Bump.
What?s the best/explicit set on bent box for this lovely lady please.
Helen Betty Ann
-
YoungWanderer
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Helen Betty Ann
Probably the latest set put up by IainT or any of his other big VIP sets priced at $495.
I have bought a few sets and they are pretty decent. Full frontal nudity and some between the legs shots, both in photos and videos.
I?m willing to do some trades if anyone has some sets I don?t have.
I have bought a few sets and they are pretty decent. Full frontal nudity and some between the legs shots, both in photos and videos.
I?m willing to do some trades if anyone has some sets I don?t have.
Re: Helen Betty Ann
YoungWanderer wrote:
> Probably the latest set put up by IainT or any of his other big
> VIP sets priced at $495.
>
> I have bought a few sets and they are pretty decent. Full
> frontal nudity and some between the legs shots, both in photos
> and videos.
>
> I?m willing to do some trades if anyone has some sets I don?t
> have.
Somebody drew my attention to this post and really I do not want to be looking at forums on Christmas Day.
If you have bought any sets on B.B. or directly from me, you will have agreed to the licence relative to the content.
I suggest you read it.
It is a personal view in private only licence, any sharing is strictly prohibited. The licence also precludes discussing the content. There is a penalty clause of $10,000 for each and every breach of the licence.
Technically by discussing the content on this forum you are in breach of the licence already.
Whilst I may or may not let minor breaches slide I would have no hesitation in aggressively pursuing any major breaches such as sharing.
> Probably the latest set put up by IainT or any of his other big
> VIP sets priced at $495.
>
> I have bought a few sets and they are pretty decent. Full
> frontal nudity and some between the legs shots, both in photos
> and videos.
>
> I?m willing to do some trades if anyone has some sets I don?t
> have.
Somebody drew my attention to this post and really I do not want to be looking at forums on Christmas Day.
If you have bought any sets on B.B. or directly from me, you will have agreed to the licence relative to the content.
I suggest you read it.
It is a personal view in private only licence, any sharing is strictly prohibited. The licence also precludes discussing the content. There is a penalty clause of $10,000 for each and every breach of the licence.
Technically by discussing the content on this forum you are in breach of the licence already.
Whilst I may or may not let minor breaches slide I would have no hesitation in aggressively pursuing any major breaches such as sharing.
Re: Helen Betty Ann
IainT wrote:
> Somebody drew my attention to this post and really I do not
> want to be looking at forums on Christmas Day.
>
> If you have bought any sets on B.B. or directly from me, you
> will have agreed to the licence relative to the content.
>
> I suggest you read it.
>
> It is a personal view in private only licence, any sharing is
> strictly prohibited. The licence also precludes discussing the
> content. There is a penalty clause of $10,000 for each and
> every breach of the licence.
>
> Technically by discussing the content on this forum you are in
> breach of the licence already.
>
> Whilst I may or may not let minor breaches slide I would have
> no hesitation in aggressively pursuing any major breaches such
> as sharing.
While I understand that the license with its penalty clause obviously helps getting gullible models to show more than they usually do (well, probably not as much as getting paid 50% of $495...), how exactly would you be able to enforce it?
Is the content individually watermarked? As I understand it, bentbox is not able to provide that.
And exactly how would you be able to enforce the part forbidding a buyer to discuss the content? Unless a buyer would be stupid enough to use his real name or the email address he used when buying the content from you when discussing it elsewhere...
But $10,000 is a big number!
> Somebody drew my attention to this post and really I do not
> want to be looking at forums on Christmas Day.
>
> If you have bought any sets on B.B. or directly from me, you
> will have agreed to the licence relative to the content.
>
> I suggest you read it.
>
> It is a personal view in private only licence, any sharing is
> strictly prohibited. The licence also precludes discussing the
> content. There is a penalty clause of $10,000 for each and
> every breach of the licence.
>
> Technically by discussing the content on this forum you are in
> breach of the licence already.
>
> Whilst I may or may not let minor breaches slide I would have
> no hesitation in aggressively pursuing any major breaches such
> as sharing.
While I understand that the license with its penalty clause obviously helps getting gullible models to show more than they usually do (well, probably not as much as getting paid 50% of $495...), how exactly would you be able to enforce it?
Is the content individually watermarked? As I understand it, bentbox is not able to provide that.
And exactly how would you be able to enforce the part forbidding a buyer to discuss the content? Unless a buyer would be stupid enough to use his real name or the email address he used when buying the content from you when discussing it elsewhere...
But $10,000 is a big number!
Re: Helen Betty Ann
salmon wrote:
> IainT wrote:
>
> > Somebody drew my attention to this post and really I do not
> > want to be looking at forums on Christmas Day.
> >
> > If you have bought any sets on B.B. or directly from me, you
> > will have agreed to the licence relative to the content.
> >
> > I suggest you read it.
> >
> > It is a personal view in private only licence, any sharing is
> > strictly prohibited. The licence also precludes discussing
> the
> > content. There is a penalty clause of $10,000 for each and
> > every breach of the licence.
> >
> > Technically by discussing the content on this forum you are
> in
> > breach of the licence already.
> >
> > Whilst I may or may not let minor breaches slide I would have
> > no hesitation in aggressively pursuing any major breaches
> such
> > as sharing.
>
> While I understand that the license with its penalty clause
> obviously helps getting gullible models to show more than they
> usually do (well, probably not as much as getting paid 50% of
> $495...), how exactly would you be able to enforce it?
>
> Is the content individually watermarked? As I understand it,
> bentbox is not able to provide that.
>
> And exactly how would you be able to enforce the part
> forbidding a buyer to discuss the content? Unless a buyer would
> be stupid enough to use his real name or the email address he
> used when buying the content from you when discussing it
> elsewhere...
>
> But $10,000 is a big number!
Thousands of ?Jon Doe?s? who were downloading from the file sharing pirates thought they were anonymous and thought they were untouchable...soon realised how wrong they were when an agent appeared on their doorstep to present them with a writ. I believe some had a lot of explaining to do.
The internet is far from anonymous if you know who to ask and you are willing to part with a few dollars. Identifying buyers of small volume content is apparently very simple indeed.
> IainT wrote:
>
> > Somebody drew my attention to this post and really I do not
> > want to be looking at forums on Christmas Day.
> >
> > If you have bought any sets on B.B. or directly from me, you
> > will have agreed to the licence relative to the content.
> >
> > I suggest you read it.
> >
> > It is a personal view in private only licence, any sharing is
> > strictly prohibited. The licence also precludes discussing
> the
> > content. There is a penalty clause of $10,000 for each and
> > every breach of the licence.
> >
> > Technically by discussing the content on this forum you are
> in
> > breach of the licence already.
> >
> > Whilst I may or may not let minor breaches slide I would have
> > no hesitation in aggressively pursuing any major breaches
> such
> > as sharing.
>
> While I understand that the license with its penalty clause
> obviously helps getting gullible models to show more than they
> usually do (well, probably not as much as getting paid 50% of
> $495...), how exactly would you be able to enforce it?
>
> Is the content individually watermarked? As I understand it,
> bentbox is not able to provide that.
>
> And exactly how would you be able to enforce the part
> forbidding a buyer to discuss the content? Unless a buyer would
> be stupid enough to use his real name or the email address he
> used when buying the content from you when discussing it
> elsewhere...
>
> But $10,000 is a big number!
Thousands of ?Jon Doe?s? who were downloading from the file sharing pirates thought they were anonymous and thought they were untouchable...soon realised how wrong they were when an agent appeared on their doorstep to present them with a writ. I believe some had a lot of explaining to do.
The internet is far from anonymous if you know who to ask and you are willing to part with a few dollars. Identifying buyers of small volume content is apparently very simple indeed.
-
YoungWanderer
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Helen Betty Ann
Hi Iain! Big fan of your work!
It?s a shame you had your Christmas interrupted. I had to work a shift on Christmas this year and it sucks.
Now I don?t read any licences when I buy my jerk off material so who knows what I agreed to, but I will respect your wishes in regards to sharing your material. I won?t speak of it again.
Keep creating your excellent content and I?m sure I will buy some more in the future.
It?s a shame you had your Christmas interrupted. I had to work a shift on Christmas this year and it sucks.
Now I don?t read any licences when I buy my jerk off material so who knows what I agreed to, but I will respect your wishes in regards to sharing your material. I won?t speak of it again.
Keep creating your excellent content and I?m sure I will buy some more in the future.
Re: Helen Betty Ann
YoungWanderer wrote:
> Hi Iain! Big fan of your work!
>
> It?s a shame you had your Christmas interrupted. I had to work
> a shift on Christmas this year and it sucks.
>
> Now I don?t read any licences when I buy my jerk off material
> so who knows what I agreed to, but I will respect your wishes
> in regards to sharing your material. I won?t speak of it again.
>
> Keep creating your excellent content and I?m sure I will buy
> some more in the future.
Hi,
Thank you for the response. No harm done. But do please read the licences, not just with my content, but any content you buy, they are very important legal documents.
A lot of the bigger paysites are very prepared to litigate when breaches occur, particularly against individuals, as they are very easy to trace and therefore very easy targets who seldom put up a fight and also because it can be a very easy and lucrative revenue stream.
The last thing I want is to have to enforce licences, it?s not a revenue stream I have any wish to capitalise on, I would rather people just enjoyed the content.
I wish everybody a happy, prosperous and peaceful New Year.
> Hi Iain! Big fan of your work!
>
> It?s a shame you had your Christmas interrupted. I had to work
> a shift on Christmas this year and it sucks.
>
> Now I don?t read any licences when I buy my jerk off material
> so who knows what I agreed to, but I will respect your wishes
> in regards to sharing your material. I won?t speak of it again.
>
> Keep creating your excellent content and I?m sure I will buy
> some more in the future.
Hi,
Thank you for the response. No harm done. But do please read the licences, not just with my content, but any content you buy, they are very important legal documents.
A lot of the bigger paysites are very prepared to litigate when breaches occur, particularly against individuals, as they are very easy to trace and therefore very easy targets who seldom put up a fight and also because it can be a very easy and lucrative revenue stream.
The last thing I want is to have to enforce licences, it?s not a revenue stream I have any wish to capitalise on, I would rather people just enjoyed the content.
I wish everybody a happy, prosperous and peaceful New Year.
Re: Helen Betty Ann
IainT wrote:
> Thousands of ?Jon Doe?s? who were downloading from the file
> sharing pirates thought they were anonymous and thought they
> were untouchable...soon realised how wrong they were when an
> agent appeared on their doorstep to present them with a writ. I
> believe some had a lot of explaining to do.
>
> The internet is far from anonymous if you know who to ask and
> you are willing to part with a few dollars. Identifying buyers
> of small volume content is apparently very simple indeed.
Lots of words, but, again, are you or are you not able to distinguish between images or video traded originating from Buyer A, Buyer B, etc?
People being stupid is probably not something you should rely on when locating who is trading your exclusive content.
Would you even be able to identify which buyer YoungWanderer above is or even if he's a buyer? If he is, then he's obviously in breach of the licence!, That's like $10,000 for you! Or is it $5,000 for you and $5,000 for Helen Betty Ann?
Or doesn't it matter that you promised Helen Betty Ann that discussing the levels she did for you would be in breach of the licence any buyer would have to sign? Maybe the important thing was that she believed you? That it would all be a secret among a selected few? And that it got her to do those levels?
And, as I have commented before, I have been offered vip content shot by you for a trade after acknowledging I had some very exclusive material. Did not accept the trade because I could as well pay for it if I really wanted it. Expensive does not always mean exclusive.
> Thousands of ?Jon Doe?s? who were downloading from the file
> sharing pirates thought they were anonymous and thought they
> were untouchable...soon realised how wrong they were when an
> agent appeared on their doorstep to present them with a writ. I
> believe some had a lot of explaining to do.
>
> The internet is far from anonymous if you know who to ask and
> you are willing to part with a few dollars. Identifying buyers
> of small volume content is apparently very simple indeed.
Lots of words, but, again, are you or are you not able to distinguish between images or video traded originating from Buyer A, Buyer B, etc?
People being stupid is probably not something you should rely on when locating who is trading your exclusive content.
Would you even be able to identify which buyer YoungWanderer above is or even if he's a buyer? If he is, then he's obviously in breach of the licence!, That's like $10,000 for you! Or is it $5,000 for you and $5,000 for Helen Betty Ann?
Or doesn't it matter that you promised Helen Betty Ann that discussing the levels she did for you would be in breach of the licence any buyer would have to sign? Maybe the important thing was that she believed you? That it would all be a secret among a selected few? And that it got her to do those levels?
And, as I have commented before, I have been offered vip content shot by you for a trade after acknowledging I had some very exclusive material. Did not accept the trade because I could as well pay for it if I really wanted it. Expensive does not always mean exclusive.