Wow what a threat too, I realise the decision of Jules is a personal one but Id just slightly like to step to one side of it and address one or two things.
Firstly the term Piracy is a farcical one, and I really dislike it. Its one of those words that get in the way of the actual action and prevent discussion. Copyright Infringement is far more approprate. Also it was really brought into use as a tool of propaganda by many of the major studio's along with the concept of "stealing". There is no stealing in digital material, if I steal your wallet you no longer have it. That is such a fundamental difference. Its a term been used to try and promote a moral attachment to a copyright infringment. In fact in many ways one could also make an arguement that giving your friend a copy of a film you own , without the loss of your own copy is a very easy way in which to be generous.
Mp3's in particular have been attacked copiously from the corporate world, but Id like to say that probably there has never been a better time as an independant artist , or asspiring one as you can create a huge fan base of your music and spread it so easily. The belief which is behind that is that "the govt should constantly protect me from any any risk while allowing me to profit" is unfortuntaly applied free market theroy. And on a side note why 3rd world entrants into totally unrestrained markets suddenly do so badly, as they find out they are suddenly not playing on level playing fields as the wests corporations get such huge amount of corporate wellfare (also called subsidies) and massive state protection with dracion copyright laws.
One must consider what copyright is for, what is it meant to do. In the US the orignal intent by the creators of the constitution was to protect for a limited amount of time the copyright holder so that they could reap enough reward for there work so that they could continue. This was always refered to for the furtherment of science. Infact Thommas Jefferson was very reluctatnt to have copyright right at all he felt ideas should spread like the flame from one candel to another , allowing the illumnition of the darkness to be spread. However he realised that this might not work as if people cant get any reward they may not bother to continue. So there was a tradeoff between the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the rest us. Unfortunatly in modern times this has shifted rapidly almost illeminating the "Fair Usage" rights , such as being able to sample sections of work for acadmemic rights, in particular with the DMCA which all but prevents it by saying if you take some protected digital work and try to take a sample by bypassing the "encryption" you are commiting a crime. Such similar legislation is spread from the us , through to the Eu but also to through trade aggremnents and even "aid" packages to the 3rd world.
Anyhow , Ill be quite now Mat
================================ Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -CS LEWIS
Ok this is my last reply to this topic... I have gotten all my stuff off of blacksonblondes.com, this took months of research. blacksonblondes thrived for years on pirated content, then they decided to come to LA to shoot original content, this is where myself and anabolic were onto this guy from arizona, he was quaking in his boots. This guy was rich from years of other peoples content and he could now finance a "legal" operation, what a brilliant scheme, i believe vca was also created on the principle. This drives me insanely mad. Some of these people post here, have you ever seen someone ask for an id? most of these people work for the sites they are asking about, driving traffic there. You people here at ADT are lucky to be privy to certain information before lots of other people. Most of you have never had your "works" stolen from you the way I have and the scale that I have. I asked for opinions, not threats, and wanted to make it know i was not "shamelessly plugging" . Should we raise the price on the dvds because of piracy? which is worse? ( hypothetical) OK, maybe it was a little rash to say I won't buy the dvds with the watermark on, but what I meant was judging by the picture posted I don't feel inclined to take a risk and pre-order any EA up coming releases. If the usual reviewers give it the ok then that opinion 'might' change. It's still sad that the legit customer gets a kick in the balls for his/her loyalty clubber -yeah why dont you boycott all EA titles? this is my decision on my titles, you ask about loyalty? watch it before you make a comment, is this "loyalty" Lack of respect for consumers - in my view, to watermark a product that has been purchased legally by consumers, many of them strongly loyal to and evangelists of the brand, is extremely disrespectful. -Rieekan I am as big a porn fan as any of you, and it did not bother me. Many of you have been judgemental and rude, like children holding theyre breath, sayint "I wont buy anything with a watermark on it, its disrespectful..." you want me to say "ok we'll take it down immediately" well i'm not inclined to do that yet, this is an experiment with FH4 if you dont like it, dont buy it, but your going to be missing some great scenes, if you dont think my content can overshadow translcent text in the corner, than your watching porn for the wrong reasons. I will be limiting my input in this forum greatly from here out.... Jules
Deep pockets. More compelling reason to take some of these major violators into court. With the money they made from years of stealing peoples content, there's enough to pay off your attorney's fee for such a lawsuit and then some.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Jan 17 2003 : 3:29PM
Jules, I admire your work as a director but you are disappointing me now in a major way. What did you expect when you posted this? That we would be grateful because we were being "privy to certain information before lots of other people"? You asked for opinions and you got nothing but opinions. In fact, a lot of opinions. I can understand that you don't like the fact that most of those opinions were not favorable and I, for one, don't share the opinion that I will not buy another of your DVD's because they have a watermark on them. You wanted to make us privy of what you are about to do. In turn, a lot of people are making sure that you are privy about what they are going to do. That only seems fair to me. So why are you you acting like a cry baby now? What is running away from this place going to solve?
For the record, I will continue to buy or rent your work as long as you continue to deliver the quality content you are doing now, watermark or not. And I hope you will not act upon your "threat" to "limit your input in this forum greatly from here out".
Damn, I am still in a foul mood, ain' I?
Edited by - Walter Burns on 1/17/2003 3:30:35 PM
[Link]
Planet Sex Deactivated User
1951 Posts 6/01
Posted - Jan 17 2003 : 3:54PM
Nah, let it pass. I guess Jules is just tired and grumpy after all this ordeal.
I couldn't agree more. I haven't seen anything here more than just an expression of each person's views on the matter - certainly nothing "judgemental and rude" (assuming that "judgemental" is being used in a negative way here, which I think it is). Just because somebody doesn't agree with somebody else, is no reason to take offence - especially if their opinion was solicited in the first place. (It kind of reminds me of saying, "You're entitled to any opinion you want - so long as it's mine.")
There's lots of stuff in the world I don't like, and a lot of it that I avoid - but by avoiding it and saying I don't like it, I'm certainly not putting it down or judging it on an objective level. I'm just exercising my personal taste - others are more than free to exercise theirs.
When I said I wouldn't buy a watermarked DVD I wasn't making a "threat", nor was I making an emotional appeal in the hope that I'd be able to convince anybody of anything. That's just my personal choice, and part of the thinking process that goes on in my head when I decide whether or not something goes into my library. It wasn't meant as a disparagement against anything else, or anybody else, and I didn't mean to imply that everybody else in the world should follow my lead.
I'll admit that I let some of my subjective feelings come across, perhaps a bit too objectively, when I said "What if Lawrence of Arabia or Citizen Kane were watermarked? <shudder> That's NOT indicative of quality." If that was taken in the wrong way, I apologize. My personal feelings are not the feelings of everybody else, and I don't want to ever impose mine on theirs. I was just expressing how *I* feel about things, if others don't see a watermark as impinging on "quality" (perhaps because other factors are more important on their own "quality" scale) then fair enough. (I have lots of friends who still rent VHS and full-frame movies, and I like and respect them all - the friends, that is! <grin>)
When I said I would never buy such a DVD, it was not meant to be a pre-cursor to an emotional protest or boycott. Just a simple answer to the original question (which we were all asked) about how we felt on this issue. If "negative" opinions were not wanted, then the original question might have been rephrased - "...but only comment if you feel it's a good thing."
Edited by - Mythsong on 1/17/2003 4:16:40 PM
[Link]
Planet Sex Deactivated User
1951 Posts 6/01
Posted - Jan 17 2003 : 4:22PM
Ay ay ay. Things are starting to get real ugly. I think it´s time to close this thread before someone gets REALLY pissed and threatens to actually boycott JJ´s movies...
If this thread is about to close, I'd just like to say, as someone who buys only Europorn, that the whole thing is completely irrelevant!
fannatastic
Edited by - fannatastic on 1/17/2003 4:46:24 PM
[Link]
Darth-Morpheous Deactivated User
1701 Posts 3/02
Posted - Jan 17 2003 : 4:48PM
I personally understand why Jules is going to use a watermark and don't mind. If it leads to his dvds getting more profit then it is good for us fans. That means his products will continue to be top notch. It is a way of supporting great porn. I do think that Jules is definitely overreacting to the criticism he asked for.
Thanks Jules I will do just that. I love watching your stuff, I have yet to see a scene I really didn't like part of so having a watermark or not I will definitely watch FH4.
[Link]
Planet Sex Deactivated User
1951 Posts 6/01
Posted - Jan 17 2003 : 5:08PM
Deal. But, if after watching the movie we still don´t like the watermark thing, will you accept our criticism?
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Jan 17 2003 : 5:51PM
As someone who didn't like at all the watermarks/logos on the DVDs from Vivid/Adam & Eve/Private/Red Light District:
My main complaints about those marks/logos is that they appeared and disappeared or else, by the sheer nature of why they were there (ie - calling our attention to when there are multiple angles or various choices), they were distracting because we were SUPPOSED to notice them.
I was the biggest in-office critic of this idea when the idea first came up. Not only because of the possible backlash, but because I just didn't like the idea. I understood Jules' reasoning and frustration, but didn't want to have to resort to the watermark.
But, when I saw the watermark on moving video, all of my concerns were relieved. There were the same beautiful images that I've always loved from Jules Jordan movies. Was I paying attention to some non-moving writing in the bottom corner? No. Was I thrilled it was there? Well, no, but then again, like I said, I wasn't paying attention to the letters. I was looking at Krystal Steal. and then at Chris.......
I also understand the frustration that many of you are feeling. You haven't seen the motion picture. You feel betrayed as loyal customers of Jules Jordan. I feel for that. If you decide not to buy FH4 on the basis of principle against a watermark, that is your right to make that decision. But as a fan of porn and someone that I hope most of you feel has become a friend, I hope that you'll give this movie the benefit of the doubt as either a rental or purchase.
The thing is, the very fact that there is a watermark will be enough for many to dislike it regardless of how noticeable it is. If there has to be a watermark then why not get a new url for the website called JJ.com, and then put a JJ logo in the top right corner with .com underneath ?.
well, I know I will pick up FH4 but I've already stated that....I just don't understand your reaction to this....you pose a question to the forum and when you don't like the responses you turn petulant....I like your stuff and I support you trying to control how your property is disseminated...I don't like that this is the option you've decided on but I understand where you are coming from...some people reacted well and some less so but no one is damning you...if they care enough to get upset it means your work means something to them and they don't want anything detracting from their enjoyment of it...you wanted dialogue and you got a pretty spirited dialogue...chill out, see how everything shakes out and lets all stay friendly & open....
Max Booty "If something's hard to do, then its not worth doing."
Moderator: I think that everything that can be said has been. Anyone, feel free to start a new thread when you've seen FH4 and can react to the finished product. Thanks.
I have to put my 1 cent worth into this incredible thread.
I find myself watching less and less tv because I just can't get over the aggravation of all those logos. Now some of them come with advertising for future shows. AMC once put an advertisement for a future show right at the climatic shootout in Once Upon A Time in the West. How many people do you think complained? Watch Turner Classic Movies for a few minutes and view the integrity of the image without advertising. A beautiful and rare thing to behold today.
The sad part is that outside of some of the people who post here and maybe a few others, nobody really cares about things like the integrity of the image. Its like the widescreen vs. pan and scan argument. The great majority of people prefer to see faces cut off, etc. than to see the actual theatrical shot that a cinematographer worked all day to perfect.
But I think we will have to get used to it. I have been surprised that porn hasn't caught onto this before as so many companies and directors have lucrative web sites. Or we can protest by watching less porn. I have already stopped watching Max's movies (probably a good thing) since he put his website logo on his movies.
But I sure don't want to give up watching Jules' movies.
Watermark or no watermark; your porn is the best thing out their for str8 forward, no holds barred hardcore.
Although I can think of much better ways of combating piracy, I will decline as to what I think is the proper method for spineless copyright thieves. I do however live in Arizona so if you tell me where blacksonblondes.com is located, I would LOVE to 'speak' to them.
Jules, I think people are splitting hairs on this...unfortunately, some people do not understand the amount of money that is unfairly taken from the artists who create the porn we love. This is a toughy (the whole watermarking issue,) as peoples attention spans when watching porn is highly influenced by the littlest things on the screen, but I think you are making a hard; albeit good choice and I will be getting fleshhunter4 and anything else you put out there... If watermarking the dvds means that conniving websites who steal your images will direct people to YOUR website, I see where you are coming from.
