any of that. You can see it in the lack of the models willingness to perform for the camera.

The new models, appear as though most are from the same extended family and most are Not Hot.

NewStar is a Douchnozzle. He needs to get his shit together and find a new photog if he wants to continue to expliot the girls. IMHO
>> No. 6534 ID: 15e191
NS used to be good, but they haven't adapted to modern day. All girls wear the same cloths, all the videos are them doing the same dancing, mostly. NS is boring now. And the cloths are tame, no risky cloths are worn any more.

NS should take notes from Star Sessions, those girls are cute, cloths are risky, videos are combination of posing and moving around and are very long.
>> No. 6536 ID: e50b1c
File 150269515261.jpg - (35.80KB , 270x360 , conservative_dress.jpg )
6536
The decay of NS and TM (and other agencies as well) regarding to the "tame" posing and clothing has a possible explanation: the child protection laws around the globe. In the USA, for instance, having children's photos in one's private collection is deemed a sign of being a pedophile, and the owner of that collection may be sent to jail under "allegedly child molester" charges. And I'm referring to "tame" images, such as the ones in department store catalogs. Imagine what the case would be if the images were of children in underwear, bathing suits or, worse, no clothes at all!
But, at he same time, we have Toddlers and Tiaras, and similar shows. So contradictory!
Yes, before 2014 models like B4MB1 did "risky" posing, and daring videos too. But in order to comply with the (hypocritical) new laws about children, perhaps NS decided not to do risqué photos/videos, and that may be the reason why the dances New B4MB1 does only consists of stale movements of her body (Same goes to N1KK1 and CUT1E, 4BBY and KR1SSY dances are a little more daring, I guess). I remember 3RIN and 2nd CUT1E photos, and I keep living in the past.
Damn "children protection" laws, made up by the UN and the powers that be...they monitor the clothes of children, instead of keep them from diseases, famine and wars!
>> No. 6537 ID: b2d2f2
>>6486
Nobody did steal anything ... and >>6480 does know that very well. If he saw that girls VK he knows that she is very close to the FL photographer and from time to time models herself. That pic does proof that they told the truth - not the other way round.
>> No. 6539 ID: 3b3b29
I'm looking for starsessions..... would you mind sharing some?
>> No. 6543 ID: b2d2f2
File 150272528823.jpg - (781.62KB , 2920x1947 , xmasparty1516.jpg )
6543
>>6541
You seriously should seek some medical help.

Explain the picture ...
>> No. 6544 ID: 3b3b29
File 150272996911.jpg - (109.18KB , 380x795 , 150272528823.jpg )
6544
who is this model?
Anyone can share????
>> No. 6545 ID: 26fd93
>>6543

ik kom je van het weekend even op zoeken, kan je het persoonlijk uit leggen.

ik weet waar je woont.
>> No. 6556 ID: 15e191
>>6541

some one needs some anger management
>> No. 6576 ID: ff5693
No. 6487

The thing about the DMCA request is most board owners dont know the law on it. There has been several lawyers over the years post the law and the case rulings on it all the way to the US supreme court.

The biggest confusion comes from the confusing the DMCA, with a site owners terms of service. If you agree not to post share or store off site when you sign up to buy, then you violate the TOS not the DMCA, Big difference, and you cannot be sued over a TOS violation under the law.

It basically comes down to is the difference in... not the depriving of the copy owner sales or income,,, but if the posting/sharing makes income for the one doing it.

The DMCA does not cover lost sales, but illegal profit from use of others copyrighted material.

All US courts have adopted the standard and rule that as long as the copyright item is being used as intended it is not a violation, and that images are meant to be viewed so the viewing by others is not a violation. That includes a case involving uploading images to snap fish, and that by doing so and allowing others to see the images was not a violation of the DMCA, an images purpose is to be viewed.

All the boards are covered under that, if the websites primary function is images; than the viewing of images is a necessary part of the site. So if a person buys the images and uploads them for storage, or post them on FB, or VK, Insta, etc., or any internet based site as a form of storage it is not a violation. They are not required to hold them for their eyes only viewing, nor restricted to a storage site that only allows one viewer.

A prime example the court used was if I buy a set, and print them off with my photo printer, and show them as i walk around town, i have not violated the DMCA.

A lot of issues and banning , and or deleting of post, could be avoided of more owners understood the law, and not the HYPE spewed by site owners, Rebel shooter was the one that started most of it.
And the funny thing is he was called out numerous times to produce case numbers on all the wins he claimed, and could produce only one, and he had lost that one and in the end and was forced to pay the others atty fees.

forgive the length.
>> No. 6582 ID: 2d17b3
tl;dr avery is a sellout
>> No. 6874 ID: 5fa93b
FYI I have seen similar post and explanations of that but didn't believe it, so I ask a lawyer friend of mine to check it out. To my surprise the post is correct, I never knew photos were almost an exception to that law.
>> No. 7475 ID: be4f0c
The only thing allowed are samples from sets that are on an income generating site..If post 5-6 pictures from a set. Even then DMCA is violated if the source (an url) to the original source is not quoted. Here is a DMCA notice so you can see how they are.....



Dear BLANK DMCA abuse team,

Please find below a DMCA complaint for the following URL(s):
Password to .rar files is:

https://userscloud.com/bla..bla


This is a repeat offender and there are many more reports to send on him. You should
just deactivate his whole
account.

Evidentiary Information:


Infringing Domain(s):
http://lovenimphets.com
http://lovenimphets.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6359

Infringed Work(s): Many of the newest sets of our 11 year old model RAVEN:
http://tinymodel-raven.info


Explanation:

Please remove the image(s) above hosted on your services in violation of our
copyrights.

Please disable any account or person connected with the above criminal infringement
due to violation of your Terms of
Use.

Moreover the domain lovenimphets.com is solely used to provide links to copyrighted
material.

We kindly ask you to block any incoming visitors from the above domain(s) and remove
any file(s) that is(are)
associated with it(them).

Also, please disable permanently hotlinking from lovenimphets.com


Thank you for your cooperation!


DMCA Notice of unauthorized use of BLanks material.


Dear Sir or Madam:
I, Blank, of the physical address below, swear under penalty
of perjury that I have detected
infringements of my copyright interests as detailed in the report below.

I have reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the manner
complained of in the report below is not
authorized by myself, my agents, or the law. The information provided herein is
accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Therefore, this letter is an official notification to effect removal of the detected
infringement listed in the report
below. The report below specifies the exact location of the infringement.

I hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing
material, as specified in the copyright
laws, and insure the user refrains from using or sharing with others the
unauthorized materials in the future (see, 17
U.S.C. 512).

Please send a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this
matter.

Nothing in this letter shall serve as a waiver of any rights or remedies of BLANK with respect
to the alleged infringement, all of which are expressly reserved. If you need to
contact me, my contact information is
located at the bottom of this letter.



Blank Owner
Email: [email protected]
Phone:
Adress:
Country and zip/


READ the truth. Not some angry person whose posts my client probably had removed or hosting account killed somewhere.


http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
>> No. 7476 ID: be4f0c
This gives a photographer DMCA rights over the photos they make:
Intellectual Property
First published Tue Mar 8, 2011; substantive revision Mon Sep 22, 2014
Intellectual property is generally characterized as non-physical property that is the product of original thought. Typically, rights do not surround the abstract non-physical entity; rather, intellectual property rights surround the control of physical manifestations or expressions of ideas. Intellectual property law protects a content-creator's interest in her ideas by assigning and enforcing legal rights to produce and control physical instantiations of those ideas.

Legal protections for intellectual property have a rich history that stretches back to ancient Greece and before. As different legal systems matured in protecting intellectual works, there was a refinement of what was being protected within different areas. Over the same period several strands of moral justification for intellectual property were offered: namely, personality-based, utilitarian, and Lockean. Finally, there have been numerous critics of intellectual property and systems of intellectual property protection. This essay will discuss all of these topics, focusing on Anglo-American and European legal and moral conceptions of intellectual property.
>> No. 7480 ID: f3b30c
(((Cohen)))
Every. Single. Time.
>> No. 7482 ID: 7f2c74
File 150373953826.jpg - (3.89KB , 200x186 , myhat.jpg )
7482
That crazy sonofabitch sergei flooded our report system with 500+ copyright reports which included linkless and imageless posts criticizing him. Now I can't even find genuine cp reports. It's sad to imagine how a filthy rich idiot such as himself can't do anything better with his time.
>> No. 7483 ID: 9d0ec5
tl;dr avery is a sellout
>> No. 7507 ID: a15244
Intellectual Property Morris Cohen

Idiot using the same old tired scare tactics.Fair use of an image or images is viewing them, and the viewing is not limitied too the buyer only.

Fair Use Must Be Considered Before DMCA Notices
REQUEST A TRIAL

By Blake Brittain

Sept. 14 — A copyright holder must consider whether an unapproved use of its work is a fair use before issuing a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Sept. 14.

The court said that a rights holder must have a good faith belief that an allegedly infringing use of its work is not otherwise allowed under the doctrine of fair use before requesting that an Internet hosting service take it down, affirming a ruling by a federal district court.

This was the first time the Ninth Circuit has heard such a case. Under the ruling, copyright holders, including film studios and record labels, will have to be more cautious in filing notice and takedown requests.

“The Lenz decision is a path-marking case in the world of copyright law,” J. Michael Keyes of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Seattle, said in an e-mail message to Bloomberg BNA.

Keyes said that rights holders have to be careful, in part to avoid potential damages claims.

“What this decision means from a practical point of view is that any time content owners see the unauthorized use of their content online, they will want to carefully consider their options before demanding that the content be removed,” Keyes said. “If the party that posted the content has a reasonable argument that its use of the content was ‘fair,' the copyright holder faces the specter of a claim for damages if a takedown notice is sent.”

Stephanie Lenz posted a 29-second home video to YouTube of her two young children dancing to Prince's “Let's Go Crazy.”


Prince's label, Universal Music Corp., sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, alleging that the video infringed its copyright. Lenz sent a counter-notice to YouTube, and the platform reinstated the video.
Lenz then sued Universal for injunctive relief and damages under the DMCA, arguing that it had “knowingly materially misrepresent[ed]” that her video was infringing by failing to consider in good faith whether the video was a fair use of the song.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California agreed.

Denying summary judgment to Universal, the district court ruled that the “good faith belief” standard for a takedown notice requires a rights holder to first consider whether the allegedly infringing work falls into a fair use exception.


The appeals court held that the DMCA request that “copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.”

“It is not clear what level of analysis is now required, but it is likely something more than a blanket statement and something less than an opinion letter from outside counsel. Some consideration of the matter by counsel (and a recitation of that in the takedown notice) should probably suffice,” Jason P. Bloom of Haynes & Boone LLP, Dallas, said in an e-mail message to Bloomberg BNA.

The judges ruled today that copyright holders "must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification." Universal's view that fair use is essentially an excuse to be brought up after the fact is wrong, they held. UMG's view of fair use solely as an "affirmative defense" is a misnomer.

"Fair use is uniquely situated in copyright law so as to be treated differently than traditional affirmative defenses," wrote US Circuit Judge Richard Tallman for the majority.

The long-running copyright case began when Lenz uploaded a video of her son Holden dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." At that time, Universal had an employee scouring YouTube each day in order to issue takedowns on videos that used Prince music. EFF, looking for a test case over bad DMCA takedowns, found a sympathetic client in Lenz, a mom seeking to simply share a video of her son with his grandmother.

Today's ruling isn't an all-out win for EFF, which wanted Universal to be held liable immediately under 512(f). That section of the DMCA allows for damages over bad-faith takedown notices. But Universal will now have to face a trial over whether it "knowingly misrepresented" its "good faith belief the video was not authorized by law." The judges have made clear that copyright owners "must consider fair use before sending a takedown notification" before forming that "good faith belief."

The fair use consideration doesn't have to be "searching or intensive," Tallman clarified. But it can't be trivial, either. "A copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to 512(f) liability," the opinion states.

In a partial dissent, Circuit Judge Milan Smith agreed with most of the majority's findings but would have found Universal liable for the bad takedown without a jury trial. "I disagree that there is any material dispute about whether Universal considered fair use," Smith wrote. "Universal knew it had not considered fair use, and therefore knew it lacked a basis to conclude that the video was infringing."


At the end of the day, the Lenz case is a clear demonstration that Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which allows for lawsuits and damages against copyright owners, is unlikely to ever be a powerful tool. From a user's perspective, it's hard to imagine what could be a more clear case of fair use than the Lenz video, which features less than 40 seconds of staticky-sounding background music. If copyright owners can say they satisfied the legal requirement by saying, "We considered fair use, but didn't see it," then not much can stop them from basically blowing off 512(f). Few future plaintiffs will be able to summon the legal resources that Lenz did.
>> No. 7508 ID: a15244
>>7476
you morons have to quit listening to the lunacy from dmca(dot)com.

thats a money making place telling site owners they can do miracles and conning them out of money. most of what they say is pure crap
>> No. 7509 ID: a15244
Fair use doctrine of the DMCA will assure that consumers who purchase digital media can enjoy a broad range of uses of the media for their own convenience in a way which does not infringe the copyright of the work.”[2]

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 Copyright Office Summary
December 1998
Page 5
Savings clauses Section 1201 contains two general savings clauses. First, section 1201(c)(1
)
States that nothing in section 1201 affects rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to
Copyright infringement, including fair use. Second, section 1201(c)(2) states that
Nothing in section 1201 enlarges or diminishes vicarious or contributory copyright
infringement.

LIABILITY LIMITATION
Title II of the DMCA adds a new section 512 to the Copyright Act to create
four new limitations on liability for copyright infringement by online service providers.
The limitations are based on the following four categories of conduct by a service
provider:
1.
Transitory communications;
2.
System caching;
3.
Storage of information on systems or networks at direction of users;
and
4.
Information location tools.


The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
Copyright Office Summary
December 1998
Page 9
Each limitation entails a complete bar on monetary damages, and restricts the availbility
of injunctive relief in various respects. (Section 512(j)). Each limitation relates
to a separate and distinct function, and a determination of whether a service provider
qualifies for one of the limitations does not bear upon a determination of
whether the provider qualifies for any of the other three. (Section 512(n)).

The failure of a service provider to qualify for any of the limitations in section512 does not necessarily make it liable for copyright infringement. The copyright
owner must still demonstrate that the provider has infringed, and the provider may still
avail itself of any of the defenses, such as fair use, that are available to copyright
defendants generally. (Section 512(l)).



Section 512 also contains a provision to ensure that service providers are not
placed in the position of choosing between limitations on liability on the one hand and
preserving the privacy of their subscribers, on the other. Subsection (m) explicitly
states that nothing in section 512 requires a service provider to monitor its service or
access material in violation of law (such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act)
in order to be eligible for any of the liability limitations.


Limitation for System Caching
Section 512(b) limits the liability of service providers for the practice of
retaining copies, for a limited time, of material that has been made available online by
a person other than the provider, and then transmitted to a subscriber at his or her
direction. The service provider retains the material so that subsequent requests for the
same material can be fulfilled by transmitting the retained copy, rather than retrieving
the material from the original source on the network.

The benefit of this practice is that it reduces the service provider’s bandwidth
requirements and reduces the waiting time on subsequent requests for the same
information. On the other hand, it can result in the delivery of outdated information
to subscribers and can deprive website operators of accurate “hit” information —
information about the number of requests for particular material on a website — from
which advertising revenue is frequently calculated. For this reason, the person making
the material available online may establish rules about updating it, and may utilize
technological means to track the number of “hits.”

The limitation applies to acts of intermediate and temporary storage, when
carried out through an automatic technical process for the purpose of making the
material available to subscribers who subsequently request it. It is subject to the
following conditions:
! The content of the retained material must not be modified.
! The provider must comply with rules about “refreshing” mate-
rial—replacing retained copies of material with material from the
original location— when specified in accordance with a generally
accepted industry standard data communication protocol.
! The provider must not interfere with technology that returns “hit”
information to the person who posted the material, where such
technology meets certain requirements.
! The provider must limit users’ access to the material in accordance with
conditions on access (e.g., password protection) imposed by the person
who posted the material.

Limitation for Information Location Tools
Section 512(d) relates to hyperlinks, online directories, search engines and the
like. It limits liability for the acts of referring or linking users to a site that contains
infringing material by using such information location tools, if the following conditions
are met:

! If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity,
the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to
the activity.
>> No. 7510 ID: a15244
>>7476
and FYI learn the difference between copyright and intellectual property,
photos are not considered intellectual property
>> No. 7518 ID: 7f2c74
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me this is all irrelevant unless the Triforce is hosted in the USSA which it probably isn't
>> No. 7524 ID: 64de69
>>7518
with respect bro it's relevant to site users in the USA & the many other free world dominions of the USA (e.g. GB, Australia etc) to help em understand this crap, please just be quiet.
>> No. 7525 ID: a15244
the DMCA is multi national under agreement

""In 1998, Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to implement the terms of two international treaties: the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.Every three years the Librarian of Congress engages in a rulemaking process to carve out exemptions to this general prohibition.""

The DMCA is tweeked every 3 years by a committee, so those strict copyright claims made in 98 have been removed either by exception or court rulings. Those rants and raves by site owners this day and age are worthless. it is just a mass of internet trolling of facts that dont exist, most site owners dont have the copyright registered anyway. those take-down sites that poped up, perpetuated and exaggerated the myth of everything is a violation.
>> No. 7526 ID: 2249fd
All you complaining does nothing and a properly worded DMCA will always get it down. Fair use is a short sample or a video or a few photos from a set. It does not cover sharing it in full with others especially on pay per click hosts redirects to virus pages and other tricks used here..
I think anyone that has paid out the cash to make and or buy the material is the owner.intellectual property laws apply if the photographer or his agent makes the request which is how im sure they report it.

All this hate. I see newstar gets along OK at sharechan. He used to post his stuff here but all the trolls chased him away. Now you cry because he shares elsewhere and takes yours down simply because you wont try to work with him. The board owner is doing a great jon removing things i see. But he should control his lying trolls. Ive never seen such a collection of pompous asses in one place in my life. Plain and simple you steal his traffic, SALES , model sets and complain when he goes to have it taken down. Grow up you bunch of whiney loosers. I have reported all triforce chans as you dont even deserve to be on the internet.
>> No. 7528 ID: 9834ef
https://orbitingweb.com/blog/reporting-copyrights-infringement/
>> No. 7529 ID: 1b13fb
This also gives a guide to what actually happens in 'free' countries courts.
You are basically fucked as soon as you are arraigned in one, you cannot outspend the prosecutor who has to win to keep their dominance in job. It's the first world's version of bribery. You don't pay, you just acquiese to let the system pay for your acceptance of guilt by default.
I would like to hear a criticism of this.
Law is just the premise to make you accept a guilty plea because the consequences of pleading innocence are often way beyond your ability to pay for anything but a guilty plea. REMEMBER THIS, encrypt.
>> No. 7530 ID: 1b13fb
I well remember (learning as a kid) the great British 'Magna Carta'.
Emancipation of the serfs, like fuck.
Turns out it was a way for the Barons not to be subjugated by the king, until their next bullshit when the commoners had to fight & die.
Just another load of bullshit fed for gullible kids to learn.
British Law, American Law is for the power elite. That's the way of it. You are shit under their anuses. But of course Trump will set it all right, if your in his economic zone.
>> No. 7642 ID: 35bd95
so...we're not getting any sets posted here are we?
>> No. 7644 ID: 026afa
>>7526

>All this hate. I see newstar gets along OK at sharechan

Not anymore. It is now a banned agency at Sharechan, along with TPI, and the notorious Polar Lights, etc.. Every single Newstar thread has been deleted, even those in the requests section.
>> No. 7649 ID: a15244
>>7526
>>7528
As someone stated earlier, I think the confusion is the difference between a sites TOS and a DMCA violation. I have researched this for months prior to this post every coming up. Most of what the legal scholar posted is correct.
Both the U.S. courts and Australia have court precedents that images being 'posted' or stored do not violate the DMCA and is fair use of images/photos, the courts consider boards and blogs also a form of cloud storage.The courts even stated their own system use cloud storage.

Once a person owns the images he does not have to keep them stored only on the original device, nor does he have a duty to avoid others from seeing them were he chooses to keep them. The courts refer to it now as the james bond scenario,(for your eyes only) and every opinion states that is not and never was the intention of the DMCA act. As someone used the example of printing them off and hanging them on your wall, it is not a violation.

Reselling them or posting them to make a profit is a clear violation, and there is no DMCA exception to that yet.

Now that does not in anyway stop a website owner from banning you for 'sharing' the images, but he cannot file a legal DMCA takedown request, nor sue for damages. The 'storage' host sites, boards, etc, do not have to honor such take-downs if they are using their board, or site for the convenience of storing images legally possessed by the users. As another example posted earlier snap-fish and other storage sites can be private or public at your discretion, that decision does not cause a DMCA violation.

The Australia courts have ruled that the TOS of a site owner cant place a TOS restriction on a person to forbid them from doing so, but still if they ban you, what can you do in reality, but the ruling does show they cannot sue you or the host site under the DMCA, and they have no grounds against a host site for a TOS violation.

The DMCA was as stated stricter in the beginning, but not so now. The rulings and legal exceptions have been adjusting the DMCA for years now. Look at the sheer volume of I phone pics, shared or tweeted,or ins-ta-gramed, you think the DMCA covers everyone of them and the person whom took it. Imagine if you tweeted 100 pics and as they are re-tweeted you and your shyster lawyer sue every person on the internet for damages. Same as the newstars of the world, you cannot expect every buyer to hide under the cover with a flashlight to view the pics they posted. The 7th circuit appeals court even ruled that a site owner has no expectation of not sharing pics today, with the explosion of insta, tweeter, etc, that sharing images is now the norm.

All a board owner has to do:: is state the board is for storing of images and discussion of it users, and that all stored images or links to images allow others to see the images they posses. This is not a DMCA violation but that each user is/and can face TOS violations from wherever the stored images were purchased. But the board has no legal requirement to honor TOS takedown request., and the storage is not a DMCA violation.
>> No. 7652 ID: a15244
>>7528
that is just some random guys blog, thats stuff is why people run around scared, nothing in that is legal, a cease and desist has to be serve on someone, you cant email that, and none of his steps abide by the dmca rules anyway, just more troll crap for people that dont know, alot like ole shooters internet hype he use to spew, pure nonsense
>> No. 7691 ID: b7161a
The Sharechan admin posted in /r/ that he removed all the Newstar threads when the Newstar guy refused to buy advertising on Sharechan. The admin felt he was being used for free advertising, as stupid as that sounds. Now Sharechan is nothing but old sets from the early 2000s. No reason to go there anymore.

http://www.sharechan.org/requests/res/21345.html
>> No. 7697 ID: 983f54
>>7691

Usually I don't agree with the sharechan admin, but in this case I can understand and sympathize with him. Newstar WAS using his board for free advertising, and then had the nerve to dictate to him how his sets could be shared. he forced people to add links back to the models sites. How is that not free advertising?
>> No. 7931 ID: cd8e64
Speaking of NS. The newer stuff sucks anyway. Especially the videos.
As for the NS guy trying to force sharechan to give him free advertising? Why the hell not? It is his work to do with as he sees fit. He is trying to make a living. Nothing wrong with that.
Now if his web site wasn't such a fucking mess he might start making a little money. What a joke that site is. One click and you are running down a rabbit hole and have no idea how to get back where you came from. Plus a different site for each model and you only get sets? What's up with that shit? You have to go to another NS site to get the video and then another to get older videos. Not to mention the confusing bullshit just to get the money to this asshole.
Why can't he just make one site with all the content on that one site for one monthly price? Sure we would still put his stuff up on boards like this but that's gonna happen anyway.
Are you listening NS guy? You need to be making it easier to access your stuff not harder.
End rant.
>> No. 7992 ID: ffc3db
>>7931
The problem with this whole business is that it is not possible to pay annonymously. That's how the authorities like it. We are too scared to pay sites like Newstar which means they hike their prices for the people who do pay.
Remember, no matter how absurd, this material is illegal in the West.
Bit Coins aren't annonymous and are far too complicated anyway. So the bottom line is that the whole business is kept going by those in countries where the images are legal and those niave clients in the West.

Newstar videos always have been very poor compared to (say) the bast Candydoll and Jap Idols.
>> No. 7998 ID: 192576
>>7992

The videos of the previous group of NS models (Pavel's girls), were okay. Still not up to Candydoll standards, but much better than what Sir Gay sells now. Nowadays, not only do the girls look bored, but pissed, or terrified as well. The cameraman forces them to dance to dated techno music. Sadly, not many of them have any rhythm (talent) so they come across looking autistic. And face facts, they aren't the prettiest or sexiest models out there. I recommend Star Session studio.

As bad as the quality of TPI videos were, at least it was interesting to see the models playing on swings or walking on the beach, not standing in front of a boring solid coloured backdrop dancing off beat.

Sir Gay supposedly hikes the prices because of pirating, not the ability to pay. There are still an abundances of saps out there willing to give this con artist their personal data.

Bitcoins are 1000 times more anonymous than a credit card. Still a better alternative.
>> No. 7999 ID: 89a94d
>>7992
of course it is "quantity, not quality". to survive in this business, you have to create hundreds of new sets because you cannot stop casual sharing among users. they should just accept it and live with it.
>> No. 8000 ID: 3e98cb
>>7931

"As for the NS guy trying to force sharechan to give him free advertising? Why the hell not? It is his work to do with as he sees fit. He is trying to make a living. Nothing wrong with that."

These types of boards aren't free to run. They sell banner space to make money to keep the servers up. This board does it, as does Sharechan. Ned from Tennmodels club used to advertise that way.

Why the hell should Sergei be allowed to dictate to up-loaders that they must post a link back to his sites? No other agency forces people to do that. And it mattered not because the scam artists forced Sharechan to delete all of his agencies links anyway.

Are you Sergei or his fake lawyer? They're the only people who would defend that prat.
>> No. 8001 ID: f970b7
>>7999

No you don't need to create hundreds of new sets. Fashion Land doesn't deluge the market with their material, yet that have a large dedicated fan base.

And Newstar releases sets of the same model wearing the same damn outfit 4-5 times a year. That's a rip off to customers.
>> No. 8004 ID: 669134
>>7999

lol sergei over saturates the market with repetitive crap. he charges by a single model website. he charges more to buy archived sets. he charges even more for the same models posing in the same outfits under the party model label, he charges for poor quality "Unpublished" sets that were previously sold on his scammy clipmonster site, and has a separate set where he charges even more for videos. he will attempt to take down a board for haring 14 year old sets!

he doesn't understand the term "quality", but he will definitely toot his own horn if you give him the forum to do so.
>> No. 8010 ID: 665a37
>>8004

and he forces you to pay a high monthly fee to download only 1 model, even if half of her sets are boring pictures of her in jean shorts and a t-shirt.
>> No. 8011 ID: bf4b86
>>8010
Well if you don't like the monthly system feel free to buy individual $20 sets at clipmonster smh.
>> No. 8033 ID: 3b3b29
You guys spread lies and crap just because you cannot get in the sites. Well if you didn't repost them to death they would not have made all this trouble. Sergei was such an ass to ask for a link back to his sites after all the money you make reposting him for years.
If you look at fair use laws a link to the materials original URL is required.
I think the mod needs to get help for his schizoid personality ad stop being his own enemy some days. Your lies are ridiculous and no one believes them. Newstar has had the same billing for many years. You try to say he collects IP addresses for the Government..
You would think he would take all joins if this is so but they turn many away. YOu just want to spread lies. OH and by the way i reported you again to anon and interpol with screen shoysts of your CP posts.
Expect another attack for your lies.

Newstar has beautiful models you describe as hags. Anyone can see your just a bunch of retarded arse holes.

your comment:
he's not letting those who have posted the models in the past join any sites.

What the fuck would he... Such retards.

I could have all you in Great Britain and Canada in jail if i wanted., We know who you are...
>> No. 8040 ID: 983383
>>8033
>I could have all you in Great Britain and Canada in jail if i wanted., We know who you are...

Ah, so Newstar/Tinymodel IS a honeypot operation after all, thanks for confirming...
>> No. 8061 ID: 7cfdea
>>8033
That's Sir Gay himself, I recognize the rant mode!
>> No. 8105 ID: fe5ebf
>>8033

So Gaylord the Jester, you having trouble trying to shut the Triforce down again so you decided to join in on the fun? I wager that tomorrow you'll bash Newstar. You heard it here first...

>>8011

Screw that. If I'm going to spend $20 per set, I'll just go to Starsessions where you can by a photoset AND video for $20, with Bitcoin. Not only are the models there 100 times prettier, but they're hotter and know how to pose as well.
>> No. 8161 ID: 366588
>>8105
I'm with you on Starsessions girls knowing how to pose, but as to being prettier? I think not, they all look like gypsies to me. Really can't compare with the best of the NS girls in terms of looks.
>> No. 8164 ID: b59e96
I'm convinced these paid modeling sites live exclusively off the autistic, retarded, and similarly afflicted. There's no other logical explanation as to why a rational, critical thinking human being would link a personal credit card or home IP to something like Newstar. These are the same people who believe Mariyam (of Candydoll/Silverstar fame) runs Fashionland...who by the way, is now reselling Teenmodelclub's model's for $18 PER set. Meanwhile Teenmodelclub sells access to their entire site (hundreds of sets/videos) for $25. Mind you this is all content that is less exciting and risque than you could find for free in a fashion catalogue/site or surface level Youtube trawling. I wonder what percentage of their disability checks these people dumping into modeling sites.
>> No. 8171 ID: 352560
File 150620224956.jpg - (27.42KB , 234x200 , hey.jpg )
8171
>>8164
Welcome back Ned. Haven't seen you for a while.
>> No. 8337 ID: fe5ebf
>>8161

What does their ethnicity have to do with anything? So models from the Caucasus region, or any girls with darker features are now considered "gypsies".

>Really can't compare with the best of the NS girls in terms of looks.

If you think ANY of this current crop of Newstar models are pretty, then you have set a real low bar. A few are cute, but for the most part they are unattractive girls far past their sell by date who don't wear near enough make up.
>> No. 8338 ID: fe5ebf
>>8171

He does give major kudos to teenmodelclub, but I don't recall Ned ever being that articulate.

>reselling Teenmodelclub's model's for $18 PER set

I think that he meant Teenmodeling dot tv
>> No. 8436 ID: b05647
File 150636391087.jpg - (273.95KB , 720x1080 , Julia-019-01.jpg )
8436
If you think this girl is 100 times prettier than NS Krissy (for example), then your bar must be set so low you could crawl under a snake wearing a top hat!
As to ethnicity, yes it is important to peoples preferences and many of the Starsession girls do look like Roma gypsies which does not appeal to me though I concede it may appeal to another Roma. Girls from Caucasus are not necessarily gypsies by the way.
>> No. 8458 ID: 5df29c
>>8338

No he does mean Teenmodelclub. Fashionland has started a new category called "Fashion Stars" featuring the same models Teenmodelclub has used. Presumably they're both buying sets from the same agency. I wouldn't say he was giving props to teenmodelclub either, only that their pricing is much better. He did suggest their content is worse than a fashion catalogue or Youtube search. If you've ever read the Fashionland's forums, you'll understand how he reached his other conclusions. A seeming majority of the comments are clearly from people who are not playing with a full deck. They actually believe they are conversing with Mariyam and making donations to their favorite models.
>> No. 8459 ID: 648ead
>>8436
Julia, the girl pictured, is a performer...
what she may lack in looks (which ain't much) she gains in spirit.
Have you seen Massie's sets and videos? OMG

Nita is as "pretty" as Krissy (if not more so), the camera pans, zooms and pauses at the right times, she shows more skin and much better angles. The pics are up to 6000 pixels now and videos are 4k (for same price as 1080).
The SS product is 10x better than Newstar.
About the same better ratio that the models spend with their backs to the cameras...

If you were ever gonna shell out for model sets - this is the agency. Believe me.

Find one collector you trust and you just cut the cost in half.
>> No. 8460 ID: fe5ebf
>>8436

In my opinion, you're legally blind. So argue with yourself, Donald Trump.
>> No. 8462 ID: fe5ebf
>>8458

I never brought up his other conclusions, so not sure why you would direct that comment to me. I merely stated that the other guy seemed to be pushing TMC, but came across more articulately than Ned ever has in the past. It was directed at the other anon who said hi to Ned. Hell, I've responded to suspicious posters that way in the past as well. ;)

I agree with you about the sponsors at FL. I can't even stomach reading more than 1 comment there. And as lame as the FL sponsors are, the same can be said about the pathetic NS fan boys as well. If you ever visited Serge's threads at Sharechan before he pulled a tantrum and left that board, you would agree. And look at the spergelords who clog up Vladmodel threads with their James Joyce-like rambling comments. I'm thinking that the only agency that has escaped moronic annoying fans is TPI (WALS).

Even though Ned sucks as a photographer in all aspects of the art, his models are much prettier than the overrated Newstar. Sergei's photographer recruits his new models via the sibling route. He's bragged as much over at Sharechan. That may be an easier way to fart out new models when another one leaves, but not necessarily the best way. I think that we can all agree that regardless of any of their looks, Newstar's "models" are the most uncomfortable in front of a camera. Take away the "risqué" factor and you have boring, unattractive robots.
>> No. 8463 ID: fe5ebf
>>8459

Agreed with everything that you posted, and for me that's not a given at any board haha.

I'm patiently waiting to see more than a random image make its way to a board. You can't even start a Starsessions request thread int eh Sharechan. It gets deleted within a few days for some damn reason. Not sure why because they're allowing AMS to be posted there. I doubt that the studio would report a request thread to be deleted either. Just the nazi admin over there pushing his weight around I guess. :/
>> No. 8467 ID: d0428c
>>8462

Oh yes I saw the threads and I agree. It was not just the NS fans though, Serge himself frequently demonstrated traits of Paranoid Schizophrenia, Borderline Personality Disorder, and related mental illnesses.
>> No. 8474 ID: fe5ebf
>>8467

Sergei has been that way ever since people started sharing his material long ago on Usenet. He began posting personal info of any purchasers, or their trade buddies who back-stabbed them and shared. He was so proud of himself.

Then he started his battles with Nonudebase (or whatever it was called) and started adding images to sets of his models holding those ridiculous signs. He arrogantly announced that he slew the dragon when he stopped them.

A poster with the nick Lenox24 started sharing big blocks of new sets of his current models a few years ago. He blacklisted someone and the new sets dried up. Sergei again proudly proclaimed he was the lord of the internet.

Then we all know about Sharechan and his history with them. I still see newer sets getting out there at various image gallery boards, but nothing like it was in the past few years.

In his rambling posts over at SC he basically took credit for stopping the world of piracy. Little does the dolt know that people still trade privately in forums. :p
>> No. 8475 ID: fe5ebf
And the funny thing is, The People Image and Fashion Land have pretty much choked out piracy and they didn't even need to act like an idiot at chan boards.
>> No. 8479 ID: 7cfdea
>>8462

>Take away the "risqué" factor and you have boring, unattractive robots.

If you took away the 'risqué' factor from NS girls probably no one would notice you'd taken it away, 'cos there is so little of it in the first place. That is one of the big problems with NS, it promises a whole lot more than it ever delivers.
>> No. 8480 ID: 49e8ed
File 150642890880.jpg - (382.00KB , 800x1200 , Nita-008-01.jpg )
8480
>>8459

>Nita is as "pretty" as Krissy (if not more so)

Wow! I think you need a white stick and a guide dog!!
>> No. 8481 ID: 49e8ed
File 150642896244.jpg - (427.00KB , 1152x1728 , krissy-394-011.jpg )
8481
I know which one I prefer.
>> No. 8482 ID: d0cb36
Krissy is one of those models who is great in videos but not so good in photos.
>> No. 8487 ID: 617c59
File 15064402796.jpg - (1.36MB , 3970x1910 , Nita123.jpg )
8487
>>8480
No problem with my eyes friend. I'm just not cursory in my evaluation of beauty.

Perhaps YOU would prefer anime girls where the girls might measure up to your menial imagination.
>> No. 8489 ID: 332b4f
>>8487
Rather plain, I'm putting you down for the latest 'braille' edition of Windows - you need it!
>> No. 8490 ID: 669134
File 150644638764.jpg - (1.54MB , 2560x2950 , rj6rje4jje8.jpg )
8490
share starsession stuff, bitches.
>> No. 8536 ID: fe5ebf
>>8436
>>8481

LMAO you have some xenophobic issue with the "Roma gypsies" Starsession girls, but you use one of the most gypsy looking Newstar models as your favorite. You need more than glasses dude, you need a lobotomy.
>> No. 8537 ID: fe5ebf
>>8482

None of the Newstar models look "great" in videos. They're either wooden planks or jerky hyper - and that's them dancing. Nothing at all like Pavel's models. Sergei obviously caters to desperate men who will fall for anything that he throws at them.

I really do miss the 2000's... lol
>> No. 8538 ID: fe5ebf
>>8489

If you believe that anything that Starsessions releases is plain, then you're the one who needs a braille version of Windoze - or you're Sergei.
>> No. 8548 ID: 665a37
>>8536

hahahaha i know. it was funny seeing that anon put down eastern european models and then used an eastern european model for an example of what he liked.
>> No. 8551 ID: f970b7
File 15064957185.jpg - (226.38KB , 1080x864 , Kathy-013-04.jpg )
8551
anyone who is in a right state of mind who thinks that any newstar "model" is remotely preferable to this girl is a drooling idiot.
>> No. 8552 ID: 3f91b0
File 150649607115.jpg - (395.36KB , 720x1080 , Maisie-016-02.jpg )
8552
sorry trump fans, maisie isn't white enough looking for you, so it isn't worth buying her sets. your loss, fools...
>> No. 8553 ID: 0ac24e
File 150649632346.jpg - (281.71KB , 720x1080 , Elena-018-01.jpg )
8553
too ethnic looking for you? better go fall asleep looking at your newstar sets.
>> No. 8555 ID: 0ac24e
File 15064967005.jpg - (368.17KB , 720x1080 , Lisa-018-03.jpg )
8555
she's blonde! b... b... but she's wearing skimpy clothing and she's not newstar! :( :( :(
>> No. 8556 ID: d0bcd6
File 150649704021.jpg - (216.86KB , 798x1200 , DSC_0213.jpg )
8556
listen, i'll be the first to tell you that neither of these agencies hold a candle to some of the ell ess models, but there are still better choices than newstar. fashion girls annie anyone? she probably passes the gypsy hater's "white test". she "white" enough for you?
>> No. 8564 ID: 533403
Hmmm, maybe I need to invest in some Star Sessions sets. ^_^
>> No. 8566 ID: ce87de
>>8490

Just out of curiosity... has anyone seen **any** Star Sessions material posted. Anywhere? I haven't. I've seen a couple of what appear to be non sample original sized images (over 3 MB size) posted at SC awhile back. But otherwise have only seen samples from the website.

>>8490 posted a video thumbs image which doesn't lok anything like what they post on their website. Can I ask where you got that from? Was it a posted video? Would love to see something shared from that studio. It's like Silver Moon with sexy poses lol. ;)
>> No. 8589 ID: 84f804
post sets
>> No. 8612 ID: ff8b18
Buy sets
>> No. 8620 ID: 1d63e1
File 150654992640.jpg - (40.44KB , 656x100 , bg3g8.jpg )
8620
>> No. 8622 ID: 31c29a
File 150655093020.jpg - (2.44KB , 125x116 , myhat.jpg )
8622
>>8620
>>https://180chan.info/spam/
Thanks!
>> No. 8660 ID: fe5ebf
>>8548

The hypocrisy in Sergei's post >>8436 was over the top.


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


contact admin on triforce mailfencecom (add the missing symbols)
© 180chan 2017