19072 Members
14 Forums
40358 Topics
614269 Posts
Max Online: 1680 @ 12/05/25 07:10 AM
|
|
|
#381078 - 12/23/08 08:07 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
Dan, help me understand.
You said, "Nothing can be illegally downloaded unless it is first uploaded." Don't the pirates get DVDs and copy the content into formats that can be shared on the internet? Or is there a near foolproof way to prevent that?
That they do...my proposed system would work with 'hard copy' items like DVD (and I would suppose Blu-Ray too), but my measure is designed for a business model wherein the producer is the sole retailer...they may produce DVDs, but they will be the only ones selling that DVD. Ergo, no third-party stores carrying the product. You have to know exactly who has purchased/downloaded what...because when someone buys from a brick and mortar store, Evil Angel has no idea who has their product, neither does Warner Bros., ergo tracking them becomes almost an impossibility. One upload gets downloaded multiple times, re-uploaded, etc, etc. Once it is out there, it is impossible to keep track of, hence the onus is on identifying and plugging the leaks...permanently.
Quote:
Your example discusses a $7.50 scene. I don't know of many scenes I'd pay $7.50 for, certainly not for downloaded quality.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing when you stay on for a second month...of course, the $7.50 figure presupposes a single weekly update...some sites add a lot more, some a lot less.
As for not paying $7.50 for a scene, what if it was something you really wanted to watch? I normally throw out a hypothetical (and thoroughly implausible) 'white whale' scenario such as an Aria Giovanni or Erica Campbell boy/girl scene. Talent that can bring a fan following could probably get $20-30 for a scene (lots of people join websites for just one scene/girl because there is no other way to get the scene otherwise, so people will pay these sums if forced).
However, such popularity is a double-edged sword. If the producer offers an inflated fee, piracy may stop him getting his money back. If he offers the model profit participation, piracy may dent profits to such an extent that it wasn't really worthwhile doing it in the first place. These little pirate arseholes want to be the first one to drop the new scenes on their adoring public, and with popular girls the demand from the leechers will be high...just look at Sunny Leone's b/g debut, which I believe was available to fileshare less than 48 hours after it streeted (possibly less than that...I wasn't really looking for it).
What I'd like to see is a system whereby the more popular girls make money commensurate to their status rather than just a flat fee. If Sasha Grey sells 100 times more than Leah Luv, she should get 100 times the money too. Not only is it fairer, but I believe it will only serve to improve the quality of talent coming in as well. However, if you can't nip piracy in the bud, royalties and the like become a moot point...it may turn out that Leah Luv sells 100 times more than Sasha Grey because she is less popular and thus less pirated. Strange but true.
Quote:
If there is a way to implement protection of DVD content, could producers delay internet release until DVD sales of a title have been realized, then release on the internet pay site? Kinda like a mainstream movie going from theatre to rental to pay-per-view to cable?
With my system, I see it being the other way around, with DVD being the tertiary stage/end of the content's product lifecycle. Let's say I'm putting out a movie with six scenes...I put three up as pay-per-clip, then release the DVD (or a full movie download) with all six scenes (if, say, a feature), then, after a predetermined period (12 months, maybe?), I put up the other three scenes for individual download. DVD is more of a grey area in that whilst there are legal remedies for people who would redistribute digital content, I don't know if there is any law, or if a binding contract could be drawn up wherein resale of a DVD was prohibited. Personally, I'm far more likely to buy a physical product than join a website or watch PPV/VOD if the same content is involved, purely because if I don't like the movie or magazine, I can sell it on and recoup my money. You can't do that with electronic media...and, to make a comic book analogy, nobody is going to give you thousands of dollars for a pdf of 'Amazing Fantasy #15'.
Quote:
They said radio would ruin baseball, but it made more fans come out to the ballpark. I don't know what that has to do with this, but there must be a way to make this work.
Porn has never been more popular or mainstream than it is right now, but rampant piracy is preventing the studios and talent from being able to properly monetize this popularity.
My reading of the situation is that bigger, 'couples-friendly' outfits that specialise mainly in features or 'high end' stuff will be alright, but it's the interchangeable gonzo outfits that are going to be taking the pounding. Feature buyers tend to want the whole package, raincoaters just want one scene. As I am continually pointing out to tritone (to little avail), there is a reason for the dichotomy in what gets made and what he wants to see get made, and that's purely because the smarter producers are tailoring and aiming thir products at a paying audience. There is a vast 'silent majority' of porn buyers that don't post on ADT, hence the discrepancy in who/what the fanbois think is hot and what actually shifts the most units. In the real world, stuff like 'Island Fever' trumps 'Fuck My Gaping Shithole 'Til It Bleeds' every time. Hotel PPV, softcore versions for cable, stuff sold via the Adam & Eve catalog (remember: you can't get dildos, lube and lingerie via BitTorrent)...revenue streams that very few gonzo producers can tap in to.
Quote:
I really like having fresh content I can play on DVD, and I like to go to a site and download a shitload of scenes in a month, so I am having it both ways now. But, really, most sites I join are only worth about what I pay.
Most internet sites will inherently lack the quality of some of the more professional photographers and videographers out there...just look at Holly Randall's mini-rant about how fucking inane the websites she joined were. The advent of digital cameras and the dawn of the web have served to both lower the bar for entry and level the field...any fucking idiot with a 3-ccd camcorder and Final Cut can be a pornographer these days, it seems. Again, this has further served to devalue the content.
Quote:
The pinnacle of porn for me is getting a new Gag Factor DVD in the mailbox, and I don't think that will change.
...as I said in a previous thread, props to you! I don't know whether you order direct from JM or not, but they make the most money that way, so it's the best way to support their gag-related endeavours. I have a bunch of non-porn stuff that I have ordered from the creators (books, CDs, DVDs) and I find you get a really personal service, and sometimes a cheaper price to boot!
Quote:
I think another factor is that no one else gives a damn if I have a bookcase full of porno DVDs. For some, the computer files are a lot easier to keep discretely. Dunno the answer there.
True, but those files have got to go somewhere, and at the rate that file sizes are increasing due to the introduction of HD, you know need more discs to burn those scenes onto, or more portable hard drives. A lot of people like to just remove the sleeve and disc from a DVD case and file it away somewhere...me, I've got stuff like Slaughter Disc (indie horror with Caroline Pierce doing hardcore scenes), Dark Angels (currently sat in between From Dusk Till Dawn and Anchor Bay's Box of Blood collection, and not looking at all out of place), and tons of Misty Mundae stuff mixed in with my mainstream DVD collection for all to see...if I owned stuff like Succubus, Black Worm, or some high end Euro features like Pink'O's The Order or The Specialist, they'd be in there too. Unless the movie is called something like 'Cum Craving Co-Ed Cock Guzzlers', then I don't see the problem...'Gag Factor' is probably not the sort of thing you can leave lying around, but then I sincerely doubt Jeff would want it any other way!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381079 - 12/23/08 09:20 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 01/12/05
Posts: 7322
Loc: The Children's Limbo
|
Quote:
Nothing can be illegally downloaded unless it is first uploaded. Producers, both in porn and mainstream, need to focus their efforts away from the downloaders and onto the uploaders. Once you've stopped the uploaders, then there will be no downloaders. Killergram apparently have some sort of unique user ID/content-tagging system in play, but I have no idea whether this is a mere bluff or actually true. I'm currently working on a content-tagging method of my own, so I know it to be possible, but I have no idea whether the Killergram system (if real) works along the same lines as what I have devised. My method is labour-intensive, but undetectable, and applicable to a variety of file types such as jpegs, pdfs, mpegs, mp3s, etc.
This was actually attempted by Fox. I believe 4 or 5 years ago, they found out someone working at one of their offices was a source for a lot of screeners showing up online. So they added a digital stamp to every screener unique to who was getting it (actors, producers, directors) as well as unique to the plant it came from.
A girl was sending these DVDs to some guy in New York (express mail). This guy would then compress the DVD and send it to a guy in Germany who then put it up on the web via a site in Sweden. Sweden happens to have l33t speeds (10mbit to 100mbit)so it's express packaged again but more importantly, sending it to Europe was basically like sending your shit to the future- so you woke up and a film that just got released in theaters a few hours ago is already up online.
I don't remember exactly why this chick wasn't arrested, but she started working for another company owned by FOX for a while before getting her own show- ironically about exposing stuff that's online- like the newest crazes. It's more or less a trade magazine TV show for the internet. This should be clear proof for you: it's not what you know but who you know.
One thing I found really cute was that the group she was involved in actually thanked everyone who helped "work on" each release they did. They'd give each other accolades and even shout-out their family and friends, and use l33t speak to acknowledge more shit they were working on.
Anyhoo, that whole digital stamping didn't really work. Infact, you'd be surprised how blu-ray and HD media has made it easier to go around the whole digital stamp measures. What most of these people don't realize is that tubesites and torrent sites are just filtered down versions of where the real problem lies. The people uploading porn to a tubesites download this from some other place first- hence the variety in kwality. Going after these sites is really like going after the petty drug dealer on a bike. The real problem on your hands are a small group of people that have banded together to sell servers for the soul purpose of "sharing". The kicker: there are close to 300 of these "small groups".
And to the person who suggested DDoS their server: No. Nothing would be more frowned upon than a legitimate industry resorting to such childish activity because nobody called the waaaambulance.
BTW: anyone notice at the very bottom of XPT it says:
© 2003-2007
XXX PORN TALK
Update?
_________________________
I hit her with the hammer on top of the head. She made a lot of noise and kept on making noise, so I hit her again.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381081 - 12/23/08 09:41 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
Gag Factor Guru
Porn Jesus
Registered: 07/15/05
Posts: 5290
Loc: Dayton
|
Well, thanks for the dose of reality. I can point out some concerns with what I think you propose, but with only one thin suggestion, I hate to do that. Tracking us raincoaters may have a lot of issues, first being we won't like it. And who are you going to get to bust down my door, when my digitally marked DVD scene hits the 'net? If you just hit the big guys, that will become a $hifting target. I don't see any political upside to the Po-po helping you whack these moles. Which may be the hole in my thin suggestion - to benchmark other industries. But I'm sure folks are already doing that. Or beat the scumbags at their own game, by making good content that is just starting to get stale, available for free or nearly free. Maybe I'll shill more for owning the DVD, and talk shit to shitty people who watch shitty downloaded porn on their shitty monitors. Quote:
With my system, I see it being the other way around, with DVD being the tertiary stage/end of the content's product lifecycle. Let's say I'm putting out a movie with six scenes...I put three up as pay-per-clip, then release the DVD (or a full movie download) with all six scenes (if, say, a feature), then, after a predetermined period (12 months, maybe?), I put up the other three scenes for individual download.
That works for me. I think JM is kinda doing that now, I can get a couple of the scenes from the upcoming Gag Factor off the pay site before I can buy the DVD. Yeah, I buy straight from JM, and keep a membership there mostly to support them. But the previews and the early scenes are a factor in my staying there. I must say, the scenes look, and do what I want porno to do, a lot better, when played on my TV off DVD.
Quote:
In the real world, stuff like 'Island Fever' trumps 'Fuck My Gaping Shithole 'Til It Bleeds' every time. Hotel PPV, softcore versions for cable, stuff sold via the Adam & Eve catalog (remember: you can't get dildos, lube and lingerie via BitTorrent)...revenue streams that very few gonzo producers can tap in to.
Yep, I'm out of the mainstream on every damn thing, even porno. But Jesus Christ, when I sit down at night and want to watch something to excite me, the last thing I want to do is try to see how cheap I can be.
I bought a new Winnebago last year, and my research showed the majority of quality manufacturers going under. Chinook, Bigfoot, Sunline, the list goes on - these high end RV companies are gone. Few people demand quality, but I plan to live in this thing and bounce it down Forest Service roads. Cheap stuff held together with staples and glue sell to the weekend/2 weeks a year crowd. Prospective full-timers are left with few options.
Ya need more nerdly nutscratchers like me who can make money doing tech work, maybe ya'll can advertise in Wired or something. I'll help you set up shop here at the big Hamvention in May...
Thanks again, but honestly, I feel like I just got a peek at how sausage is made.
Best of luck,
-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381082 - 12/24/08 05:00 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
Ahem- not exactly sure how this is going to work. Youporn relies on it's dedicated uploaders to keep feeding them with content which in turn gives them an audience. So are you saying buy youporn then kill the uploaders?
No, I'm saying impose a lifetime ban on the original uploader. If they knew unequivocally that the very least consequence of their actions would be a lifetime ban from the site whose content they uploaded, plus maybe the same treatment from a whole slew of other sites once they have been identified and blacklisted, then they may decide it's simply not worth all the kudos from a bunch of faceless, zitty gimps online or wherever and decide not to do it. Then there's the aspect of damages...before a customer can join a site and download content, they should have to agree to a clause whereby if proven to have uploaded content, they pay a fixed fee for each instance of it being illegally downloaded. If 100 people download your uploaded clip off of Rapidshare, and you're liable for, say, $100 for each download, then things can get pretty costly pretty quick.
Personally, I'd be more in favour of making the figure a lot higher, like $1,000 or more, simply because whilst you can identify the primary uploader or leak, positively identifying the secondary uploaders (people who downloaded the original file then re-uploaded it elsewheres) is a lot more difficult. It's the damage to potential future earnings that must be taken into account, because once the content is out there, it's out there for good, and the content owner is no longer the exclusive source of that product, ergo sales and profits will take a hit.
Youporn cannot exist without uploaders...you scare off the uploaders, and Youporn will get pretty stale, pretty fast.
Quote:
What exactly does that do but force the community to another source of the desired media? If they can't get it from youporn, they will get it somewhere else.
Honest answer: Hey, as long as they're not stealing from me.
If an industry blacklist is created, they'll soon run out of sites to join, and move on to filesharing other stuff that's not porn. Try to imagine a world wherein an entity like Warner Bros., Disney, Universal, etc. exists solely online and is able to outright ban anyone who has shared their content illegally from ever purchasing their products ever again.
If illegally uploading 'The Dark Knight' meant that you could never buy another Warner Bros. film, record, book, magazine, DC Comic or any related ancilliary merchandise, I think people would tend to think twice about doing it.
What the industry needs is some sort of effective trade organisation that can share the blacklist around, so that uploaders know that if they rip off Vivid, then it won't just be Vivid than bans them but a whole slew of other websites as well. Once the bans start to bite, you're going to get a whole lot of people 'requesting' content off of people who can still get access, and is it really worth losing your access status to appease a bunch of shut-in fucktards? I think not. Sure, this might lead to an upsurge in hacking attempts or password cracking, but you should be vigilant against these anyway.
The industry also needs to organise and clamp down on affiliate programs which sustain these forums or tube sites...Brazzers is a prime example, as is Adult Friend Finder. Stop supporting them or find yourself shut out of everything. How far would Brazzers get if they were told:
'No, you can't use our agency because you're on the blacklist'
'We won't review your products because you're on the blacklist'
No, you can't get a booth at the convention because you're on the blacklist'
'No, we won't run your ad because you're on the blacklist'
'We won't process your transactions because you're on the blacklist'
...not very far, I'd wager. Not that it will ever happen because the industry lacks the required leadership, but you can see how it would work. Alas, most are far too short-sighted to hold their nerve when there is a wad of bills being waved in front of them, and thus inaction and laissez-faire are the order of the day.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381083 - 12/24/08 05:28 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
Tracking us raincoaters may have a lot of issues, first being we won't like it. And who are you going to get to bust down my door, when my digitally marked DVD scene hits the 'net?
No door bustin' required...maybe they'll get served with a subpoena for damages, but I still think the most effective tactic is identifying the bad apples and banning them for life. Sharing the knowledge is essential...they won't be doing it to site A (and related sites in the family), but they will inevitably move on and try and do it to site B. If they're on the list, site B simply stops them from joining, as does site C, D, etc.
Quote:
If you just hit the big guys, that will become a $hifting target. I don't see any political upside to the Po-po helping you whack these moles.
Doesn't matter if they're big or small...the crime is the same, as is the solution. If we only proceed with banning portion of my proposed approach and forego the seeking of damages via legal means, then there's no need for the Po-Po to be involved whatsoever.
Quote:
Or beat the scumbags at their own game, by making good content that is just starting to get stale, available for free or nearly free.
That's one way of doing it...martial arts author Ashida Kim is in dispute with a number of publishers regarding royalties for his book 'Secrets Of The Ninja', so he has decided to fuck with their program and stop them making money by making the book available for free on his own website! You can download it HERE...as Kim says: 'Steal this book...everyone else has!'.
Would such an approach work for adult? I don't think so...tube and torrent sites make money off of ads, but then they don't have to worry about breaking even with the production costs of the material which attracts the surfer in the first place. If a start-up company launched a tube site with content that it produced and paid for, then I believe that their business model would be doomed to fail. Any industry-savvy folk care to hazard a guess at exactly how much the content on one of these tube sites is worth in terms of what it cost to produce?
The other drawback is that mainstream advertisers want nothing to do with porn, because it often leads to them getting boycotted and/or picketed by religious or 'family' groups. If Wicked put out a film wherein Stormy says she only blows guys who drive American cars, will it turnaround the fortunes of the Big Three? We'll probably never know. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381084 - 12/24/08 06:15 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Ed Hardy Wearing Loser
Registered: 03/28/08
Posts: 40
Loc: U.A.E
|
Quote:
So William if you wanted to do all that stuff you better have $3million in your bank account to keep you alive after all of your cost and slow sells because of piracy at tube sites.You would be lucky to survive being in business for more then 4 years.
i understand ur point , but i don't agree with the 3million cost that ur claming , if it is right in what u say no company will be running ! , it is like saying R&B singers don't make money ! ...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381085 - 12/24/08 11:34 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 01/12/05
Posts: 7322
Loc: The Children's Limbo
|
Quote:
No, I'm saying impose a lifetime ban on the original uploader. If they knew unequivocally that the very least consequence of their actions would be a lifetime ban from the site whose content they uploaded, plus maybe the same treatment from a whole slew of other sites once they have been identified and blacklisted, then they may decide it's simply not worth all the kudos from a bunch of faceless, zitty gimps online or wherever and decide not to do it. Then there's the aspect of damages...before a customer can join a site and download content, they should have to agree to a clause whereby if proven to have uploaded content, they pay a fixed fee for each instance of it being illegally downloaded. If 100 people download your uploaded clip off of Rapidshare, and you're liable for, say, $100 for each download, then things can get pretty costly pretty quick.
I'm not exactly sure if you read my first post, but if you think getting rid of youporn will solve your problems you obviously have no idea what your up against. Banning the uploaders from these sites will do nothing but force them to another site or have them change their method of supply.
And maybe this thing about paying a fixed fee for each instance of illegal downloading helps you sleep better at night, but that's just as hopeless as the guys that decided to buy napster and start charging for every download made. It's not happening pal because your problems are not as simple as a webpage with streaming pr0n.
Quote:
If an industry blacklist is created, they'll soon run out of sites to join, and move on to filesharing other stuff that's not porn.
You've got to be kidding me. Do you honestly think it's as simple as that? "Damn, I've been blacklisted from youporn and megaupload, guess I'll just stick to mp3s." Good one mate. Enjoy Christmas.
_________________________
I hit her with the hammer on top of the head. She made a lot of noise and kept on making noise, so I hit her again.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381086 - 12/29/08 05:01 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Loop, we appear to have got our wires crossed somewhere along the line...I am not proposing to ban/blacklist people from using tubes, torrents, filesharers/hosts, P2Ps etc (which would be impossible to enforce, anyways), but instead banning them from joining paysites. If they cannot access the content, they cannot upload it. It's as simple as that. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381087 - 12/29/08 05:12 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Pervert
Registered: 12/26/07
Posts: 2056
|
Pirates don't buy memberships, they simply hack the websites.
_________________________
"If you keep making fun of me, I might just get pissed and not post on here anymore. Start taking me seriously. I'm a student now" Fatja
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381088 - 12/29/08 09:52 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Porn Fucking Master
Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 3509
Loc: Pit of Despair
|
Piracy will never be stopped. The industries involved can throw as much money as they want at the problem and it won't make any difference in the long run. The challenge to beat the actions put in place to stop piracy are incentive enough for most of the people/groups participating in delivering the pirated content to continue playing the game.
_________________________
Fap, Fap, Fap
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381089 - 12/29/08 08:19 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
Bukkake Boy
Registered: 01/02/04
Posts: 698
Loc: CA
|
You guys make some good points but here's the thing - and I've been bitching about it for years and still nobody is listening.
1) The biggest 'pirates' out there are the VOD sites. Their distribution agreements authorize them to take any content they see fit and use it for marketing purposes. As long as there is no direct payment, they don't owe the content producers royalties.
2) Content producers are lazy. When I started out in VOD in 1999 I tried to sell the software directly to the producers and not one of them wanted to run their own VOD. The same pretty much holds true today. Almost every content producer out there is inking (bad) deals with the very companies that are infringing their copyrights. Until producion companies cut out the third party VOD providers they will never stop piracy.
3) Flat rate websites need to be run like a cable channel. The problem is, consumers won't pay for it because they don't have to - the porn is already free.
Until the industry decides to change the business model, it will keep being a blood bath. Until then, I'll just sit here with the software in the can waiting to see who's left standing.
PS: I like Holly's morals. I won't download shit for free either.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381090 - 12/30/08 05:57 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
2) Content producers are lazy. When I started out in VOD in 1999 I tried to sell the software directly to the producers and not one of them wanted to run their own VOD. The same pretty much holds true today. Almost every content producer out there is inking (bad) deals with the very companies that are infringing their copyrights. Until producion companies cut out the third party VOD providers they will never stop piracy.
So true...I'm surprised how much of a percentage a lot of these content owners are willing to give up just so they don't have to set up their own VOD service.
Lazy people take the worst pains, as the saying goes...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381092 - 12/31/08 03:07 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
AC Cream Wannabe
Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 589
|
Quote:
1) If a country does not have sympathetic copyright laws, simply don't do business/accept members from those countries. Yes, you'll be losing a little money, but I believe you'll save more in the long run.
This assumes the downloader of the content is the same entity as the host which later distributes them, which is very often (or even always) not the case.
Quote:
2) Change you business model...the $30 a month smorgasbord is of no use to anyone. Move over to a pay-per-clip business model.
I disagree with statement. Look at a huge conglomerate site like BangBros. They have maybe 20 sub-sites. Judging by the trailers they publish on their website, I frequently find a trailer from one sub-site interesting one week, and reject the trailer from that sub-site the next week. But because there are multiple sub-sites to choose from, I could still theoretically find value on a given week because of the range and selection offered.
I know from personal experience, and from talking to others (and seeing posts on here) that many people have joined given paysites because of a single trailer they saw, found little else of interest once logged in, but still felt they got value for their money from that one or two hot scenes. With large sites containing many sub-sites, or with many scenes in their library, users of varying tastes can poke around and find something they personally enjoy amongst the collections.
Quote:
If a $30 a month site adds 1 new scene every week, then the nominal price of those scenes is $7.50. A site that has been going for two years and updating weekly will have 104 scenes on it. To buy these scenes individually at the nominal $7.50 value would cost $780, but the brain trusts that run these sites think 'Hey! Let's give away content with a retail value of $780 for $30!'.
My understanding is that the consumer of the product DOES NOT pick a site they like, wait for it to exist for multiple years, and then attempt to do a mass export of all data found within a single 30-day membership period.
Rather, they join a site when they see a theme or scene they like, they pull scenes down when they browse something that interests them, and then pull their pants down and take matters into their own hands.
My experience also informs that the average porn consumer loads up the website in order to access the content each time, thus making membership seem mandatory. Sure, there's always been a percentage of hoarders who store everything first before watching it, and the prevalence of multi-hundred gigabyte hard drives becoming dirt cheap over the past year have made it easier for the average joe to accumulate and maintain bulk local copies.
In addition, unless they're using site scraping tools with their membership credentials, HTTP makes it inefficient to download mass quantities of large files spread throughout a page layout. Most media companies tune the webservers to open a (small) maximum number of connections to a host, such as would be needed by a human watching a movie or browsing a site, not a spider app trying to download 78 movies at once. My point is, for a lot of users, they come back because they think they need to.
Hell, if they're in any way technically savvy, they likely already know how to obtain the content illegally anyways. In that case, if they're being good copyright citizens, maybe they subscribe in order to support the site owner, but obtain their copies of the content from the pirated sources -- everyone wins in that case. The user gets the content, the provider gets paid, and (as one side effect) the provider also benefits from a lower bandwidth bill because the user got their copy from another channel. This type of behavior is exactly what many users reported doing with the recent Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails "name your own price" download promotions, when they paid to support the artist, but the download facilities were initially overwhelmed.
Quote:
How many units are you going to need to shift at 40 cents to break even or make a profit with regards to the production costs? Also, bear in mind that the above is a highly simplified example that assumes the website receives the whole $30, when the reality is that their billing processor (and possibly an affiliate) will need to take their cut. My hypothetical example is the most blue-sky you can get...the reality is a lot worse.
On the bigger sites containing multitude of niches, the more popular ones can subsidize production of the less popular ones. The same content can also be repackaged -- shot for the web, sold on membership/dvd/web ppv/hotel ppv. The membership numbers also typically operate as a floating curve, much like you see in other business models, such as consumer internet usage, unlimited phone minutes, etc. Some people join each month, some people quit each month. Of the ones joined at any given time, some of them download nothing, some download everything; most download a small amount. In my experience, the majority of members aren't maxing out their privileges.
I've also seen some sites enforcing download maximum limits per 24 hour period.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381093 - 12/31/08 05:54 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
I don't see how that would work either. They can find a source to get the material for them (most do anyway). They can use a proxy or etunnel to a website.
Ultimately, my system won't be about who uploads it, but who supplies it to the uploader. Proxies are neither here nor there, as the clip itself will identify the purchaser or 'leak'.
Quote:
Are you presuming these people get access to the material legally then just share it? 
Believe it or not, some actually do, and those are the ones I'll be targetting with the current project. Sure, passwords can be hacked, cracked, guessed, phished or socially engineered, which is why I advocate a shift towards the Pay-per-clip business model...the password only exists for 24-48 hours, and even if it is cracked, they only get one clip rather than access to your entire content library.
As for the more hardcore hackers (ones who don't rely on passwords, per se), I have something else in mind, but I'm still exploring the technological feasibility of it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381094 - 12/31/08 06:39 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
This assumes the downloader of the content is the same entity as the host which later distributes them, which is very often (or even always) not the case.
I'm not bothered about where or with whom they host it...it's the 'leak' (purchaser/uploader) that I'm looking at. If they live in a country where there are no specific applicable laws to stop or punish them for filesharing, then it seems prudent to me not to do business with that country.
Quote:
I disagree with statement. Look at a huge conglomerate site like BangBros. They have maybe 20 sub-sites. Judging by the trailers they publish on their website, I frequently find a trailer from one sub-site interesting one week, and reject the trailer from that sub-site the next week. But because there are multiple sub-sites to choose from, I could still theoretically find value on a given week because of the range and selection offered.
What happens if you don't find value though? The whole 'pig-in-a-poke' approach of a monthly membership is a lot more haphazard. With a Pay-per-clip model, you only pay for what you want to watch.
Quote:
I know from personal experience, and from talking to others (and seeing posts on here) that many people have joined given paysites because of a single trailer they saw, found little else of interest once logged in, but still felt they got value for their money from that one or two hot scenes. With large sites containing many sub-sites, or with many scenes in their library, users of varying tastes can poke around and find something they personally enjoy amongst the collections.
This is very true, but let us suppose you are a fan of one particular girl. Let us say that 'Content Bros.' sign said girl up to do one scene for each of their subsites (let's simplify things and say they have 5 sites).
Let us also suppose that our particular girl has an identical twin who does five scenes for a pay-per-clip company in the exact same niches/genres. Both companies release one scene a month.
Pay-per-clip charges $10 for a scene
'Content Bros.' charge $30 a month
To get all five scenes via PPC, you'll spend $50...to get them via monthly membership, you'll spend $150. To me, spending $150 on five scenes (basically, a standard DVD worth of content) is an incentive for surfers to look to obtain said content via 'other' means.
If the customer is allowed to pick and choose exactly what they want, you get 100% customer satisfaction. No adult company that puts a DVD on the market can tell you anything about why it sold. Most will assume it's because of the girl on the cover, but in reality, it could be one of the other girls that made the customer's mind up. Something as simple as a postage-paid customer response card would yield a bunch of valuable information, but most studios are too cheap/apathetic/ignorant to bother with it. With pay-per-clip, you are removed from playing the guessing game as to what the customer wants...what is popular will sell, what is not will not. There's no 'piggy-backing' on the hot girl's coattails.
Quote:
My understanding is that the consumer of the product DOES NOT pick a site they like, wait for it to exist for multiple years, and then attempt to do a mass export of all data found within a single 30-day membership period.
Rather, they join a site when they see a theme or scene they like, they pull scenes down when they browse something that interests them, and then pull their pants down and take matters into their own hands.
Your mileage may vary...but the opportunity is certainly there, and in these troubled economic times, people are going to be looking to squeze all the value out of their expenditures. Sure, you might have only found two scenes on the site you liked, but why not download them all and then use them to trade/curry favour with people who have got scenes from other sites you want to watch, but can't justify joining? Stretch that $30 for all it is worth...
Quote:
My experience also informs that the average porn consumer loads up the website in order to access the content each time, thus making membership seem mandatory. Sure, there's always been a percentage of hoarders who store everything first before watching it, and the prevalence of multi-hundred gigabyte hard drives becoming dirt cheap over the past year have made it easier for the average joe to accumulate and maintain bulk local copies.
Join, download, chargeback...if you let them have unfettered access to everything, then prepare to get fucked in the ass.
Quote:
In addition, unless they're using site scraping tools with their membership credentials, HTTP makes it inefficient to download mass quantities of large files spread throughout a page layout. Most media companies tune the webservers to open a (small) maximum number of connections to a host, such as would be needed by a human watching a movie or browsing a site, not a spider app trying to download 78 movies at once. My point is, for a lot of users, they come back because they think they need to.
Yes, you can slow them down, but bear in mind that for a lot of people, piracy is how they make their living...if you don't have content for your tube or site, nobody will visit, and you won't make any money off of your pay-per-click ads, click-thrus, page/banner-views, etc. They have the time on their hands to clean a site out.
Quote:
Hell, if they're in any way technically savvy, they likely already know how to obtain the content illegally anyways. In that case, if they're being good copyright citizens, maybe they subscribe in order to support the site owner, but obtain their copies of the content from the pirated sources -- everyone wins in that case. The user gets the content, the provider gets paid, and (as one side effect) the provider also benefits from a lower bandwidth bill because the user got their copy from another channel. This type of behavior is exactly what many users reported doing with the recent Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails "name your own price" download promotions, when they paid to support the artist, but the download facilities were initially overwhelmed.
Is 'I'll get your content from an illegal source but I'll also take out a paid monthly membership to your site but not download anything so as to save on your bandwidth' the l33t-speak version of 'I promise I won't come in your mouth'?
Quote:
On the bigger sites containing multitude of niches, the more popular ones can subsidize production of the less popular ones. The same content can also be repackaged -- shot for the web, sold on membership/dvd/web ppv/hotel ppv. The membership numbers also typically operate as a floating curve, much like you see in other business models, such as consumer internet usage, unlimited phone minutes, etc. Some people join each month, some people quit each month. Of the ones joined at any given time, some of them download nothing, some download everything; most download a small amount. In my experience, the majority of members aren't maxing out their privileges.
Again, I favour a more Darwinian 'the fittest shall survive' business model. Also, there's no reason why content shot for PPC sites cannot be re-edited and packaged in exactly the same way, so I fail to see how this is to be considered any inherent advantage on behalf of monthly membership sites.
Quote:
I've also seen some sites enforcing download maximum limits per 24 hour period.
Which is bullshit...if you're going to give the house away for $30 a month, then you should honour your promise. Again, it's another thing which is going to drive customers away because they are being penalised for the actions of others. With a Pay-Per-Clip model, if you've got the time, money, and inclination to download 100 clips in a day, then there's nothing stopping you.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381095 - 12/31/08 04:22 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
AC Cream Wannabe
Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 589
|
Quote:
I'm not bothered about where or with whom they host it...it's the 'leak' (purchaser/uploader) that I'm looking at. If they live in a country where there are no specific applicable laws to stop or punish them for filesharing, then it seems prudent to me not to do business with that country.
That will never happen, unless some totalitarian government starts mandating identifying traces on every file a computer touches, with computers "licensed" or tied back to the original owners.
Leaked content (whether tangible DVD purchase, or online download) is frequently purchased using stolen credit card information by the thieves. I guess we should also ensure the vendors never get to keep any of these fraudulent charges, too. [sarcasm ends now]. The controls that would suit the content producers (in xxx or mainstream) are contradictory with the needs of the general population, and as long as the content producers are grossly outnumbered by the consuming population, this won't change. That's not an indictment -- I firmly believe more people need to create and produce their vision for art and media. Computers have helped make it easier, and the internet has made wider distribution possible in an easier manner, but there is still more to come. Only then will a greater appreciation for what it feels like to be on the producing end be available on a wider basis.
Quote:
What happens if you don't find value though? The whole 'pig-in-a-poke' approach of a monthly membership is a lot more haphazard. With a Pay-per-clip model, you only pay for what you want to watch.
In my case, I can say that the worst possible scenario is finding there is nothing of value to me OTHER THAN the trailer I saw that made me join in the first place. Is it even possible to join a site without knowing anything about what is inside?
Best case scenario is that I like everything they have, but that's never happened for me (or anything even approaching it). I see real merit in a buffet-style system for xxx paysites, rather than ala carte (to use restaurant analogies). For cable TV, sure, I would love to pay on a channel by channel basis; but the hit and miss nature of adult production makes me prefer the buffet idea instead.
My perceived value as a consumer for the membership only grows as I watch more clips and "get my moneys worth", as it were. Would you be suggesting that I should watch fewer movies on a paysite so as to appreciate them more, "valuing" them individually higher? Again, this isn't how I consume adult media, nor is it how I understand others do either. It is, however, how music, movie and art producers in mainstream attempt to artificially inflate the perceived value of their goods (staggering releases, holding back release dates, limiting artist output).
Quote:
This is very true, but let us suppose you are a fan of one particular girl. Let us say that 'Content Bros.' sign said girl up to do one scene for each of their subsites (let's simplify things and say they have 5 sites).
Let us also suppose that our particular girl has an identical twin who does five scenes for a pay-per-clip company in the exact same niches/genres. Both companies release one scene a month.
Pay-per-clip charges $10 for a scene
'Content Bros.' charge $30 a month
To get all five scenes via PPC, you'll spend $50...to get them via monthly membership, you'll spend $150. To me, spending $150 on five scenes (basically, a standard DVD worth of content) is an incentive for surfers to look to obtain said content via 'other' means.
Or, they could wait five months (or arrive on the scene late on month 5) and get all five scenes from the paysite for $30.
Or, they could get a $2.95 2-day membership to a paysite, and grab all five scenes on month 5, or get $2.95 2-day memberships, and grab them each month as they come out.
Or, the same company could do pay-per-clip and bulk paysites, and take money from consumers in whichever manner they desired to fork it over. A buyer's market -- who would have imagined.
Quote:
If the customer is allowed to pick and choose exactly what they want, you get 100% customer satisfaction. No adult company that puts a DVD on the market can tell you anything about why it sold. Most will assume it's because of the girl on the cover, but in reality, it could be one of the other girls that made the customer's mind up. Something as simple as a postage-paid customer response card would yield a bunch of valuable information, but most studios are too cheap/apathetic/ignorant to bother with it. With pay-per-clip, you are removed from playing the guessing game as to what the customer wants...what is popular will sell, what is not will not. There's no 'piggy-backing' on the hot girl's coattails.
I totally agree, we need better stats. However, the uglier girls often finance the prettier ones, as it were, just like in other businesses. PPV helps drill down the consumer's preferences for the marketer / biz owner, but from the consumer's side, I see it as less value for the money.
Quote:
Your mileage may vary...but the opportunity is certainly there, and in these troubled economic times, people are going to be looking to squeze all the value out of their expenditures. Sure, you might have only found two scenes on the site you liked, but why not download them all and then use them to trade/curry favour with people who have got scenes from other sites you want to watch, but can't justify joining? Stretch that $30 for all it is worth...
Possible, but likely more entrepreneurial than most consumers actually get to be. Recent download limit caps on the cheap consumer internet plans will also likely force consumers to start considering where they do their downloading from -- a 700MB bangbros scene may not seem as attractive if you only have 20GB for the month without paying overage fees to Time Warner.
Quote:
Join, download, chargeback...if you let them have unfettered access to everything, then prepare to get fucked in the ass.
The potential for chargebacks is a risk (and cost) of doing business in any of the vice products (porn, gaming, etc), as well as in other markets selling intangibles online. I don't see PPV porn as any more immune to chargebacks.
Quote:
Is 'I'll get your content from an illegal source but I'll also take out a paid monthly membership to your site but not download anything so as to save on your bandwidth' the l33t-speak version of 'I promise I won't come in your mouth'?
It's not even l33t-speak -- this type of side benefit to the site owner of less resources consumed is akin to an externality / spillover in economics-speak.
There are tons of sites and small authors that I would love to support or just send a $2 or $5 tip their way (be it software, how-to's, or media), but they don't have an easy way to donate to them.
Imagine how motivating it would be for Holly Randall, for example, if she was able to monetize goodwill by fans paying $1.72 here, $0.86 there (x10000) for little bonuses or surprises, or even for entirely unsolicited encouragement.
In part, this is a consequence of the payment systems -- they're all designed to ensure the credit card company gets paid first, then the vendor gets paid eventually. Those systems make small payments prohibitive. Prepaid systems like PayPal and iTunes help by letting you load a balance into your account and then make small payments if you wish, but none of them are a global standard yet for senders or receivers (and nor would you want them to be -- competition is good).
For musicians, for example, I think this type of idea has also been poo-poohed by the music companies, who don't want consumers paying the artist directly unless the record company is able to take a cut first. Selling merch at shows is labour intensive, so my guess is they stay out of that, but taking a slice of benevolence / tipjars online would be something they could stick their beak in (and likely eventually will).
Quote:
Again, I favour a more Darwinian 'the fittest shall survive' business model. Also, there's no reason why content shot for PPC sites cannot be re-edited and packaged in exactly the same way, so I fail to see how this is to be considered any inherent advantage on behalf of monthly membership sites.
My example wasn't meant to slam down your point, but rather to demonstrate alternate revenue streams possible from an existing single endpoint (web content) for some companies.
Also, if you're not already familiar with it, there is a "new" idea especially relevant for digital distribution called The Long Tail. When storage/hosting/distro is cheap (as it is for digital media), and consumer preferences are seemingly boundless, you can sell nearly anything ever created to any interested party with a (low) fixed maximum on operating expenses, and still capitalize on / monetize / personalize the purchase for every single consumer (lot of -ize words in there).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381096 - 12/31/08 05:26 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 01/12/05
Posts: 7322
Loc: The Children's Limbo
|
Quote:
Quote:
Are you presuming these people get access to the material legally then just share it?
Believe it or not, some actually do, and those are the ones I'll be targetting with the current project. Sure, passwords can be hacked, cracked, guessed, phished or socially engineered, which is why I advocate a shift towards the Pay-per-clip business model...the password only exists for 24-48 hours, and even if it is cracked, they only get one clip rather than access to your entire content library.
As for the more hardcore hackers (ones who don't rely on passwords, per se), I have something else in mind, but I'm still exploring the technological feasibility of it.
I think your going after a very small target here as it will only force this group to get the material from more seasoned and skilled individuals. Your plan sounds like it can work "in theory" but I don't know about the real world.
_________________________
I hit her with the hammer on top of the head. She made a lot of noise and kept on making noise, so I hit her again.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381097 - 01/01/09 05:32 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
That will never happen, unless some totalitarian government starts mandating identifying traces on every file a computer touches, with computers "licensed" or tied back to the original owners.
Again, I'm only after the original leak...if person A pays for and legally downloads the content, then makes a copy and gives it to person B who then puts it up on Rapidshare or something, then it is person A who will be getting banned because that's who I can trace the content back to.
Banning them stops them doing it again, legal action (if feasible) may help recoup lost earnings now that 100 people have downloaded it off of RS and have now re-upped it to 10 different other venues, meaning multiple thousands of theoretical sales have been lost. In some countries, (Sweden, Russia, etc.) they can get away with this quite legally...just look at Russian MP3 sites which undercut the likes of iTunes. If we're dealing with an entirely digital product of which we are the only vendor, then it becomes easier to track who supplied the content to these sites, and take them out of the game.
Quote:
Leaked content (whether tangible DVD purchase, or online download) is frequently purchased using stolen credit card information by the thieves. I guess we should also ensure the vendors never get to keep any of these fraudulent charges, too. [sarcasm ends now].
This is something I cannot legislate against, anymore than someone who has the content having their laptop stolen and the thief uploading the content to a tube or torrent. I'm just of the opinion that it is better to do something rather than nothing.
Quote:
The controls that would suit the content producers (in xxx or mainstream) are contradictory with the needs of the general population, and as long as the content producers are grossly outnumbered by the consuming population, this won't change.
My system won't be anything like DRM...you will be free to make and move copies of your legally-purchased content as you see fit, just as long as you don't re-distribute it.
Quote:
That's not an indictment -- I firmly believe more people need to create and produce their vision for art and media. Computers have helped make it easier, and the internet has made wider distribution possible in an easier manner, but there is still more to come. Only then will a greater appreciation for what it feels like to be on the producing end be available on a wider basis.
A very true sentiment...alas, tomorrow's producers (in whatever genre or medium) will have to contend with the filesharing network they helped create, popularise, and embolden.
Quote:
In my case, I can say that the worst possible scenario is finding there is nothing of value to me OTHER THAN the trailer I saw that made me join in the first place. Is it even possible to join a site without knowing anything about what is inside?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, apparently. 
Quote:
Best case scenario is that I like everything they have, but that's never happened for me (or anything even approaching it). I see real merit in a buffet-style system for xxx paysites, rather than ala carte (to use restaurant analogies). For cable TV, sure, I would love to pay on a channel by channel basis; but the hit and miss nature of adult production makes me prefer the buffet idea instead.
Good analogy...ultimately, the consumer will choose, but very few websites offer the choice of just downloading the single scene/content you want. This is where iTunes stole a march on CDs...you no longer had to buy the album to get the single track you wanted...you just buy the track by itself.
Quote:
My perceived value as a consumer for the membership only grows as I watch more clips and "get my moneys worth", as it were. Would you be suggesting that I should watch fewer movies on a paysite so as to appreciate them more, "valuing" them individually higher? Again, this isn't how I consume adult media, nor is it how I understand others do either. It is, however, how music, movie and art producers in mainstream attempt to artificially inflate the perceived value of their goods (staggering releases, holding back release dates, limiting artist output).
Value is in the eye of the beholder, and one man's wine is another man's poison in this regard. There are valid reasons for a lot of what goes on in mainstream...for example, do you really want Thom from Radiohead to release a solo album at the same time as Radiohead release a new album? What about promotion, tours, etc.? Plus, it's unwanted competition that serves to split the audience...that's why it is rare for big Hollywood stars to have two movies out at the same time. In adult, these problems really don't exist to the same extent as mainstream. All musical artists are in effect 'contract stars', because they can't work for anyone else without kind permission of their label. If I book Amy Ried tomorrow, I know my Amy Ried movie will be going up against a slew of other Amy Ried movies from other producers. Maybe mainstream has got it right on this one?
Quote:
Or, they could wait five months (or arrive on the scene late on month 5) and get all five scenes from the paysite for $30.
This is precisely my point...you make more money ($20) with Pay-per-clip as you don't have the option of jumping in late and getting it all in one go, as per monthly membership. The prospect of paying $150 for five scenes is what is either going to drive the surfer to wait and get 'em all in one go, or source them from less legal avenues. Depending upon which course of action the surfer decides to take, the monthly membership site will be out to the tune of either $20 (vs. PPC), $120 (vs. its' regular business model...surfer waits rather than join for five months) or $150 (if the surfer gets it all for free). PPC's worst case scenario is being out $50 for the same content, and this isn't factoring in what happens to any additional content the surfer may have downloaded (he may choose to upload it, for all we know).
Quote:
Or, they could get a $2.95 2-day membership to a paysite, and grab all five scenes on month 5, or get $2.95 2-day memberships, and grab them each month as they come out.
Fine in theory, but surfers tend to be very wary of trial memberships because a lot of sites limit the content they have access to (understandably), plus they're worried about full-rate rebill traps. If (and it is a big if) sites were prepared to make their newest (and thus most valuable) scene available @ $2.95, for two days, then you are effectively using a PPC system already, just with the added threat/bonus of potential full-price rebilling.
Quote:
Or, the same company could do pay-per-clip and bulk paysites, and take money from consumers in whichever manner they desired to fork it over. A buyer's market -- who would have imagined.
It's so logical, you'd think someone would have thought to try it by now...surely anything that makes it easier/more likely for the customer to spend money with you is a good thing, right?
Quote:
I totally agree, we need better stats. However, the uglier girls often finance the prettier ones, as it were, just like in other businesses. PPV helps drill down the consumer's preferences for the marketer / biz owner, but from the consumer's side, I see it as less value for the money.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the VFM bit, but it would be a moot point if both options were available to the consumer and the marketplace was allowed to decide.
As for stats...a major bugbear of mine...how come AVN or XBiz can't organise a proper, sales based chart, rather than one based on anecdotal evidence. I'd also love to see AEBN, HotMovies etc. share their stats with the world...I think we would be in for some major surprises as to who the MVP's of porn really are. On a level playing field, I believe the prettier girls would help finance the less pretty ones, however, I am starting to come around to the idea that this relationship may very well be inverted (See my comment re: popularity and piracy below).
Quote:
Possible, but likely more entrepreneurial than most consumers actually get to be. Recent download limit caps on the cheap consumer internet plans will also likely force consumers to start considering where they do their downloading from -- a 700MB bangbros scene may not seem as attractive if you only have 20GB for the month without paying overage fees to Time Warner.
Personally, I'm really starting to baulk at 400mb plus scenes...I'm not capped, but live in an area of the UK where speeds are pretty slow. If Bangbros cut all the lameness on the part of male talent/directors out of their movies, I think they could clock in at under 200mb though. 
Quote:
The potential for chargebacks is a risk (and cost) of doing business in any of the vice products (porn, gaming, etc), as well as in other markets selling intangibles online. I don't see PPV porn as any more immune to chargebacks.
The only advantage would be in terms of the amount of content accessed per transaction. To get two scenes via PPC, it is two transactions, which opens up the line of questioning 'Well, you claim the product was not as described, so why did you proceed to download ten other clips? Why didn't the penny drop?'. It's much easier to do with a monthly membership model...one transaction, rape and pillage the content, and then one chargeback.
Quote:
It's not even l33t-speak -- this type of side benefit to the site owner of less resources consumed is akin to an externality / spillover in economics-speak.
There are tons of sites and small authors that I would love to support or just send a $2 or $5 tip their way (be it software, how-to's, or media), but they don't have an easy way to donate to them.
Very true...perhaps some form of pre-paid or token system might be the order of the day? Most people have a donate via Paypal gizmo on their sites, but everyone hates Paypal.
Quote:
Imagine how motivating it would be for Holly Randall, for example, if she was able to monetize goodwill by fans paying $1.72 here, $0.86 there (x10000) for little bonuses or surprises, or even for entirely unsolicited encouragement.
I can guarantee that Da Burglar is jacking off to this post as we speak.
Quote:
For musicians, for example, I think this type of idea has also been poo-poohed by the music companies, who don't want consumers paying the artist directly unless the record company is able to take a cut first. Selling merch at shows is labour intensive, so my guess is they stay out of that, but taking a slice of benevolence / tipjars online would be something they could stick their beak in (and likely eventually will).
Absolutely true, and in with regards to what we've already discussed about stats and piracy, let me add that I'd like to see a future wherein some Playboy Playmate or Penthouse Pet can say 'I can bring a paying audience of 10,000 fans to a project. If I can make $15 selling a hardcore b/g clip of myself, then I can make $150,000 rather than the $1,200 that Joe Producer has offered me.'
I very much doubt this day will ever come though, as despite having established that people are prepared to fork over a $30 monthly fee for just one particular scene, we have no idea of which girls bring which kind or size of audience (as I have alluded to before, perhaps you'll stand to make more money with less popular girls simply because the demand for them, and thus the potential for piracy, is less), plus the fact that piracy will inevitably eat into the projected profits.
Quote:
My example wasn't meant to slam down your point, but rather to demonstrate alternate revenue streams possible from an existing single endpoint (web content) for some companies.
Also, if you're not already familiar with it, there is a "new" idea especially relevant for digital distribution called The Long Tail. When storage/hosting/distro is cheap (as it is for digital media), and consumer preferences are seemingly boundless, you can sell nearly anything ever created to any interested party with a (low) fixed maximum on operating expenses, and still capitalize on / monetize / personalize the purchase for every single consumer (lot of -ize words in there).
I have some quite revolutionary ideas about squeezing the maximum bang-for-buck out of some way-out-there niche content, but I shall read up on this also...thanks for the tip!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381098 - 01/01/09 05:35 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
I think your going after a very small target here as it will only force this group to get the material from more seasoned and skilled individuals. Your plan sounds like it can work "in theory" but I don't know about the real world.
I'm planning to deploy it in a very small niche market initially, but my overriding philosophy is that it is better to do something than nothing, and if I can't stop all of them, then at least I can stop some of them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381099 - 01/03/09 08:41 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
Bukkake Boy
Registered: 04/15/08
Posts: 741
Loc: The Great White Frozen Fucking...
|
Speaking to the issue at hand here, a while back, I 'rented' a clip from a website. I had to download a certificate with it that expired thirty days after I 'rented' the download. Sure enough, 30 days later, poof, I couldn't access it. The price of the rental was $9.95 and they had some fairly intense restrictions on the clip to prevent me from copying it.
I agree wholeheartedly with this kind of porn sale. The producer gets paid, the license is respected, the price was reasonable and the clip actually worked.
Why aren't more people doing this? Is the licensing software expensive?
_________________________
'She looks like Brock Lesnar.' - The Tatty Patty.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381100 - 01/04/09 04:05 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
Speaking to the issue at hand here, a while back, I 'rented' a clip from a website. I had to download a certificate with it that expired thirty days after I 'rented' the download. Sure enough, 30 days later, poof, I couldn't access it. The price of the rental was $9.95 and they had some fairly intense restrictions on the clip to prevent me from copying it.
Sounds like DRM (Digital Rights Management), or some variation thereof...by and large, this system is fairly unpopular with a lot of surfers for obvious reasons.
Quote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this kind of porn sale. The producer gets paid, the license is respected, the price was reasonable and the clip actually worked.
As it should be...personally, I'm not a fan of rentals per se. If you buy a DVD or magazine, it's always there, and if you don't like it you can sell it on and recoup some of your outlay. The other drawback with rentals is that you might have a burning desire to see that one particular clip again after the rental has expired...so now you're paying for it again. Using the same scenario with a DVD (or even Download-to-own clips), if you watch the same scene 3-4 times, then the DVD has effectively paid for itself.
Quote:
Why aren't more people doing this? Is the licensing software expensive?
My guess would be outright apathy coupled with sheer bone-idleness. Look at the amount of studios that would rather take a pittance of a highly unfavourable percentage from a VOD site rather than go through the (largely non-existent) hassle of setting up their own VOD service.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381101 - 01/04/09 05:25 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 4856
Loc: The 4th International
|
Dan, following is from your post above:
"If you buy a DVD or magazine, it's always there, and if you don't like it you can sell it on and recoup some of your outlay."
Isn't it illegal (and damaging to the producer/copyrightholder) to re-sell a DVD? I know it's done, but isn't this, in essence, the same as the initial problem of sharing content?
_________________________
The only thing you got that I want, is your suffering.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381103 - 01/04/09 05:59 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
I know what you mean...it's bizarre, but that's the way it is. If I buy a DVD from a manufacturer with a sleeve, case etc, it's considered fair game to sell it on after you're done with it. If it's a DVD you have legally purchased via download-to-own/burn, then I believe some people might consider it akin to piracy (even though it's the same transaction/product, in effect). It's no more or less damaging to the producer than when I buy a mainstream DVD secondhand off of Ebay or Amazon. The key difference is that with a finished product such as a DVD, there is a finite number of copies in circulation...this will determine the availability of said item, and also the price on the secondary market. Piracy has the same effect as counterfeit currency in that it lowers the value of the item in question by making it less rare and exclusive.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381104 - 01/05/09 09:47 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 5103
Loc:
|
Like Gresham's law, "Bad money drives out good money". The currency (original DVD) is being debased.
_________________________
-------------------
Mild Mannered Minion
-------------------
I feel the pull on the rope, let me off at the rainbow
-Anyway, Genesis
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381105 - 01/05/09 11:06 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Whoremaster
Registered: 10/21/05
Posts: 2710
|
Quote:
Like Gresham's law, "Bad money drives out good money". The currency (original DVD) is being debased.
True, but the key question is always who is debasing/devaluing it. The Government devalues currency all the time by just magically printing more of it. If Joe Public does the same thing, to the same effect, it is called 'counterfeiting'.
Studios that offer download to burn are debasing the value of their DVDs...however, illegal filesharers are devaluing both the DVDs and the download-to-burn products. Hence we are seeing the effects at all levels of the industry.
I'm a fan of psychological magic or 'mentalism'. I purchased a couple of books directly from a very well-known mentalist in the UK. You can't get them from Amazon or a regular bookshop, you have to jump through a bunch of hoops proving insider knowledge before you can even order them, and suffice to say they are full of trade secrets, not intended for general sale or consumption and thus produced in very small print runs.
Now, supposing you owned one of these highly desirable, highly limited books, would you take the time and trouble to scan all 200-300+ pages of them into a pdf file so you could upload it to a filesharing network, all the while knowing that it will damage the value of these books? Oddly enough, some idiot did...I downloaded them, compared them, and then sold my books off on Ebay for a handsome profit, because I knew that the longer I waited, the more ubiquitous these files would become, the demand for the books would lessen, and I wouldn't be able to recoup anything near what I paid for them, much less turn a profit on them.
It just beggars belief that someone would go to all that trouble in the first place, but there you have it...someone evidently did.
This is exactly the same problem porn has...let us say that a website was set up to handle what I call a 'White Whale' of a product (Aria Giovanni's first b/g scene, Jessica Alba's home porno, whatever) so that it actually physically mailed the content out on finished DVDs to a strictly limited number of members (thus creating a limited edition and uniquely re-sellable piece of content as opposed to an infinitely copyable digital file), I've no doubt that whichever member sold their DVD on first would make a copy of it for keeps before selling it on. Now, if they've either made their money back or turned a profit (which they more than likely will have done as demand has outstripped supply), what do they now have to lose in uploading or filesharing said content? The answer, unfortunately, is nothing.
Perhaps some sort of product registration type of thing might help, like they do with computer software, but for most people I think it's just too much hassle for a porn movie. Half-price buyback, maybe? I think studios could do a lot more to build value into the DVD package and encourage people to buy rather than pirate...maybe a limited number of signed posters, or perhaps a Willy Wonka style 'Golden Ticket', perhaps? Signings are always good as well...you can't get Radiohead to sign your MP3, can you? The same applies to porn.
Basically, I think the industry needs to focus on the people who do spend money, rather than the ones who don't. Alas, I think companies with marketing practices akin to Leisure Time and their ilk are probably going some way to creating a class of porn consumer who is never going to spend money on porn again.
Does the industry have the necessary smarts and leadership to navigate its' way out of this mess? I wouldn't put my house on it, unfortunately...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381106 - 03/23/10 03:33 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
Pervert
Registered: 11/01/09
Posts: 2141
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381107 - 08/25/10 03:24 AM
Re: Tube sites
|
Max Hardcore Prison Bitch
Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 305
|
I won't even bother to quote some of the comical suggestions about stopping piracy here.
The only thing that will work is having is an iTunes type site for porn with cheap ($0.99 per scene)/($3.99 per "movie") DRM free, H.264 encoded, a la carte porn. When you make the legit porn convenient, cheap, and all available in spot, a substantial portion of the pirates will start paying simply for the convenience/quality/reliability, just like they did with iTunes vs. the free pirated alternatives for music/video.
This will certainly not stop piracy -- some people have no money and have endless time while sitting at home unemployed, so they will keep pirating. But they never were or could be your customers. On the other hand the potential customers who do have money and don't want to waste time will come in droves.
Until the iTunes for porn (no subscriptions/cheap scenes/one central place where you can find everything) suggestion gets followed, porn companies will keep going out of business and piracy will keep getting worse. You have to offer people willing to pay a legal alternative.
There is a category of porn user who used to buy 100s of DVDs and now has stopped, because finding all the scenes that his porn babe of choice for the week has made is easy and free via tube sites. You used to get thousands of dollars from him, now you get zero. Until you offer iTunes for porn, he's not coming back.
_________________________
"Is the snake OK?"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#381108 - 09/06/10 04:42 PM
Re: Tube sites
|
Max Hardcore Prison Bitch
Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 259
Loc: in your white wife
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
1616
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
