The video is cute, but is only a very simple-minded statement that copying is a way of sharing, and very disingenuously claiming that therefore it's nice and good. It doesn't address counterfeiting at all. It also doesn't recognise the originator of the item shared at all. If you had no feet and I could give you a copy of mine, as in the cartoon, I would do so happily and without charge. But that is not analogous to me having a CD of music and giving you a copy, because someone else created that music, at a price. Piracy is neither theft not counterfeiting in law. It is copyright infringement. That copyright infringement has the potential to deprive the copyright owner of income in various ways; that is, it can lead to theft or be instrumental in theft. The person who would otherwise buy the created product has deprived the creator of income; the person who uses the product to make money (ie a DJ using pirated music) has deprived the creator of due royalties. But these are separate to the original breach of copyright. The point of copyright is not to say "I own this thing and you taking a copy of it is stealing it from me". The point of copyright is to say "I own the right to determine how this thing is disseminated". When you infringe copyright the 'theft' involved is of the copyright owner's capacity to determine dissemination. An uploader 'steals' the copyright owner's say-so over where their material goes. The downloader furthers that crime. No one has the right to take a copy of something over which someone else holds copyright, and give a copy of it to someone else. When you buy a book you do not have the right to photocopy it and sell it on a street corner. Or give it away. Copyright law only got going in the last 300 years. Before that it was almost impossible for the average individual to make real copies of a product. When the photocopier became available things really heated up. With music and videocassettes things went a step further. Now, with digital files, copying is so ubiquitous that many people under 40 think it's no worse than stealing a paperclip from work. Suing people in this environment hasn't done much so far. Some sites have been shut down, some individuals have had judgements against them, but other sites have sprung up and other individuals have not felt sufficiently threatened to stop. Maybe class actions will do it for the companies. If they can sue the owners of the computers to which the downloads go, and do so in large enough numbers, they'll recoup their legal expenses. I agree with you that this won't make them popular and will probably just encourage hackers to come up with better ideas, but that won't stop the lawyers. In an earlier post you said "When one downloads something illegally, one doesn't deprive anyone of anything" and I hope you understand now that that is incorrect. You deprive the copyright owner of their control over the work in question. That might or might not then deprive them of income in some way, but that issue is the step after the deprivation of copyright control. You've deprived them of something and broken the law whether they can demonstrate loss of income or not. If you think this is a trivial deprivation, try thinking of something you really care about owning, and then think of someone else deciding what happens to it. To fit into the porn world, perhaps imagine your neighbour coming into your house, grabbing your cock and then dragging you by it into his house and trying to insert it into his wife. Whatever positives you might find in this, however attractive she might be, you wouldn't be happy simply because your cock is yours and you want to decide what happens to it.
I don't really understand the suggested model. How could you 'make' everyone pay the same? The government takes it out of their bank account? If someone is willing to pay $500 for porn, there's probably going to be a company willing to make porn they can sell for that price. And if others refuse to pay more than $5 then they'll get porn worth $5. The problem is that many of those people only willing to pay $5 are happy to pay it to receive the internet and then download illegal copies. They're happy to get porn and have no money go to the creators of it. Why would they pay anyone $20 or $25 when they can get all they want for $5? I appreciate your confidence that we can devise a better deal in future, but as far as I'm aware the medium - DVD, VHS, pay-per-view, file download, whatever - isn't the point. However the companies improve their service it will still be possible to copy the material and pass it along to someone else.
Even at $30.00 a month, I doubt this would work out favorably for the studios. Lets use Adam & Eve's September release schedule. They had 8 releases come out for that month. If they offered their whole catalog for $30.00 a month not only is that all they would get for all these titles per customer but back sales are gone. They would have to have enough customers to pay for the production costs of all 8 titles along with profit just from the sales for September because October would have to pay for the new releases that month. And you make no money off your back catalog. On top of that say you like 4 studios, Vivid, Wicked, Adam & Eve and Digital Playground. Customers are now going to complain that they are paying $120.00 a month to access all their titles. At that point you are going to have people subscribe for one month, rip all the titles they can off the site, then cancel and repeat again several months later. And they still have to fight all the stolen rips of their titles being offered for free. I could see companies putting up archival sites where access to most titles over say 2 years old are available for streaming viewing only (not download) for $30.00 a month, but not much more recent than that. And I would expect that titles that are still selling well would be exempt from that site. People keep saying the relevant issue is there are alternatives to suing those who are stealing. Where is the true alternative that makes financial sense that will turn someone who is not a customer and stealing your product into someone willing to give you money. If you have a true alternative, market it and make a fortune. The problem is as of yet I haven't seen one that looks like it will financially work. From what I've seen, the best idea so far is to go after the uploaders. Treat them as if they are entrepreneurs who have opened their own distribution site. Figure out how many downloads they have had, and send them a bill just as say Adult DVD Empire would pay for that many downloads. Send the bill to the tube site, letting them know they can either pay the bill as the proxy for the uploader or they can turn over enough information to the company so they can charge the bill directly to the uploader. If you can kill the uploading you have removed the downloading problem. And I think after a few uploaders end up in court for million dollar bills for all their uploads others will reconsider before they upload.And adult movies only sell a fraction of what a Hollywood movie makes. Lets break down an average Hollywood title. They get worldwide theatrical sales, movie tie in money (McDonald's,etc), Pay per view money, premium channel money, network television money and DVD money. Now lets break down an average adult movie. They get DVD money and VOD money. See the differences in what they make? Now let talk numbers. Montana Fishurne and Batman XXX are fighting for the spot of being top seller for the year. This article here discusses how amazing they both are for selling 25,000 copies on DVD. Unfortunately I can't find the VOD numbers for either. For Batman XXX the average price seems to be $30.00 a unit, so thats $750,000 before costs for DVD sales roughly. The top grossing theatrical movie for 2010 for Hollywood appears to be Toy Story 3. [ invalid url ]. I didn't look up the average price as the same site lists sales before costs as $39,627,023. Pay per view, VOD, Cable, Network TV and Tie ins aren't figured in for either title and we have the adult title fighting for first place at $750,000 and the Hollywood title at 8th place at $453,234,532. Why do you think an adult title cost more to buy on average than a mainstream one. Especially for the more costly productions. I think these numbers are making it very obvious.
After reading and analyzing all the posts in this thread I think the best way to deal with this issue might be to go after the tube sites/torrent sites and try to bring as many down as they can. The only problem is some of these torrent sites are owned by people all over the world making 'laws' in America not applicable to them. I've thought of all possible ways to stop this and really there is no way to stop it at all but there are many ways to reduce the amount of piracy that is going on. Some websites use the same program as itunes where you have restrictions on downloading to other computers or where the videos/music will be unplayable if you stop paying for your subscription. This method only pisses off the consumer but it helps reduce the amount of illegal transferring of their files.
@Fergus Thanks for all your replies, it looks like you've given a lot of time to write all this. I'm repeating myself, but I feel like I'm no match in this debate, and my posts will be useless. Just some replies about your posts: 1) Ideally, the customer would pay a monthly fee to access content from all different studios. If you can't afford all of what's available, you might get tempted to download some stuff illegally. 2) Rarity is a key factor to high prices in a capitalistic economy. The ease of copying made rare things very common, therefore, some customers started to feel the supply is being articially held at too high a price. Lowering the marginal price doesn't mean lowering the benefits or turnover. One way to make it for the loss is working the quantity. 3) I think the subscription model as it is now is not going anywhere, because just like you said, people subscribe for a month, download everything and cancel. I think the main value of porn in the future will not lie in the content itself, but in how it is made available. As I said earlier, I would love to see something of a wikipedia of porn, a forum, an imdb of porn and a huge database all mixed up together. There could also be interviews of porn directors, actors... The fun wouldn't be so much in watching the downloaded porn than in being inside this community. They wouldn't keep the subscription for the 2 new monthly videos, but to continue their discussions in the thread and keep exploring the database for all the stuff they found thanks to other members. All of this things I mentionned already exist, but the fact that they are closed to one another makes it possible to start an illegal porn site. I'll try a little example to illustrate why I think this new business model could work: Let's say there are 100 customers spending 20$ a month to see one movie each for a total cost (production + distribution) of 1000$. If you would let all the movies accessible through a website to those 100 persons, for a total cost of 1100$ (increase in distribution costs). You would need to ask them 21$ each to get the same benefits. Or you would need 5 more people to pay. Since the beginning of this thread, I think we can do even better than that. I also understand we're talking about money here and everyone is afraid of taking the wrong turn or opening pandora's box. One reason why it's so hard to come with a good solution is because there's a leap of faith to take, one that cannot be taken so easily. Just look at what is happening to the music industry, it is very hard to agree on an important deal. So hard in fact, that it is not possible to buy for example a legal digital version of the beatles on the Internet. That being said, I wouldn't consider my post too seriously, because they are guys that expressed what I think better than I can, and they apparently didn't convince a lot of people in here, like this ex-member called imaginative. By the way @Hollywood woody, are you still in touch with him? Wow, I told myself I would write a short post and look at that thing... *secretly whishing I'd taken an oath of silence*
What if those 100 customers were buying 2 to 3 movies per month at $20.00 a month from that company. Bringing in $2,000 to $3,000 per month and now charging them $21.00 you are bringing in $1,100 at a lost of $900 to $1,900. And remember, you are taking what was made from one title and now distributing it to all titles. I think if this became the norm you start seeing studios release only one title a month, if that, to make the money they need to.
@Flash First, I don't see how 10 hex 21=1.100. Second, my point is that you can start from the actual turnover numbers. If you can make 100$ by selling customers a limited number of movies, don't you think you can make more by selling them all your movies? I'd rather have 500 persons watching porn from 200 dvds than 100 persons watching porn from 100 dvds. The last thread that tackled this issue lasted for 4 months, 26 pages of debate. All that for close to nothing. I don't want to waste time talking about that if there is no chance we can agree. From now on, please forget my previous posts, because I won't answer about them. Everyone has its own idea about that issue. Some believe lawsuits will prove successful for the future of the porn industry, some believe it will be an utter failure that will only make the piracy problem last longer. Good for the first, good for the latter. If you have specific questions, I will be happy to answer. I respect your way of thinking because content-selling industries are going through a rough time. Maybe by next year we will have a clearer vision of whether war on piracy can be successful. Here I go again... I seriously need to think about that oath.
Sorry I had the figures from your post stuck in my head, here's a better example of what I'm saying. Say Dick and Pussy Films, Ltd. makes 3 titles a month and they have 5 customers. Frank, who loves Dick and Pussy Films and buys all 3 titles each month at $20.00 each. Ernie, who isn't as big a fan of Dick and Pussy Films and only buys 2 titles each month at $20.00 each. Antonio, who is only really big on one title they release each month and buys just that one at $20.00 each. Jimmy, who is short on money and buys a title every other month. And last, but not least, Leslie, who can only afford one title every 3 months. At these sales Frank spends 720 per year for 36 titles. Ernie spends 480 per year for 24 titles. Antonio spends 240 for 12 titles. Jimmy spends 120 and gets 6 titles. Last but not least, Leslie spends 80 and gets 4 titles. Dick and Pussy Films decide to put their entire catalog online for one monthly charge and their customers habits stay the same. Frank, Ernie and Antonio all now spend 240 for 36 titles, Jimmy spends 120 for 36 titles and Leslie spends 80 for 36 titles. Originally Dick and Pussy made 1,640 per year. Now they make 920 per year off of the same titles. They now need to add 3 full year customers just to break the same amount again. Now, lets make Dick and Pussy more realistic. Each of their 5 customers actually represents the buying habits of 1,000 of their actual customers (ie, Frank is the spending habits of 1,000 actual customers, Ernie is 1,000 customers and so on). When this example is used now with a more realistic customer base they need to add 3,000 more customers each month just to equal the same money as they were before they offered the entire catalog for download. I fail to see how this helps the company. It benefits the customers greatly until Dick and Pussy have to cut down productions due to decreased funds and then the customers get less and less. Then they stop buying the monthly service and so on until Dick and Pussy Films, Ltd no longer exists and Legend is buying their back catalog for pennies on the dollar.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Oct 31 2010 : 9:42AM
You assume that someone who is not currently a customer will always be so, when it's already been said in this thread that as people grow older they purchase more content if for no other reason than they have full employment and can afford to. And I'm not sure anyone in the industry is making a fortune even now. So it's not a matter of finding one idea that will make a tremendous amount of money, it's a matter of making as much profit as possible in the environment digital technology has created for content producers.That strategy certainly worked for the MPAA and RIAA to stop filesharing. Furthermore, it's apparent that inertia is quite strong in the industry, but modifying their business model with day of release VOD and lower prices for rentals and dvd's isn't that difficult because the alternative, "Refuse to change the business model and go to War against Downloaders" for the next 30 years, isn't going to work.Even with those multiple revenue streams mainstream movies rarely make a profit, some would argue that that's because of "creative accounting" on the part of the studios to hide profits, but nonetheless turning a profit in the movie industry appears to be rare. And as for adult movies there is still no logical reason for them to cost more than mainstream films. The actors gets paid a fraction of what their adult counterparts do, their production costs are minuscule compared to mainstream movies, the only factor then that leads them to charge this much is ego. For example, Toy Story 3 which costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make which will be released on Nov 2, is selling for $16.00 on Amazon. Meanwhile on Digital Playground's site, Fly girls, which came out in February of this year, sells for $39.99. That obviously doesn't make much sense. As for $30 for the entire catalog of an adult studio, that can be adjusted, and in addition to that the prices per movie need to and will likely come down to be more in line with the actual expenses involved with making the average adult movie. And the adult industry has vod, rental, permanent purchases, and adult channel revenue, so with those revenue streams we see that their their prices are out of line with actual production costs. Edited by - Solar4 on 10/31/2010 9:45:48 AM
Solar, Take this from someone in the industry (I'm a buyer for a chain), what you're complaing about DVD pricing wise is not something that can be changed. First off, if you buy from a store like one of mine, I have to have a certain markup on my product to pay my bills. I have a staff to pay, lights to keep on, water to keep running, etc. That doesn't include things like paying $1k every 3 months for a new theater TV, or $40 every week for a new theater DVD player, or other incidentals (like my sign just blew 4 light bulbs, or the arcade needs a new touch screen for booth 14, etc). If a Digital Playground title wholesales at $20-25 (not including shipping), then obviously the retailers are going to mark it at $40 or higher just to pay their overhead. Your comparison between mainstream DVD and adult DVD is faulty. Flash already brought up the figures. Toy Story 3 did not cost $100 million to make (http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-did-toy-story-3-cost-to-produce), yet the box office was way over that. In Adult, there is no box office. Toy Story 3 could sell their DVDs at $10 and still kill because they already made $400 million at the box office, while an adult title has to sell so many units just to make the money back (from what I've been told, VOD and cable/hotel can't really be counted on to bring in huge numbers). Right now, it seems a studio is lucky to get 1500 pieces out the door for normal releases, then pray for re-orders (also does not include returns for defective disks, or a large distributor not doing so well with that title and returning 200 pieces). 1500 pieces at $10 is $15,000 dollars. I'm telling you right now that the studio is barely making a profit off initial sales (some probably aren't). All those revenue streams you listed for Adult are true, yet they don't bring in the type of numbers a box office does for a mainstream movie. You seem to think the actresses fuck for free, and that the camera guy gets IOU slips or something. There is no comparison between adult and mainstream. They only thing they really share in common is the DVD. Just a quick question, how much do you think it cost to make a standard gonzo movie? Not Jules Jordan, but say Red Light or Zero Tolerance?
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Oct 31 2010 : 11:26AM
This thread brings to mind the expressions - "...rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." - "..."can't see the forest for the trees" IMHO, technology changes will completely change the production, distribution, sales and profit margins of most visual content regardless of any success by the content owners in having the copyright laws enforced. Those who are able to 'adjust' to these changes will be the profit makers of the future and those who don't will disappear as has been the case for ALL businesses throughout history. And because of the uniqueness of the porn market it will probably be the most vulnerable in it's present form. Porn production will still continue, as it has for thousands of years, but not as it is done today.
@ Jambavant I appreciate your efforts in this discussion. Your point about it being impossible to get The Beatles legally through the net is an excellent one - if mega-powerhouse business negotiators and lawyers for that catalogue haven't been able to figure out a way of doing things that keeps them happy, it's obviously a very difficult problem. I don't think you'll get a huge site where you can access virtually all porn produced. Too many companies with very divergent markets, plus you'd have the general herding cats problem anyway. But I think your suggestion of incorporating more user participation is a really good one. It's the only thing I've heard that could genuinely make a difference. It means the product is changing, so that it's not just the porn but also the consumer interaction through the site. That seems to be possible through ADT etc, so it should be possible for a big enough porn producer - Evil Angel, for instance. Would a large studio be able to do that? You'd need to set up forums, maybe for each director or similar to ADT's setup. You'd need to arrange your performers to do chat and participate in the forums. You'd want the fans to feel like there's a chance their ideas will end up directly influencing product. You need to generate fans who feel like they have some sort of investment in the product. I did a quick scan of some tubesites yesterday. I won't name them, but they reckon they're getting tens of thousands of views for popular clips, sometimes hundreds of thousands. Something I noticed was how rare whole movies were and how common edited clips were. There were only a few clips that were over 60 mins. Very few. There were lots of shortened clips. I mean, most segments in the DVDs I buy are at least 20 minutes, and often they're 40. Many clips on tubesites are 5 minute versions of those segments. I don't know if it's ordinary teens with computers doing that editing or someone more professional, but there's a lot of it and it's popular. Another form of editing is the compilations and 'music videos'. Best cumshots or 10 minutes of DPs or anal or whatever, sometimes with a (pirated) music track. These are popular too. As far as I've seen from the legitimate porn sites neither of these ideas is catered for. Yes, you can download individual scenes but where's the porn producer who's offering the five minute version of every scene? And where's the porn producer offering 10 minute "Best cumshots this year' or 'Best pussy cumshots' or 'Best handjobs' or 'Best titfucks'? They've got editors already working on these movies - pay them an extra hour or two per movie to extract various bits and cut a five minute version of each scene, and maybe you'd have a drawcard to go along with the interactive stuff. For that matter, how about members' competitions in the same vein? Members create their version of 'Best cumshots' from the site's catalogue and the best wins a year's free membership plus a date with a performer. Or whatever. You have to make it somehow more important to be a member and stay a member than it is now. You need fans themselves caring about the material being pirated, feeling like they have some investment. That's the bottom line: fans who feel they have some skin in the game.
And for those who think that with increasing demand prices haven't gone down, here is an excerpt from an ad in Penthouse Forum from December 1987 for Caligula. "Please rush me the original X version of Caligula (156 minutes) for only $89.95 plus $3.00 postage and handling per tape." and if you think that waiting a few days to get your movie is bad another excerpt "Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery." This item was, of course, offered in VHS or Beta.
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Oct 31 2010 : 3:27PM
I believe the last time 'price' was based on 'cost' for anything in a free market environment was around the time of the Industrial Revolution (1800's). Price must be based on what the customer is willing to pay. If that price is lower than cost, the seller loses money. If it is close to cost then the margin of profit is slim and it will probably cause the seller to stop trying to sell and invest his money in something with greater margins. If the price is way above the cost, the seller will make money until a competitor finds a way to replace the product with something that is priced lower. That could be a simple price change or it could be a "new" product that once again can be priced profitably at a price the customer is willing to pay. Theft is almost always a cost issue. I would suggest that pricing rarely 'solves' a theft issue.
Assuming that there is enough available, higher demand lowers the price to a point because you can sell more volume. Lower demand requires a higher price.
You've got cause and effect reversed. If there's existing inventory, a rational producer will lower the price (up to a point, naturally) in order to satisfy the demand by consumers who are only willing to pay less, and wouldn't buy at the original price. That's technically not "higher demand", just demand that previously went unfulfilled. Actual higher demand caused by an exogenous shock will lead to higher prices, not lower ones. (Assuming some measure of market power.) I think you're mixing things up with economies of scale, which isn't based on there being "enough available", but on the ability to produce more, at reduced per-unit costs. But it's still not higher demand that lowers the price, it's the fact that lowering the price can allow a producer to grab a greater share of the market without negatively affecting his overall profit, only his per-unit profit.
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Nov 1 2010 : 10:10AM
Higher demand implies that there are customers willing to pay more for a product. Hence it can be priced higher. If costs remain the same, profits will increase. BTW, I think DVD (or more correctly content) on demand is not far off. Producers will not be 'cutting' thousands of DVDs, sending them to distributors/retailers in batches. As orders come in for one at a time, one will be produced at the time of the order. The DVD will not be in the same form as it is today and each one will essentially cost the same to create. As always, price will depend on demand. Lower price, greater demand.
You're confusing two concepts: what price the market will bear, which depends entirely on how potential customers value your product*, and what price the producer needs to charge to cover their costs so that they'll have reason to continue to produce. But other than that, cost of production and price have absolutely nothing to do with each other, as Robert also noted a few posts up. (Unless one believes in the validity of the labour theory of value, which is generally discredited outside of Marxist circles.) There's no right to economic success. Stuff that costs more to produce than customers are willing to pay simply stops getting made sooner or later. Slapping an excessively high (but cost-covering) price tag on it doesn't earn you money. * Unless the producer has a matter of market power at its disposal. Your local electric or water utility may be able to respond to a decrease in demand with a price hike - companies in competitive markets generally aren't. If a decrease in demand means your per-unit cost is now above the price you're able to charge, you...either figure out how to reduce your costs or you get out of the market. It may be arguable that a few companies such as Elegant Angel are offering a somewhat different product thanks to their premium strategy, so that they're not directly (or at least not fully) in competition with any random gonzo studio, but for the most part the DVD porn market certainly qualifies as highly competitive. And the fact that many customers see web porn (Brazzers, etc.) as a near-perfect substitute for DVD porn doesn't help.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 1 2010 : 1:14PM
You can get more bang for your buck right now. The prices are at an all time low. What you fail to realize, i think, is the cost involved to run a business has everything to do with the prices you charge. It only cost, let's say 50 cents to make a dvd, with packaging, that doesn't mean you can sell it for 65 cents and make money. The cost of making a car that sells for $15,000 is around $5,000 to $7,000. We are in business, we have to stay in business to keep producing. Once it doesn't make economic sense to stay in business, everyone loses.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 1 2010 : 1:22PM
All the commercials in Vivids movies have been taken out and put in a separate chapter under the menus. You can also skip all ads. This was done a long time ago. It is statements like this, that I don't understand. People who have not seen a Vivid movie in the last 2 years bring up stuff we changed long ago. You should really do some research before you make comments that are completely false. The Vivid comps were made 4 years ago, we do not make new ones. You pay very little for a double disc comp, and less for a single disc comp. I sell them for so little, I am seriously thinking about selling out our current stock and not making them anymore.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 1 2010 : 1:29PM
An adult movie cost a fraction of a Hollywood movie, but you are not taking into account the audience in which we can sell it to. First off we have no theatrical distribution. Second, cut out everyone under age. We cannot sell or rent in any major chain stores any longer either. No Blockbuster, No Hollywood Video or Movie Gallery, the 2 later companies stuck us for millions when they went belly up. Jackass 3D cost somewhere around $15 million to make including advertising, first week it took in $51 million.
^Hi Woody. This is good to know. I appreciate the response. As I noted, it's hard to have any sympathy for the pirates in all of this. At least in part, they are killing the industry.
It doesn't matter if a film cost a consumer $2.00 or $ 20.00 for each film.. if people can get it for free (on torrent and tube sites) they will do so. The free way will always be more appealing. As long as these sites exists it doesn't matter how much you change your prices. Edited by - dvamp44 on 11/2/2010 12:58:48 AM
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Nov 2 2010 : 10:29AM
Who says you need an actual brick and mortar store in the digital era?Digital Playground films that are recently released go for up to $40 and Blu-Ray titles go for $50.Toy Story 3 had a budget of $190 million when all costs are included.Red Light and Zero Tolerance can best answer that question, but their movies certainly don't cost almost $200 million to make. Edited by - Solar4 on 11/2/2010 10:39:34 AM
Neither estimate of Toy Story's production cots has sufficient attribution or reference to accept, so please don't bother using these as evidence of anything.
I've long wished I could go to a site and select six or eight scenes from past productions and get them all on one DVD. I read reviews and check out screenshots and trailers. I often want a DVD for only one scene on it. Although the producer might expect this means I'll buy lots of "one scene that I like" DVDs it doesn't really work out that way. I often put off buying that DVD because there's only one scene on it I really want, so I wait until I find another DVD with more content I expect to like; two or more scenes. Would I end up buying more DVDs overall if I could select the scenes? Probably. I'd be more interested in scanning the back catalogue to find every scene a favourite performer has done, or create DVDs of "five best thirty minute gangbangs". I can't be bothered figuring out the technology and programs to create these discs myself, whether from my own DVDs or from tubesites, so they would be a reason for me to join production websites. I can't guarantee it, but I suspect there are still a lot of people who want to watch their porn on an ordinary TV rather than computer screen, and who don't know how to make a computer file watchable on their TV. If that's so, maybe scene-by-scene DVDs could be worth it for the producers.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 2 2010 : 12:30PM
And here comes the lawsuits. Batman Goes after Pirates Expect to see this as a growing trend. It is a new revenue stream for the producers and it sends a very strong message. Please do not tell me about potential customers being pissed off. Weak argument. The people who are obtaining free product have never been confronted. Now they are. Once you get sued for doing something that you should not have been doing, you will think twice about doing it again. I also find it funny that the number of lawsuits is extremely close to LFPs number of lawsuits. I would bet my bottom dollar they are a lot of the same "potential customers".
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Nov 2 2010 : 12:55PM
The reference article states "...Axel Braun Productions has fingered 7,098 John Doe plaintiffs who are suspected of poaching "Batman XXX: A Porn Parody." That seems like a pretty small number of "suspected poachers." Any idea what the total sales of that title might be? Also does anyone know what our legal system requires as proof that a person who is billed for a DVD, which is what I understand the scheme is here, can be listed on a credit report as not having paid their bill, if they ignore the billing?
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 2 2010 : 1:11PM
Let's do the math, 7000 x$30 =$210,000. Not a small number. That number means retailers who lose, distributors who lose, production company that loses. I am also beginning to suspect there are under 10,000 repeat offenders from these certain sites. I sold the title and I cannot give out numbers, but it is still selling very well. I am not a lawyer, but if you order something, and you use your credit card, unless you are planning on never using that credit card again, you will pay your bill. If you don't pay that bill, it gets reported to the big 3 credit report companies and your credit score plummets. Try buying anything with a shitty credit score. Also it doesn't go away, it just sits there and waits for you to try and buy a car, or get a credit card, or refinance your house, or rent an apt.
I'm with fu-q on this as well. The industry is basically looking to monetize copyright infringement, which, just as the illegal activity which lead to this, seems kinda distasteful. It's so disproportionate it's ridiculous. 7000 * 150000 = $1,050,000,000 We're talking about a law that was intended for corporations being aimed at individuals. This is how you get absurd numbers like the above. Anyone here honestly feel that's an accurate summation of the economic impact of Batman XXX? Woody, I really think you downplay the potential impact this has on fans of the industry at your peril. I love porn and I want the industry to bounce back, but I'm not sure if I can get behind this. Might be a case where I stop supporting the studios directly via dvd sales and just maintain my videobox membership.
^Of course, the idea is that most of the people will opt for a "pre-settlement" (reduced amount) option and pay--instead of going to actual court. If I remember correctly, it's a percentage that the lawyers get on that. I also wasn't saying that they were necessarily trying to monetize copyright infringement--it was a concern--but all of the talk smattering the various articles about "new revenue streams" doesn't help the impression. The statement that they are apparently sending out the take-down notices, as well, is a good sign that it isn't just a monetization scheme, though. It is important to stop the pirates, but this whole massive-scale suing / etc. methodology is distasteful to me...especially since we're likely talking about few "real" court cases but, instead, these bizarre "pre-settlements" under "duress". I do also think that there is a chance of upsetting true customers (such as myself), as well. Will that be enough to keep people who buy from buying? Hard to say... Will this stop the pirates? Hard to say... Edited by - fu_q on 11/2/2010 11:15:24 PM
^ Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the industry was going to see that money; lawyers would get anywhere from 50-66%. Someone has to *pay* that money though under the law - that's the issue. And again, it's not that there's a penalty - there should be one - I just disgree strongly that it should be that high for individuals on a per file basis. If this is anything like the RIAA cases it will amount to legal extortion; a "pay or else" scheme. Even if people are actually innocent, the stakes are so high (and of course there is no certainty when you go to trial) they might be forced to consider the settlement offer of 3k or whatever it is. So we have copyright infringement or "theft" which begets "extortion".
This is my big concern, as well. I do believe that the "pre-settlement" offers were supposed to be in the hundreds of dollars and not the thousands...I read this off of one of the companies' websites when Woody first brought this idea up a few months ago. Fortunately, I don't have a real dog in this fight (i.e. no worries), but there are aspects of it that bother me. That said...the pirates bother me a lot, too -- they're killing an industry that I thoroughly enjoy.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 3 2010 : 12:47PM
I think you downplay the impact piracy has on the industry. No one will get sued for $150,000. Those fines are imposed by the government. Doubt that will happen. I think LFP and Axel Braun just want their $35. If you watch any dvd made, at the beginning of that dvd, mainstream or not, there is a FBI warning, people look at it like ripping the do not remove tag on a pillow. It is real.It can be enforced. Rarely it is. But when you back a wounded animal into a corner, he is going to do everything he can to fight back and save himself.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 3 2010 : 12:53PM
Try again. They are not completely stupid. If they look at your history and see that not only Entourage was uploaded, but so were 100 other illegal movies, I think you will lose on that excuse.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Nov 3 2010 : 4:07PM
I doubt that any of these anti-P2P mills which are springing up are going to be stupid enough to go anywhere near trying to report unpaid "bills" for non-existent DVD "sales" to the credit reporting agencies -- they would be subjecting themselves and their clients to a world of hurt. The credit reporting and collections industries are fairly heavily regulated. A demand letter with an offer to settle an unverified legal claim is just that; it is not an unpaid bill. If they sue someone and actually get a judgment against them, that will go on the person's credit report. Funny thing about lawyers who get so desperate for work, or greedy, that they involve themselves in schemes amounting to little more than attempted mass extortion: they tend to lose their licenses.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 3 2010 : 4:38PM
Actually it works like this. The agency gets a court order for the ip address and what has been downloaded. They then send a bill for copy right infringed movies. it is perfectly legal. They send a bill for each movie illegally downloaded, say $65 for each movie. It is issued as an invoice. If ignored, they send those to collection. it is not a scheme, it is a loss recovery system that you will see more and more of. We pay someone who everyday surfs the same sites, sends removal letters, they remove it, then the next day he does it again. Talk about ground hogs day.
There's no need to constantly requote the posts immediately above you, Woody. That habit makes almost any thread you post a lot in almost impossible to follow for long. A simple ^^^ does the trick. Thanks.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Nov 3 2010 : 6:01PM
That may be your understanding of what is happening, but I would be stunned if it is actually the case. Whether the anti-P2P mill characterizes its correspondence as a "bill," an "invoice," or any other vaguely menacing thing, there has been no agreement by the recipient of the letter to buy anything. The owner of the movie cannot unilaterally, retroactively, create an obligation to pay for a downloaded movie, no matter how much the owner might wish he can. The letter is just a demand for payment of a sum of money in exchange for the movie maker releasing whatever copyright infringement claims it may have against the recipient of the letter. It's not a debt. A collections agency isn't going to go near it.
