Milovana.com

It would be great if someone could do the cock hero of the babes from these sites. Their models are naturally beautiful and pleasurable . With some good music into it, it would be a masterpiece. I don't have the capability to create one but i did enjoy playing this. What do u say? ??

nice idea
howver x-art.com is a pay site.
which means that the videos there are covered by copy right
I know for regular teases we can only use pictures form specific sites
so , just a guess, I imagine the same rules apply

However I could be wrong

if you can find the videos you like on say... xhamster, pornhub, redtube.. or any of the free sites...

if you feel strongly about this.... it is your creative duty to have a try at making it yourself!

SexualChoc wrote:nice idea
howver x-art.com is a pay site.
which means that the videos there are covered by copy right
I know for regular teases we can only use pictures form specific sites
so , just a guess, I imagine the same rules apply

However I could be wrong

if you can find the videos you like on say... xhamster, pornhub, redtube.. or any of the free sites...

please, not again. Wherever from do you think 80-90% of Cock Hero videos come from? Xtube and free sites? Nope.

Yup, i don't think so we could have such problem if we put in videos from these sites. The videos are even can be downloaded from torrent . Just wondering maybe awesome-x would be interested in this as there are many good CH videos produced by awesome-x . Maybe other author could give it a try.

Seconded!

Check out my cock hero - short artistry. It has x-art girls. http://www.milovana.com/forum/viewtopic ... 25&t=13923

There are plenty of CH vids that use these girls heavily...

I feel this article is misleading. Its content is fine, but ... well ... it's complicated.

awesomex wrote:I don't use any of these sites for the reason below

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... -site.html

This is a pretty good run-down of what a typical "copyright troll" lawsuit can look like. The New Yorker article is oddly sympathetic toward the troll however, and kind of portrays the situation as one in which there are losses on both sides. I think that if you do read the article to have that flavor, then you need to be disabused of a major misapprehension -- VERY few people in the legal community think of most copyright trolls as having any legitimate stake in their lawsuits at all. So if the New Yorker has created a mildly sympathetic view of one good reason that the porn industry goes about suing people, then the New Yorker has put itself in the minuscule minority. Sympathy for the people who prosecute their copyright-suits is dwindling, largely because those suits have been so hugely inflated, trumped up, even falsified, as a business.

So, although rationally I can agree with the New Yorker blogger, that there are good reasons to sympathize with either side of the copyright-trolling lawsuits, I warn that this is the odd and non-standard view. They are offering a revisionist, almost radical re-writing of the standard impression of things. The tone of the standard received wisdom is radically different from the tone of the New Yorker article.

That doesn't make the article entirely wrong. It's full of sensible statements, reasonable conclusions, well-documented and supported reasoning. But it does make it misleading. It's misleading because it purports to be the "normal" view but it's actually a VERY non-standard view. Acting like its point of view is average, is a false act. Doesn't mean the point of view is wrong; but it ain't average.

Very difficult concept to describe. Rather a simple concept to master. Sorry it took me three paragraphs to get the gist of it. Good article anyway, thanks for the link.

Really interesting article.
x-art is legendary, and it seems they would like to pretty much keep it that way