Unfortunately, just as the American public has passively accepted all those station-identification logos on their television channels, the same might occur with the adult DVDs we purchase. It really does piss me off.

Diesel

[Link]

I hope that customers protest this practice. -Diesel
I dont like the fact that you make these statements as a representative of one of our best customers.

[Link]

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

"...Wanna copy my style go to kinkos..."

[Link]

I have to admit that I'm more likely to buy from a retailer who will try to stop me from buying something because there is something wrong with it, than one who lies to me.

I gotta respect someone who does something because he thinks it's the right thing to do, rather than the profitable thing to do.

[Link]

- Saki [faqs]

Edited by - Saki on 3/26/2003 11:02:46 PM

[Link]

I am neither an agent, nor an employee, nor a representative of Adult DVD Empire. I work as an independant contractor and freelance writer for their website, which includes my Diesel's Den column (which, by the way, goes out of its way to promote an Evil Angel product almost every other week).

Any views expressed on the watermarking issue, or any other subject for that matter on ADT, are solely my own.

Diesel

[Link]

Edited by - outkastfan on 3/4/2004 11:55:37 PM

[Link]

huh? not sure i follow here, I just wouldnt want someone affiliated with ADE to talk about "protesting" a product. I respect diesels opinion, and he has in the past given me much props...so no disrespect diesel, just dont get too out of hand with the protesting :)

Drew-I much would have preffered the title of midget moron photographer. :)

Perhaps that hits too close to home, but it's a stretch to say that his generic statement somehow harms ADE's VOD sales or yours.

his statement does not harm vod sales, piracy harms vod sales, if you go to the internet to watch movies you have choices, watch it on a pirate site or watch it through ADE, gamelink, Evil Angel, aebn.

I hope this topic doesnt get out of control, cuz i'm pretty much done with it....

"...Wanna copy my style go to kinkos..."

[Link]

I think this is an obnoxious practice and anyone who thinks it is going to deter piracy is just naiive. These watermarks are only going to annoy paying customers who either rent or purchase the disc. Pirates are not going to care one way or another. Watermarks basically serve as a ugly forced advertisment intended for pirates who already proved their relucance to pay for content. Legitimate customers don't need (or want) this type of intrusion.

I better update my review and warn readers of this lame practice.

-- Snowman

[Link]

I also understand that consumers do not want to see a watermark on the legal purchases they have made, which may or may not spoil their enjoyment of the movie.

What I do not understand is why watermarking a product makes it harder for a pirater? Evil Angel has a pretty good reputation in the adult movie business, from this forum (And I don't post or read other adult forums) I would have them in first equal spot with RLD as far as quality and customer service goes. So when Evil Angel puts a watermark on their product, does that not increase the value of the product for a pirater? Are they not now trading on Evil Angels reputation for making quality porn?

Anyway, I'm not an expert on the technical side of things, so maybe there is something I missed, if so feel free to enlighten me, it all seems rather confusing for me at the moment.

[Link]

The real benefit of the watermark is for a studio to hope they can convert the pirate into a paying customer. In other words, Porn fan downloads a copy of DivX, sees it is a Jules Jordan film and rushes to the video store to rent the real thing. Or immediately points his browser to Gamelink and orders it.

I admit this could happen in some cases, but the issue is whether or not it is worth annoying all one's regular customers who already know who released the movie. Plus, I suspect there's a lot of overlap between pirates and paying customers. Some pirates will never buy anything. Some customers will never view a pirate version. A very substantial group in the middle may do both.

This isn't about piracy, this is about advertising.

-- Snowman

[Link]

Don't Worry It's Just Me In The Bushes

[Link]

If these producers think that advertising their web site will prevent pirates, they're only fooling themselves.

As for Max Hardcore, his euro versions that have been released in Europe do not have the watermark.

[Link]

"...Wanna copy my style go to kinkos..."

[Link]

-- Snowman

[Link]

I don't want dozens and dozens of people out there who feel obligated to fast-forward through our DVDs to put up a review. And you just said yourself that you have a large backlog of screeners. I've made an educated guess that reviews do us the most good if they are posted in the first month (or two) of release.

As for the Flesh Hunter 2 issue, it was a problem with the replication company. We no longer use this company. We have a new batch in house that we use for exchanging the discs if someone's having a problem.

[Link]

These watermarks are only going to annoy paying customers who either rent or purchase the disc. Pirates are not going to care one way or another. Watermarks basically serve as a ugly forced advertisment intended for pirates who already proved their relucance to pay for content. Legitimate customers don't need (or want) this type of intrusion.

I better update my review and warn readers of this lame practice.

-- Snowman

so are you a paying customer snowman? I noticed you commented somewhere on Flesh Hunter 4, but made no mention of the watermark.
The reason I ask about screeners is, it seems that everything you watch is a screener, so for you and other reviewers who recieve screeners and comment as paying customers, I think is invalid.

I like your website, your reviews were some of the first I have ever discovered on the internet, and I do respect your opinion, Just a little healthy debate

[Link]

That's a pretty big assumption that everything I watch is a screener. What makes you think I review everything I watch? A more valid observation might be that most movies I review are screeners. I feel I should give reviewing priority to studios that are kind enough to screeners.

Also, there's a collaterial benefit of reviewing screeners -- it results in a greater variety of movies than I would otherwise watch if I was renting/purchasing them myself. For instance, I recently reviewed a movie by Full Blown Productions that was sent to me. Prior to that I never even heard of Full Blown and that's ashame because the disc has some excellent things about it. Same with Peach DVD. I certainly never would have rented some of the Vivid titles I have reviewed, but some of them are much better than expected.

In no way do I feel it is necessary to be a paying customer to comment critically on a movie. The ability to watch something, describe it and offer insight and opinion has little to do with the source of the material. Also, on my site, there are no guarantees that a screener *or* a rented/purchased movie will receive a high rating. I've seen plenty of stinkers of both varieties.

-- Snowman

[Link]

I also think it would be wise to try and visit all review sites on the web. It is some of the cheapest critical commentary and marketing research you will ever get. Furthermore, I strongly believe internet review sites can and do make a difference in everything from content to sales. This is especially true when the site is interactive with visitors. Companies that respond to the market will thrive. Those who ignore it will do so at their peril.

Judging by my affliate sale statistics, messages posted by viewers and e-mail, I have to disagree with your theory that reviews do the most good in the first month or two. If the porn fan's attention span and memory is that short, there would be no catalog sales. I see many sales generated by my site on titles I reviewed a long time ago. Also, I track the counters on my reviews and there is plenty of interest in older titles. Look at the resale market here on ADT for used titles, nearly always older product.

Another thing to consider is that a fresh review on an older product could give it a new bounce. This is true whether the movie is 2 months or 2 years old. There's so many titles released today, who can keep track of all of them. If I was a studio anytime my film was placed in the spotlight it would be welcome.

For sure, there are people who will only rent/purchase something brand new. In fact, the people who automatically gravitate to the new release section probably don't wait for reviews. They just want the "latest and greatest" or are on auto pilot, e.g. renting every new episode of More Dirty Debutantes regardless of who is in it.

However, there's probably equal numbers who wait for reviews to come out. I often see people posting messages saying "I'll wait until I read some more reviews about Movie X". Other people couldn't care less how old a movie is once they find out it contains certain starlets or acts that tickle their fancy.

-- Snowman

[Link]

Sorry, I don't mean to be pushy or anything, but nobody really answered my question above. Can someone please explain to me how watermarking a DVD makes it harder to pirate, because it seeems to me that a watermark from a company with a reputation like EA would simply add value to the pirated product.

I am honestly curious as to what the for and against arguments are.

[Link]

This thread probably holds the answers you're looking for.

Mike L.

[Link]

This wouldn't be a place to debate: whether people like them or not, the reasons that they exist, etc... It would just be a list of titles, either listed alphabetically by manufacturer or in ascending order by date added to the list of titles that contain images on the screen that don't belong there and can't be turned off.

People could post additions, and I would copy those addtions into the first post of the thread in order to make the list easy to read.

As well as the types of watermarks that we have been discussing here, this would include the Vivid Angle logo (for titles where it can't be disabled), the RLD menu that appeared on some discs a few months ago, early A&E titles that contianed a "Hot Shot" logo that couldn't be disabled, etc...).

What does everyone think about keeping a list like this, and in which forum do you think it would belong?

[Link]

Mike L.

Edited by - MLyons on 3/29/2003 11:01:46 AM

[Link]

If it is decided that Tech Talk is the appropriate place, that would be good because I would be able to do this housekeeping without having to rely on the assistance of other moderators.

That shouldn't be the primary factor in deciding where to put it, but it could eventually be the deciding factor.

[Link]

I do have to say that I don't think watermarking is a black and white issue for everybody. One thing that occurs to me is that readers might benefit from an example pic of each watermark, as some are likely to be more intrusive than others. I know we've got this whole DMCA copyright thing going, but surely this falls under education.

[Link]

I have a feeling though that within a year or two you may have to list just about every release.

[Link]

War never solved anything
...except Slavery, Nazi's and the Taliban.

[Link]