It's not even worth your time, just let it go.

In online porn, the distributor has dictated the market. By giving it away for free many customers have become free consumers.

There are no provable figures but from the vary beginning ratios showed 99% were consuming and 1% were buying. The customer only takes what is offered he can't "Create" the market on his own. If piracy hadn't of existed, iTunes would not of been created. The distribution of free created the need for music to change.

Walmart created a concept of cheap goods, which the customer responded to.

Customers respond to what distributors offer.

But you are side tracking the thread. The market has changed, the consumer is now offered free pre recorded average porn in a scene at a times many times as he feels like it.

So iTunes was the recording industry's response, Walmart's response to cheap over seas goods was their stores.

So what has the adult industry done?

It's stepped up the supply of free porn. :upsidedow

You're actually agreeing with me. The market has changed for the customer, he's become a free consumer. The problem is anyone who offers an alternative to giving away even more free porn is ridiculed.

How does online porn respond to the new market where the customer has more choice?

I'm SO glad you've FINALLY stopped that lie about being retired.

No, you cant upload a chair to tubes. Try again with a better comparison. :1orglaugh

You missed the real mistake he made.

He can buy a chair and own it outright.

He could buy music and own it outright, just not for $10. For that he only buys a license to play it with certain things allowed and other things not allowed.

He thinks Elton John makes a DVD for him for $10.

Which shows how stupid he is.

Seriously GG you are not as bright as you think.

Elton John doesn't make an album so he can sell one and everyone can copy from that one.

Warner Bros don't make a film so someone can go into a cinema copy it and give it to millions for free.

And using your example of a chair. A chair manufacturer doesn't build a factory, employ people, design and perfect the chair and sell the chair to you.

So you can copy it and give it away for free or copy it and sell the copies.

They all do it for the mass market. So you can buy a ticket to see a movie for $10-$20 bucks and watch a movie that cost $20 million to make. Or buy a DVD for $10, that costs $100,000. Or buy a chair for $100 that costs $50,000 to create.

This is why I don't read your links and why the video I saw of the bike being copied is stupid.

A chair is property, music, film, programs, porn can be. But not for a fraction of what it costs to produce. For the price you pay, you buy the license to use, view or listen. Unless you steal it, then you get it for free and let others pay your contribution towards the manufacture.

Did you understand that?

idiot that exactly the point

the movie doesn't exist as property therefore property rights don't apply

if property rights did exist content you WOULD have the same rights as a chair you bought

yes everything you said is a justification for allowing a business model NOT BASED ON PROPERTY RIGHTS

however nothing you said justify making up property rights for something that doesn't exist as anything but a service.

do you even understand the law your talking about

you can't buy a song outright, when you buy the catalogue of a musician for example, your buying a exclusive "right" to a service (copying) not a property.

the outright ownership your talking about is really nothing more than another licience, the licience to licience.



that the point copyright and property rights are two completely different things

GG, myself and you may go at it at times, but truly save yourself the time with Paul. Cognitive thought isn't a skill set Paul has. You will bash your head against the wall trying to get him to even slightly understand you, it really isn't worth it unless you're just going to rail on him for being an idiot.