Jules Jordan

Of course, there´s a lot of crooks who assemble a website with stuff taken from other sites, but they´re small potatoes.

The big pirates, the ones that can afford to pay for a domain name (I know, it´s not THAT expensive), already have a minimum of resources, so they can purchase or rent those titles and rip the best parts.

They don´t need ADT for their evil deeds.

[Link]

Why don't you go outside and key your car tomorrow morning to dissuade car theives from stealing your car. It's basically the same premise.

As far as I'm concerned, for fear of pirates, you're sinking your own ship. I'm very sorry to hear that because I've been a big fan of yours since way back when you started the "New Breed" series.

[Link]

Can you imagine THE FASHIONISTAS watermarked? See what I mean?

[Link]

It just occurred to me that maybe y'all are going about this the wrong way. Instead of prosecuting the individual pirates themselves (which as mentioned before, is a costly process that results in them just going under a new name anyways) has anybody thought about going after their service providers?

Getting a domain is cheap. Bandwidth is expensive, whether it is a partial T1 through T3. More importantly, that bandwidth must come through a provider, usually multiple providers until a backbone is hit somewhere. I seriously doubt these fly-by-nighters can afford a direct connection to the heart of the Internet.

Try contacting the service provider for "blacksonblondes" for example. You're webmasters should know how to do a tracert to figure out who is servicing them. Maybe a polite letter stating "domain thesefuckwads.arepiratingmystuff.com is using your network to illegally provide copyrighted material without our consent which is prosecutable under (insert relevant law here), please disconnect them or face prosecution". Maybe you won't have to fight the fight when a form letter or a personal phone call might work out of courtesy (because I'm not sure if a provider can be completely held accountable for their customers).

The only problem I see would be if they were hosted by a less "prosecuting" country like Brazil, Korea or China (countries that are providing tons of bandwidth to spammers and would probably not give a rats ass about a paying porno pirate)...

Must. now. sleep. buhbye...

[Link]

Plus, the guys who take care of the servers are so scared of everything, that they would crap their pants at the first "Cease and Desist" e-mail.

The REAL menace lies on the russian servers.

[Link]

Cal
Somewhere

[Link]

Advantages

• Difficult to remove from the caps as it will be moving and distorting


• No decsion on where to place on the screen


• Great for tattoo fetish lovers


• The logo is now an integral to the action and not overlaying it


• The tattoo wont be hiding any of the action, it is part of the action. Imagine tattooing an arsehole.


• Asthetics, A lovely arse with julesjordan.com tattooed over it, watching the characters flow and ripple and shake with the flesh each time her butt is banged. OOOOh

Hey just a thought

[Link]

I just hope Evil Angel does not lose more money because fans won't buy movies with a watermark than with all the pirates out there.

[Link]

I'm sure there is a device you can get which encyrpts DVD's which you trying to dwnload on a computer, anyway.

Sue the websites, as well.

Edited by - jibstar on 1/16/2003 6:46:44 AM

Edited by - jibstar on 1/16/2003 7:22:18 AM

[Link]

The whole reason Jules wants to put the watermark there seems to be to get people that have downloaded the illegal copy to buy the movie because of the higher quality. But this won´t work if the copy already are of the same quality as the original will it?

You just have to look at the record industry where sales of CDs have dropped quite dramatic the last couple of years (at least in Sweden which is one of the countries with the most spread broadband access).

I don´t have any solution but it seems that the only way to get this problem under any kind of control is that there have to be a lot more pressure put on the people running the servers where these sites are hosted.

As for the watermark in itself I don´t think the placement is the best possible. I think the upper right corner would be a better placement. First of all because there is probably less “action” going on there. Another reason is for us that are used to watch TV-shows and movies with subtitles: if there is any text at the bottom of the screen your eyes automatically goes there. I´m sure this is hard for Americans and people from other “non-subtitle” countries to understand but it´s true.

“I´ve got a one track mind over you” – Johnny Thunders and The Heartbreakers

[Link]

P.S.: No, I won´t tell where those files can be found. I already noticed New Line and Columbia, cause this kind of piracy is currently limited to certain big Hollywood titles.

[Link]

However, unless I feel I need to reply to something specific, I'll just be watching what you have to say.

planet - actually, no the watermark doesn't appear on the VHS. This is because it's less desirable for the thieves out there to copy VHS.

No, there is currently not a plan to include a "disclaimer" on the outside package. There is one in the auto-start section of the DVD to explain our thoughts on why the watermark is there. We also have not written a formal press release, but I will be talking with Jules continuously about specifics over the next couple of weeks.

riekkan - you keep saying that you think we should take alternative methods to stop the pirates. I'm all ears. Give me some of those alternative methods that work (we've already declined any option to sue), and we'll gladly discuss it.

Walter - as always, well put. Thanks for being a part of this discussion.

Flesh Hunter 4 comes out on February 5. That gives you some time to think it over. Of course we hope that all of you will give this movie a chance and that you'll find what we believe: that the movie is so good and the girls and sex so smokin' that you completely forget the watermark is even there. Like I said, it was a long difficult decision from Jules, and it kills him that he needs to feel that he had to do this. But he stands by his product, as do I.

[Link]

But the point is not lost on me here... if the pirates want FH4 badly enough, they will rip it and post it... watermark or not! And if they don't want the watermark, one short script in Adobe Premiere will make it a thing of the past, automagically.

Of all of the suggestions I've seen posted here, I think the best is going after the ISPs. I know they've taken my sites down more than once, just because someone complained. Not a shred of evidence mind you (they were reinstated shortly after I contacted them), but because one of my customer's was pissed and fabricated a story, they had my site down pronto! The burden of proof was definitely on me.

[Link]

Just imagine... a pirate DivX ripped from the VHS... with NO WATERMARK... outselling the official release! Not gonna happen, of course, but it´s a concept that´s amusing and depressing at the same time.

[Link]

But that would also kill Jules intent, that is promoting his website on the sites that are pirating him.

This is REALLY a difficult issue. Looks like you guys painted yourselves on a corner, and the only way to get out of there is risking some ugly stains on the floor.

Thinking about it, stains on the floor and porn go together like horse and carriage, so maybe it won´t be THAT bad...

[Link]

I'm going to wait until I see it in the movie. I've seen watermarks on stuff that don't bother me. I've seen watermarks that do. It's very unfortunate that this has to be done, as it's fairly unfair to paying customers. I do understand WHY Jules feels it necessary, though. Short of any other practical method of minimizing the damage that these pirates cause, I'm certainly willing to live with the watermark. It won't affect my purchase decision unless it really gets in the way, and I doubt that it will. Jules Jordan creates some of the best gonzo porn out there--that won't change because of a silly watermark.

Let's just wait and see what FH4 brings. If I have more to say after I see it, I'll say it then.

Mike L.

Edited by - MLyons on 1/16/2003 2:21:34 PM

[Link]

On a purely aesthetic basis, I care NOT to see any watermarks, logos, graphics, or anything else not originally captured by the camera on my porn videos.

The integrity of the director's visuals, and the composition of any scene, I feel (and as Saki has stated), is compromised by the watermark enhancements.

As a consumer, the presence of watermarks may very well influence my decision to purchase DVDs that use them, which is just one of the reasons I don't collect too many Vivid DVDs (due to their often unremovable multiple angle icons).

However, I understand Jules Jordan's need to protect his property.

Diesel

[Link]

Cyberchicken

[Link]

Edited by - Planet Sex on 1/16/2003 4:44:46 PM

[Link]

Edited by - M.B. on 1/16/2003 5:01:45 PM

[Link]

There is one thing I have learned both from research and from personal experience. If the content is interesting enough, than many things that have to do with framing (cropping of the image, watermarks, ...) will go unnoticed, especially if any precaution has been taken to assure that the watermark for instance is as unobtrusive as possible. I once cropped almost 1/10th of an image on the right side, because the original footage showed something on that side that wasn't supposed to be in the frame, and nobody ever noticed it. I had to tell people what I had done, before they noticed it.
As I have said, key is that a) the video itself is compelling and b) the watermark is as unobtrusive as possible. So, no flashing, no bright colors, no movement or animation, no overlapping with relevant information. I think we can be sure that condition a) will be no problem. So that leaves condition b), especially the problem of no overlapping with relevant information. I am afraid that will always be the case to some extent, but I believe that problem will be much smaller by placing the watermark in the top right corner. Maybe Jules should try different places for his watermark and look at the results, before deciding where to place it. If possible, use a small test audience and see what kind of reactions you get with the watermark in different places and also try audiences, that are told before they see the footage that a watermark will be there versus an audience that is "naive" about the watermark.

[Link]

The general consensus was that a watermark type bug has extremely little chance of causing burn-in even on a TV that is not set up properly.

Although I'm taking this off topic, for anyone who is at all concerned about burn-in (primarily due to watching widescreen movies), I would suggest taking a look at any recently released DVD that you own that has the THX logo on it. In the "Options" portion of those discs there is a feature called "Optimode". This contains the test patterns that are necessary in order to properly set the Contrast, Brightness, Color and Tint. (A contrast that is set too high is the primary cause of burn-in. Out of the box, all TV's have their contrast set too high.) In order to properly set the Color and Tint, you will need a blue filter. You can order one for $2.00 from THX's website.

[Link]

I truly hope you change your mind on this. Evil Angel has always been an industry leader and in this case I think that you may be setting a bad precedent. Watermarking began on broadcast TV when CNN wanted to stop other news agencies from using their footage. It has evolved into nothing more than 24 hour a day advertising for the TV stations.

You are doing this with good intentions (just like CNN did). However, if you do this, it will only lead to all of the other companies doing it as well. I hate the fact that I have to see this crap on TV shows too, but at least I haven't bought those shows. You don't see the Premium cable channels (HBO, Showtime, etc...) putting these bugs on their programming. That's because people specifically pay for these channels. You have to believe that if the research departments of HBO & Showtime didn't believe that putting their logo on the screen would hurt subscriptions to their channel, they would be doing it too. That should tell you something.

As I said in my first post regarding this topic, there is absolutely no way that I will spend money purchasing DVD with watermarks like this no matter what the reason for this watermark is. From seeing threads like this regarding TV bugs in other forums, I can guarantee to you that I am not alone in this opinion.

[Link]

Now on the subject of why water mark the DVD at all I am a little confused but what else is new.

[Link]

I've never liked the Vivid multi-angle icon, the adam & eve hotshot icon and I don't like the new RLD menu that is on the screen, although it is easy to remove (hit ff and then play and it is gone). I would have to really like the film to intentionally purchase a DVD with a watermark present.

I do hope this venture works out well for you though as Evil Angel has always appeared to care about their customers and I would hate to see you have huge troubles over it.

[Link]

Some people are willing to pay for a high quality dvd that does not take 4 hours to download. Those are the customers you are punishing with a watermark. Not the wankers who download a crappy mpeg file to burn to CD. The problem with this plan is it will punish legitimate customers and not thieves. Evil Angel charges more than almost any studio on the market. Are you really interested in degrading your product?

Edited by - clay on 1/16/2003 9:46:57 PM

[Link]

I've read every single post in this thread. I can say beyond all doubt that the overall sentiment regarding the watermark is don't do it, Jules Jordan!

True, ADTers represent only a miniscule portion of all porn consumers, and even the vast majority of ADTers have not even weighed in on this issue, nonetheless, the message is clear: don't go with the watermark.

It's your right, Jules, to do what you want. You can insist on having it your way and it ultimately might indeed work out. Who knows, the net effect might be that you actually gain more consumers by having the watermark (because of increased promotional visibility on pirate websites) than you lose by having the watermark (due to unhappy consumers refusing to buy your movies because of it). But in refusing to heed the overall sentiment against the watermark, you also might later have a high-profile failure on your hands and have consumers revolting against your watermarked products. People have already warned you in this thread that similar approaches by various other companies have already met with consumer rejection. Plus, many people have made compelling points that the pirates can easily crop the watermark anyway. All of your watermark efforts might only serve as a very tiny speed bump to the pirates. Sure, you can still later reverse your decision and not have subsequent DVDs have the watermark, but the stigma of your public failure will always haunt you. At the moment, your reputation is impeccable. You are taking a chance on tainting it in a major way.

Jules, I'm not trying to school or lecture you here. It should be obvious to you by now that I admire you a great deal. I own more movies by you than by any other director by far. Even though I myself would be accepting of the watermark (and other people would be as well), nevertheless, I think a majority of people would not be accepting of it. And among the people who would accept it, none of them (including myself) would like it. In fact, 100% of consumers would not like it. I understand that FH4 is already a done deal and already has the watermark. But if you press on beyond that with the watermark idea, you might later really wish that you hadn't. I don't have a crystal ball. I could be wrong. I'm just taking everything into consideration that I've read in this thread and have distilled it into the opinion that I'm communicating to you now.

I would seek other remedies to the problem, Jules. Someone mentioned going after the servers of the pirates. Whether that idea is feasible or not is immaterial. Other remedies could be thought of and pursued. Like that old saying goes, "There is more than one way to skin a cat." With all of the immense brain-power of ADTers collectively, I'm sure that a remedy more suitable and effective could be worked out.

Whatever you ultimately decide, Jules, I sincerely hope that things work out for you.

Pontus

Edited by - Pontus Maximus on 1/16/2003 9:24:18 PM

Edited by - Pontus Maximus on 1/16/2003 9:45:16 PM

[Link]

Planet Sex raised the question of The Fashionistas with watermarks. I feel the same way. What if Lawrence of Arabia or Citizen Kane were watermarked? <shudder> That's NOT indicative of quality.

[Link]

My mind is the watermark only hurts the legitimate buyer. I doubt that there is any sort of correlation between seeing julesjordan.com on a downloaded clip and the purchase of same down the line. I can only hope I'm wrong.

What I find disheartneing the most out of all this is the "throw up the hands" attitude of trying to stop the pirates. If the game is already given over the the theives, then the only people you're hurting are your fans... tho it must be nice to have fans who are devoted enough to follow you into territory they'd rather not tread.

The DCMA really comes down on the side of the media companies, which EA, Anabolic, etc. (much to the chagrin of their mainstream brethren, I'm sure) are. I would do everything I could to use it. Go after the upstream providers -- there's only so many of them. The law is on your side; and this is a really fucked up draconian law that is looking to stop anything in its way, Jack Valenti saw to that. Use it to your advantage!

The only way to make the pirates think twice is to show them that you won't stand for it. The only way they get away with it is because you're turning a blind eye.

The trick is to pick the right targets -- if you know of the big players -- cal seems to be on the right track -- then go after them. The RIAA didn't go after end-users; it went after Napster... and WON. This makes it easier for the next guy to go after the next Napster. Get blacksonblondes shit down. Screw the guy who says he'd never have heard of Lex any other way; he'll never buy anything from you, so he doesn't count.

I'm sure this sounds a bit too idealistic, especially since I'm not the guy holding the purse strings; but it seems this is a problem facing the industry and perhaps something that an industry wide trade organization should tackle? Your rights are being impinged to use the "it's only porn" argument is self-defeating.

I wish you all the success in fighting this scourge.

[Link]

1. He won´t gain more consumers, cause ppl ALREADY paid their monthly fees to Blackonblondes.com or whatever site they´re affiliated to download the entire movie for U$ 19,99. At BEST, there will a be an increase of hits for julesjordan.com.

2. We´re just a small portion of the HUGE market, and we DON´T LIKE the idea. And if we didn´t liked the idea, try to put yourselves in the frame of mind of Mistah Joe Public - a.k.a. The Buying Majority?

I don´t want it to fail horribly and cause harm on future JJ and Evil Angel sales.

The problem is, deep down we KNOW that it WILL fail horribly and cause harm on future JJ and Evil Angel sales.

I LOVE to be the guy that jumps ahead saying "I told you so! I told you so!" when the center doesn´t hold. But that´s not one of those occasions.

[Link]

At this stage, it's all speculation. Check back in 24 hours.

[Link]

Now, I'm not saying that all of the pirate companies operates the same way that Blacksonblondes does, but I do know how Blacksonblondes operates. How do I know this about Blacksonblondes? Well, like Pete Townshend, I was only conducting research to see how these scumbags operate.

And the fact of the matter, Planet, is that none of us has a crystal ball, we're all speculating on future events. The past doesn't necessarily equal the future. Maybe Jules can succeed where others have failed. But I'm with you, Planet, in that I think the sentiments against the watermark idea are so strong at this point, that it's going to be an uphill battle at best. Hell, that's already the case and FH4 hasn't even been released yet. And at worst, it could turn out to be a complete fiasco.

I feel even more convinced now of everything that I wrote in my last post in this thread.

Pontus

[Link]

Whether opinions were asked for late or not, at least they were asked for. I appreciate that consideration. I truly hope that the opinions that have been expressed here make a difference in the decision whether to continue this "experiment" or not.

[Link]