The reason you got that DVD for $20 isn't because it cost $20 to create the content. It costs thousands, if not more, to create the content. It costs you $20 to acquire a copy because it is a copy and sold with the understanding that you won't use it as a master. That is to say, you won't enter into competition with the author as a provider of said content. As I said, and you predictably ignored, you turned your copy into a master, so you cannot claim that you haven't deprived the creator of anything. Well, you can claim it, but only because you're a liar or a fool. Furthermore, there wasn't any "agreement" between the purchasers and the content creator on what was to be done with the content once it is purchased. Good luck arguing that point with the judge. There's an implicit agreement which is stated at the beginning of every porn movie - you should watch it sometime. Granted, the notice depends on your good faith, an obvious mistake, but so does any contract. Since, as they say, the proof is in the pudding you would do well to consider that the law does not support your position. I'm sorry to tell you it isn't because they fail to recognize your genius, either. And furthermore, what is to be considered a "reasonable" return on an investment is highly subjective. A "reasonable" return on investment is not highly subjective; far from it. A reasonable return on investment is the investment itself plus a large enough profit to allow the author to stay in business. Since the position you are arguing for doesn't even allow for the author to recoup his investment, we don't need to bother examining what a reasonable profit is. It's a matter of consistency and being non-hypocritical. I would think such concepts would be apparent. If your logic had any merit they might be. The fact that everybody involved in the system agrees that you are ripping it off might be a clue that it doesn't.
[Link]
x3094 Deactivated User
46 Posts 5/09
Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 5:40PM
Do you usually turn to ad hominems when your arguments fail to persuade someone? And I'll explain this once more since you failed to see it during the times when I previously typed it: the author still has their "master" when a copy is made therefore the copy made doesn't deprive them of the original.As previously stated a reasonable return on an investment is highly subjective. To some it might be a 105% return on the initial investment and to others it might be a 300% return on the initial investment. Or it could possibly be another percentage. So yes it's highly subjective. To pretend otherwise is to willfully ignore reality.In point of fact it is a matter of consistency and being non-hypocritical. If a group wishes to cite hypothetical lost profits as a reason to justify asking the government to protect their profits then they shouldn't complain when that same government seeks to regulate the same industry. And as previously stated government involvement isn't a pick and choose situation. There are those who should understand that basic reality. Edited by - x3094 on 8/22/2010 6:03:24 PM
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 6:16PM
Times have changed and to be truly successful, people have to change with it. Gone are the days that most people go to a video store as evident by Blockbuster stores drying up. We now have; Netflix, Redbox, and Blockbuster machines everywhere. The funny thing is; within all the posts about copying porn illegally, no mention is made of any sort of copyright protections on the disks. Yes it would only slow someone down who has the capacity to override the protections, but it'd be a start. Create a demand for the product. As an example, it seems that at each Porn Expo held around the country, thousands of people show up to meet and greet the girls. Sell the DVDs at the booth and have the girl sign them there. Companies have contract girls for a reason, use them. I could almost guarantee that if ZT sent out a press saying that the only place to get a copy of Kagney Linn doing an I/R DP would be at such a such location, price it to move and have her sign the box, and it'd fly off the shelf. Another idea would be a company booking all of the Speigler girls for one complete release. Have the girls all do something they might not normally do and have a Spieglerpolloza type of sale and signing at AEE. Put out decent material that people want and not the same old same old B/G scene time and time again.
Thanks for the laugh. You're not in any position to be complaining about debate tactics. However, for those readers who actually have a brain, I'll demolish that complaint, as well. To whit, it is only an ad hominem if I attack you instead of attacking your argument. I'm not attacking you in order to dissuade anybody from the force of your argument because your argument has no force. It's a joke. You either have no interest in being persuaded, in which case you can spare us the crocodile tears, or you're too ignorant to realize that your arguments are illogical and inconsistent. In short, you're either a fool or a liar. And I'll explain this once more since you failed to see it during the times when I previously typed it: the author still has their "master" when a copy is made therefore the copy made doesn't deprive them of the original. When you address the point that I made instead of the point you want everybody to think that I made I might bother to respond. On the other hand, you're a fool or a liar, so it probably isn't worth it.
That second quote is the edited version. Originally I believe it said master copy, not "master".
[Link]
x3094 Deactivated User
46 Posts 5/09
Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 8:20PM
You were saying? And it's usually a sign that someone can't debate properly or they realize their argument has utterly failed when they start using ad hominems.
Thanks. In case people don't know, a master is what is used to make copies from. It was the master because it was done on material which allowed one to make multiple copies from it without loss of quality. Obviously, the digital revolution made every copy a potential master, which is why some people saw the pirates coming way back when digital was introduced, but the point is that the owner of the copyright is the only one entitled to make copies for distribution. Fair use allows me to make copies for myself, not to give to friends, neighbors and strangers on the internet.
[Link]
TheDreamPolice Deactivated User
170 Posts 2/10
Posted - Aug 22 2010 : 10:24PM
This. As I said early in this thread, the industry is going to have to change it's business model.
I think he attempted to make his point and cannot defend it. Stealing cannot be defended in this society effectively. To me posting a porno online is the same as stealing my car out of my driveway! I will assume that most of the people viewing on these websites are ignorant of what damage the tubes and their online viewing habits are doing to the very industry that provides the movies they enjoy so much. IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIES, BUY THEM FIRST!!!!! SAVE PORN STARS JOBS!!!!! Otherwise the industry will not exist in five years. I am old enough to remember porn in the late 50's and 60's, they were shoddily made and not very fun to watch many times. The quality of the camera and tape used was very poor as they did not have much of a budget to work with. I even rented a DVD of porn movies from that time recently and lets just say I like today's porn much better. If people insist upon watching porn online for free, in five years porn will be back to square one as it was in 1960 and no one will like it!
I'm not here, this isn't happening! 2571 Posts 6/04
Posted - Aug 24 2010 : 5:02AM
Xou've made some good points here. The industry should be more creative in distribution. Another example would be to hide coupons for a meet and greet inside the DVD-box. Let's say in every 1000th DVD case, there is a coupon for having dinner with a girl performing in this DVD. Instead of calling everyone who downloads illegal a thief, porn producers should be more creative to actually retain customers.
Main thing you all need to realize is that most people in the adult industry aren't really interested in stopping piracy. If they were they wouldn't be pushing half-assed "solutions" that are nothing but money grabs for lawyers and certain trade organizations. They wouldn't be pushing the "sue the downloader" programs that the RIAA gave up on years ago. They wouldn't be pushing a tube-only program that costs studios hundreds and hundreds of dollars and removes 10 clips. They wouldn't just be listening to so-called "experts" who are only experts because they put out a press release touting themselves as an expert. They wouldn't all be in bed with those companies financing piracy. They wouldn't be doing a lot of the things they are doing now. When I explained how easy it is to get 10s of 1000s of your videos removed from torrent sites and cyberlockers, one studio person asked me, "but that wouldn't actually be making us any money". That's how short-sighted and out-of-touch studio people are. They actually think getting 1% of downloaders to settle for chump change will make them money, versus prohibiting 10s of 1000s of people from being able to access your content in the first place. When I explained that the best thing studios could do to combat piracy would be to make your content legally available in every format and in every country since a LOT of the downloaders are simply people who have no legitimate way to access your content - they looked at me with blank stares. When I suggested they stop doing business with the same companies that are putting money into the pockets of content thieves - well that's a politics thing and no one in the adult industry has the balls to call anyone else out out of fear that you might one day do $10 of business with that person. There is no blacklist in porn. Does the adult industry want to stop piracy? It's become a campaign slogan to them, empty gestures, missed opportunities and no action.
First, I can't see producers contracting with performers to go out to dinner with some unknown guy at some unknown time in the future at some unknown place. Well, there are probably some gals who would sign the contract, but that doesn't mean they'd show up. Second, creativity has nothing to do with the downloading problem. How often do you get up in the morning and say, "I'm going to the store to buy something I have no use for"? Yet again, the people downloading the material already think it has value, they just don't want to pay for it. All this talk about "I'd pay for it if only..." is just self-delusional bullshit.
The WSJ, the most widely circulated newspaper in the country, has managed to effectively create a paid online business model for their content. Their content is just as stealable as anyone else's. It's all about how you sell your content.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Aug 24 2010 : 4:13PM
Oh, so all the porn companies have to do is be acquired by a guy with some of the deepest pockets in the world, and somehow make fuck flix a must-view for everybody who wears a tie to work. Oh, and get the government to let subscribers write off the monthly fees as an ordinary and necessary business expense. Simple.
No one has ever been charged in criminal court. It's as one poster noted above. It is difficult or impossible to prove damage/loss. People have been hit with ridiculously high civil penalties and it hasn't seemed to slow them down. As a matter of fact the last one, a single mother hit with 30,000 for each of her eighteen downloaded songs garnered a lot of public sympathy. I sympathized because the court over reached in concert with the corporation by seeking to use her case as a warning to all. That isn't within the courts purview. It smacks of fascism.
Wielding a sword without fear of it is to be unworthy of the blade. 1441 Posts 5/10
Posted - Aug 24 2010 : 6:18PM
Hardware wrote: ....Yet again, the people downloading the material already think it has value, they just don't want to pay for it. All this talk about "I'd pay for it if only..." is just self-delusional bullshit. [/quote] I agree 100%. Crimson Rain...What A Sight
Wielding a sword without fear of it is to be unworthy of the blade. 1441 Posts 5/10
Posted - Aug 24 2010 : 6:23PM
^^Right is right and wrong is wrong. People know right from wrong and regardless of the argument you know it's stealing period. Crimson Rain...What A Sight Edited by - THICK_LOVA54 on 8/24/2010 6:24:56 PM
[Link]
x3094 Deactivated User
46 Posts 5/09
Posted - Aug 24 2010 : 7:54PM
Well I made my point, namely that copying content that is purchased doesn't deprive the content owner of their content, which is common sense and thus isn't equivalent to depriving someone of physical property. The other poster by contrast realizing that their argument failed to convince resorted to the debating technique of a child: name calling. As for the industry, it's not going anywhere and will continue to remain highly profitable for many decades, just as other content industries will be such as the book, movie, and music industries, and will do so in the face of filesharing, demonstrating that hysterical pronouncements from some that this or that industry will go under because of filesharing will never materialize.
So how do you feel when someone makes a knock-off Gucci bag with the Gucci logo and sells and markets it as a Gucci bag even though it isn't. In your world Gucci has nothing to complain about. Also, the content isn't being purchased. No one here is decrying people making personal copies as backups and if that were all that was happening we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. You're trying to find the one legitimate usage out of millions and use that as the basis for saying it's alright. When you distribute content you aren't in the "personal use backup" category anymore - you're a distributor distributing stolen 'goods' and you should be treated no differently. But this whole "is it theft or isn't it" debate is pointless and it's just another misdirection to try and justify illegal behavior...it's copyright infringement...I defy you to show me that it's not.
