Jules Jordan

Yes, Jules is very concerned about his fans and viewers and the people who pay for the DVD product. It was a difficult decision and one that he wishes we didn't have to come to.

Macrovision: it doesn't do us any good. It's an extra cost to us that can easily be gotten around by anyone wishing to get around it. This has already been stated many times before here on ADT and also here in this thread.

Suing piraters: riekkan, thanks for finding my previous quote. Suing an internet pirating company is almost worthless. Half the time, it's impossible to figure out who they are in the first place. And when you do, if you spend thousands of dollars to get that company to stop stealing your product, that company does, but the SAME people still do it using a different company name.

Will it stop the piracy?: Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps some of the companies stealing Jules' stuff will add their own logo OVER his, some of them will crop it out, but our guess is that many of them don't give a shit and will steal it as is. Either way, we've discouraged them slightly because if they go through work to cover it or crop it, it's no longer as easy for them, and if they do steal it as is, we get credit for the pictures and footage. These theives don't give a SHIT about copyrights or trademarks or anything else. We may not be able to stop them, but we're not going to let them continue to do things the way they have been.

Will other Evil Angel directors also use the watermark?: Maybe, maybe not. Without a doubt, JulesJordan movies are among the BEST out there, and they are the most heavily pirated on the internet in the crappy little sites that steal content. For now, our other directors are not using the watermark because they aren't being hurt as heavily as Jules is.

Do John and I support Jules' decision to use the watermark?: without a doubt. We hope that fans of Jules and EA understand why we came to this decision and give Flesh Hunter 4 a shot. We believe that you will find it every bit as enjoyable as the rest of the Jules Jordan catalog of impressive DVDs.

[Link]

"I knew a girl who liked the prong
but alway brought her dog along..."

Edited by - hardware on 1/17/2003 2:46:51 PM

[Link]

Keep it up, Jules !

[Link]

Max Booty
"If something's hard to do, then its not worth doing."

[Link]

Yes, this julesjordan.com watermark will appear throughout the ENTIRE DVD movie exactly as you see it on the screencap. We chose not to have it appear then disappear several times throughout the movie because we felt that if was there permanently, then the viewer would get "used" to it on the screen and start to not even notice it. Secondly, because if we took it off for parts of the video, then the piraters would just use those few seconds instead of the ones that we have the watermark on.
Although I love outkastfan's idea of the clothing, the girls are naked throughout the majority of the sex, so no, that wouldn't solve this particular problem.

Planetsex- thanks for being rather accepting of all this. I appreciate it, as I do for all of you that are at least giving the idea a chance.

I do want to say though, that the screencap on the website is a FINISHED idea. This screencap was placed by the editor as if it were a title on the video. This edited master was given to the authorers and this is what they used for the DVD.
I myself considered about the title being even a bit smaller than it is (although I think it's pretty small as is), but we all agreed that if it's TOO small, it defeats the purpose all around because a lot of screencaps on sites like the ones that are ripping Jules off are either low-resolution or REALLY small. And if you can't read on those screencaps or mpegs what the words say, then it was all worthless.

Again, thanks to all of you for giving this a chance, and for all of your support in the past and hopefully the future.

[Link]

Cal444
Somewhere cursing copyright infringment scumm

[Link]

Actually, the SIZE of the type is good. If you did it smaller, it would disappear on the small pirated samples available online. But you could SQUEEZE it a just a little bit on the next releases. Like, 10% more compressed.

BTW, this watermark will appear on the VHS tapes as well?

Edited by - Planet Sex on 1/15/2003 7:44:25 PM

[Link]

It´s like this: I see a video sampler with "www.julesjordan.com" on it, I go to julesjordan.com (or RLD.COM, of DVSX.COM, or...), find the "Report Piracy Here" banner, click on it, and leave my report.

This link could lead to one page with a simple Q&A: "Where did you found this video? What´s the URL?", and things like that.

Edited by - Planet Sex on 1/15/2003 7:53:51 PM

[Link]

We talked quite a bit about this at the show, and I said I'd have to see what it looked like before I could really pass any judgement. While I understand the need for you to do something to dissuade the pirates, this watermark is not non-intrusive. I don't know if my mind will "blend" it out when watching the movie, but in the still it is stark and obvious. I hate that I will be buying a legitimate copy of this DVD and still having to watch this throughout the screening process.

Anyway, I will put on my thinking cap to see if I can come up with any other suggestions for you.

Thanks again to both of you for spending the time with me at the show... Aybe

[Link]

Remember, the whole point of the Mount Everests, er, I mean the watermark is to promote Jules Jordan's website when pirates do steal his stuff. I understand it all perfectly now and fully support Jules and EA.

Pontus

[Link]

In some cases, a simple "cease & desist" e-mail can do the trick.

[Link]

What is going to stop one of these pirates from cropping if off or putting another logo on top.

It would take someone with very little skill a few minutes to touch it up and remove it in photoshop.

Two minutes of inconvience to a pirate, 2 hours annoyance to a paying customer.

Bad idea. I will be very disappointed if this becomes common practice.

Edited by - Sheky666 on 1/15/2003 8:31:58 PM

[Link]

Jules already shot the movie with the watermark placement in mind, right? So, there won´t be any crucial information missing by zooming the image, AND Gauge´s arseholio will be even closer to the screen!

(Fuck, I´m a fucking genius!)

[Link]

With that said, I understand why the decision was made, but I think it's a shame that the legitimate consumer of the product must suffer in this intrusive manner (minor as it may be) because of some people who are stealing for commercial gain.

I don't see how this is any different from George Lucas deciding to burn in a Lucasfilm logo into the corner of Star Wars for the theatrical release since someone could steal the film or digital prints of the movie and they'd be on the streets of Hong Kong on DVD and VHS before the premiere. Maybe it's a matter of when you have a big bucket, you can afford to spill a few glasses, but I think if the mainstream studios thought they could preserve millions of revenue without pissing off the public, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Regardless of the reason, I don't like the decision. I understand it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. As a consumer, it will be one of the factors to consider in deciding to make a purchase. As a reviewer, things like this will always get a mention in a review since it does affect the presentation of the content.

Just my two cents,

- Saki

[Link]

I can say with 100% certainty that I will not knowingly purchase DVD's that contain a watermark like the one shown in vidcap (I don't own all of your movies, but I do own about 3/4 of them).

I think that this is a situation of "cutting off your nose to spite your face". You are apparently willing to lose sales in order to prevent other people from using your material. If you can't come up with something that doesn't punish the people who actually paid to purchase your DVD, then it's my opinion that you shouldn't do it.

Please let us know if (or when) you change your mind, so I can put your movies back on my list of titles to buy.

[Link]

Edited by - Planet Sex on 1/15/2003 8:39:09 PM

[Link]

Cal444
Somewhere doing dvd extras with Everhard

[Link]

I´ve seen a free-movie page with some Anabolic samples, complete with the Anabolic logo on the page itself. Problem is, the page is NOT part of the Anabolic website.

Is that piracy, or I just found one of those official Sample Pages that some companies license to indie webmasters for advertising?

UPDATE:

Just found one of those sites I mentioned. Pirate or legit?

Edited by - Planet Sex on 1/15/2003 9:09:16 PM

[Link]

Edited by - Clubber on 1/15/2003 9:30:33 PM

[Link]

This will not deter anyone.

Edited by - Sheky666 on 1/15/2003 10:18:50 PM

Edited by - sheky666 on 1/15/2003 10:34:36 PM

[Link]

Edited by - Clubber on 1/15/2003 9:28:34 PM

[Link]

Now multiply it for 140 minutes, the usual running time of JJ´s movies.

How many seconds it will take for you to clone stamp an ENTIRE film?

My math is terrible, to say the least, but I think JJ´s films have something like 252,000 frames!

Edited by - Planet Sex on 1/15/2003 9:37:03 PM

[Link]

Non-digital content could be an insert in selected copies that can be redeemed for customized content, blooper reels, visit to the set, lunch with the talent and director, etc. Before the rest of the forum notes that blooper reels and custom content can also be pirated, since it was acquired by a legit client, it is more likely the copyright will be respected -- but there is no guarantee. And I know that a consumer in Japan is not going to come to LA for lunch. But if you really put you mind to it there is plenty of interesting non-digital content. For example, if one of your DVDs had a pair of Gauge's panties inside, I would be paying full price for multiple copies of your releases. Last time I checked "panties" was not an downloadable option on Kazaa.

If you really step back and think about this, vocal recording artists will make more money by releasing their music free over the internet and earn their living through live performances and endorsements. The record companies can sue all the college students and Napsters they want, but the technology has passed them by and the scale of cheating is massive and overwhelming.

Peace,

Scooter

[Link]

And Planet, you always provide good insights while adding great comic relief to boot (although you really need to try to stay on Tricia's good side for as long as possible).

Pontus

[Link]

Cal444
Somewhere thumping

[Link]

The complete url is:

http://www.highqualitysexmovies.com/moviepink/assman16/brunette-ass/brunette-anal-20.html

I took a screengrab of the page, in case you want to see what it looks like. It even has the cover of ASSMAN 16 and a direct quote from the back cover text.

Edited by - Planet Sex on 1/15/2003 10:05:38 PM

[Link]

One other thing: I think Scooter's a fucking genius. If you ever decide to start a cult, count me in.

Pontus

[Link]

Seriously, now: next time, do a little test by squeezing the logo a wee bit (the overall size is fine, and so´s the transparency) and pushing it a lil´ more to the side. I don´t think that would be asking too much, eh?

Edited by - Planet Sex on 1/15/2003 10:12:15 PM

[Link]

When I went to that screen capture that Tricia put up, with Amee Donovon's big, luscious mellons staring me in the face, the last thing on this earth that I was concerned about was some stinking watermark. But that's me. I realize that other people see it differently and their views are equally valid.

Jules, rather than be miffed, I think you should appreciate that people are responding to your initial inquiry and are giving you their honest feedback. Just because much of it is disagreeable to you shouldn't make you upset or disappointed. People are just being honest, which I think is what you really wanted.

Pontus

[Link]

1) The decision to leave the watermark on for the entire length is very wise. Studies have shown that viewers of a moving image will always skim the screen looking for movement. When you leave out contextual information, such as story related information, viewers concentrate on moving objects. So it is best to leave a watermark alone once it is there and make it a part of the frame, as it were.

2) Looking at the screenshot, I am not convinced that the placement is ideal though. Studies have also shown that viewers concentrate on the top half of the screen, partly because shot compositions usually place human faces in that part of the screen, partly because we are used to skimming any surface from top to bottom and from left to right because of the way we read. So the placement on the right part of the screen is probably the least obtrusive. I am not convinced that the same is true with the decision to place the watermark at the bottom of the frame. The upper right corner is far less obtrusive because very often viewers don't "read" the image that far, when there is no relevant information in that corner of the frame. They do however usually have a strong sense of the lower right corner of the screen, because it represents the "end" of the frame. Furthermore, I also believe that a lot of shot compositions used in porn, especially the strong visual kind of porn that Evil Angel is known for, favour a lot of attention on the bottom part of the screen. The very famous butt shots, shot from a low height and/or angle, sometimes upwards to also show the upper body of the actress, will favour the bottom of the screen because of 2 reasons: a) the camera distance of such compositions is far less great on the bottom part of the screen; so you can very often see a CU of breasts or thighs, or butt cheeks, or pussies at the bottom part of the screen, while the distance on the upper part of the screen will more or less refer to medium close ups or even medium shots; b) this difference in camera distance between upper and bottom part of the screen will not only command different levels of attention, but will also leave much more irrelevant space on the upper part of the screen, where a watermark is much less likely to cover relevant information. For a better understanding of what I am talking about, look at the 2 compositions that Wally has put up on his website as a request:

In both these examples, the upper right corner is almost completely irrelevant, while the bottom right corner is relevant. Placing a watermark on the upper right corner is far less obtrusive imo than in the bottom right corner.

Edited by - Walter Burns on 1/15/2003 10:30:50 PM

[Link]

Problem is, only a small portion of the buyers, retailers, etc are ADT´ers. And looks like the general consensus around here is: we don´t like the watermark . That´s not what I would call a good start. But hey! We, ADTer´s, do agree with JJ´s way of thinking, and some will buy the stuff anyway. That´s not the problem.

BUT ...

We are a very select but relatively small, restricted, and even closed group when compared to the HUGE market that is porn.

What about the gajillions of DVD buyers all over the world that never heard about ADT, and maybe never will?

Do you think that THEY will like the watermark?

I don´t know. Only the sales will tell for sure, so now it´s just a waiting game.

We can root for the best and wish all the luck to JJ, but the final results, the outcome... that´s not up to us.

[Link]

Edited by - M.B. on 1/15/2003 11:01:52 PM

[Link]

Regarding the watermark...

I really do not like it - but I support Jules Jordan and his right to place a watermark on his product to identify it in an effort to combat piracy.

This kinda sucks though. I remember when my all-time favorite band Metallica spoke out against Napster to protect their product. I hated it at first, wondering why they had to lead the fight while the rest of the cowardly artists stayed silent and let them take the heat. But they were right: they had a right to control how their product was delivered and the quality of that product delivered.

Unfortunately, Internet piracy via file sharing and usenet (the forgotten service) isn't going away. And it must really suck to know that folks are hosting your product on web servers and getting paid subscriptions or ad-banner revenue for it. Heck there was a usenet poster that used Windows Media Encoder to embed penis enlargement ads in pirated adult movies for years. To make matters worse; digital electronics manufacturs, the MPAA, the RIAA, and civil liberties groups are all promoting unreasonable (unreliable, non-standard) solutions to the problem.

Watermarking only does two things: punish the people that purchased the product, and remove one of the excuses a "web host" could use to get out of legal implications (i.e. "I just got it off the Internet, I didn't know it was copyrighted material" - where a watermark would prove otherwise).

Watermarks in digitally encoded video are remarkably easy to defeat. There are free products available on the Internet (of all places, lol) that can crop out any portion of a video just a easily as one would crop out a watermark on a still picture. Most "pirates" will need to re-encode your video for transfer over the Internet (reducing the 2-5GB DVD down to a crappy bitrate) and are probably using these tools (being cheap bastards to begin with).

Although this would drive the cost up, animating and dynamically blending the watermark might still accomplish your goals but make things harder on pirates while not punishing paying customers. Scrolling the watermark text around stylishly at a major scene change then slowly fading the watermark off the picture would make cropping more of a bitch (not like pirates probably give a shit anyways) but leave a good part of the action watermark free. Just an idea.

I'm not sure if most adult DVD viewers are video quality fanatics, but I know I would be pissed if there was a "Columbia/Tristar - www.sony.com/Spider-Man" watermark at the bottom of my widescreen Spiderman DVD (and not because it would obscure Kirsten Dunst's erect neeeeples).

Best of luck Mr.Jordan, but unfortunately you probably will be on a lot of people's shit-lists for a while for doing this (first). Hopefully you won't end up like Metallica did (down a bassist, divorced and in rehab)...

[Link]

If you want a REAL sincere opinion, it seems that almost everybody here feels, deep deep inside, that the watermark idea is not only doomed to tank horribly (it was tried before and it didn´t worked then), but will also cause the DVD sales to drop considerably. Trust me: NOBODY wants that to happen to JJ´s titles, so that´s why we´re being so vocal against it. Capice?

We´re just being your friends, Jules. And tough love is part of true friendship.

If we´ll have to lock you in the trunk of a Pinto with two tuna sandwiches for a week just to prevent you from doing something wrong, WE WILL!

[Link]

It obviously seems the decision to go ahead with the watermark has been made, which is fine. Nobody is happy about it and I don't see there being any real benefit to a watermark being there. In theory it makes sense, in practise people who are happy to download pirated material will keep downloading pirated material even if they know where it came from.
But still, I'll wait and see what the opinions are from others. If the general feedback is that it stinks, would there be a rethink ?.

Edited by - Clubber on 1/15/2003 11:32:52 PM

[Link]

I think that is evident in these Flesh Hunter 2 screenshots, although I admit it might be problematic with some of the pop shots.

Anyhow, while I'm opposed to watermarks (for the record I am very unused to watermarks as the media here has been watermark-free until recently), I would have little or no problem with one in the top right corner. I hope Evil Angel will consider this alteration for FH4 and future discs.

All that said, I would like to reiterate that there are other ways of targeting piracy, which I think should be implemented regardless of whether watermarking is adopted or not. I think some of these could be very effective too and the notion of users contributing to the measures makes them much more powerful.

[Link]

I just did some tests with that stupid MovieMaker program that comes with Windows ME and, to my surprise, I was able to rip and crop a small clip IN REAL TIME. Just zoomed the image and presto, an instant cropped MPEG file!

This means that pirates can create a cropped file while they´re ripping your DVD for Net distribution.

Edited by - Planet Sex on 1/15/2003 11:01:51 PM

[Link]

Less than a minute added to the process the pirates are already using to re-encode the video for the web (using Movie Maker, Windows Media Encoder, TsunamiMPEG, or any of the Divx codec front-ends).

[Link]

Dion Giarrusso wrote:
Red Light District.

[Link]

- Saki

[Link]