Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Gideongallery...pornstars have ALWAYS danced and hooked. So they ALWAYS made that money on the side. Difference is now...they aren't getting as many gigs shooting for companies or getting paid to sign autographs at a companies booth at a show.

How damn stupid are you anyway?

You DON'T belong here. You aren't in this business, and you have ZERO idea of how it works.

gideons argument is that free content should expose pornstars to a larger audience and thus the increase in hooking and dancing from this larger audience should offset the loss in revenue from porn shoot work.

can anyone confirm the validity of this thesis?

Without the creators of said content, consumers wouldn't be able to enjoy it, and you are clearly only a consumer looking at the now and not a creator. Perhaps if you were a creator you'd be at the very least sympathetic to what creators have to go through to avoid their content becoming worthless through piracy.

Consumers not paying for the content of the creators when it is up to them to pay for it (i.e. not radio where advertisement money is in play) is NEVER going to benefit the creators and is only going to devalue their work to the point when they much stop creating...I don't care what kind of study you want to throw out there to prove otherwise. You are trying to say that piracy spreads awareness of the content for more people that might pay for it, except you have no clue how many people who pirate the stuff would have bought it if they couldn't pirate it. Sure, there's a significant percentage of people who wouldn't have, but definitely nowhere near all, and ultimately people who pay for it see what pirates are doing and get enticed into doing the same when they see people getting stuff for free with no downside whatsoever.

Perhaps in the 24th century when money is non-existent and people can thus create simply to create, Picard and the crew will look back on these funny little GFY conversations laughing at the unnecessary intricacies of life that money creates, but we're not there yet.

I have to agree with The Doc here. It seems like it is more a technology thing than a piracy thing that is leading to more money for the artists. I'm sure there are some artists who are making more from their live shows because of piracy. I think the band OK Go is a good example. They have hit videos, their music is heavily downloaded and I'm sure they sell a decent amount of tickets to their live shows because of it, but they themselves have said they have a lot of trouble actually selling music. So piracy gets them exposure and helps them sell more concert tickets, but it isn't helping them sell actual music.

These days I can write song, use my computer to record it and put it up on iTunes and Amazon and the cost to me is next to nothing. I can then video myself singing it and put it up on Youtube with a link to my song in iTunes and I can make money off of it. If I make $50 of selling my song, chances are that is $50 more than I would have made 10-12 years ago because back then I would have had to make a CD, get it duplicated and then find a way to get it in stores in order to sell it. The cost barrier to me for getting started and getting music out there used to be a lot higher than it is today. With this example it is $50 more than I would have made so I am making 100% income than I was in 1999.

I can confirm the non-validity.

What happens is that a few years ago...Sara Jay would have starred in 100 DVDs a year. They would be fresh and new. And she raises her escort and dancing money because she is a star.

This year? Studios have cut back drastically on production in L.A.
So Sara and others only are in the occasional DVD. The "star" factor goes down. So now she can't raise her price for hooking or dancing.

Add to that...the FACT that there is a ceiling for Sara's price at either. A guy MIGHT pay a couple of grand to fuck her because she is a hot commodity. But that would be a peak price which isn't happening now because she isn't able to star in as many NEW productions thanks to gideongalleries buddies ruining studios ability to finance and distribute a new DVD.

But let's just pretend that she can still make the top dollar....Nobody EVER is going to pay anymore than that for a night with a pornstar. Just won't happen. There is only so much that even a wealthy guy is gonna pay for a hooker since he can always just get another less expensive one if he wants.

Same with dancing. There is only so much a girl can make in a night. I don't care if NFL and NBA players are in the club all night long "making it rain"...there is a limit.

There is only so much that one human being can do in a night.

Gideongallery is forgetting that NOW she is seeing her "star" power slowly diminish because of lack of production.

And all the money that she made from shooting a scene. She's probably lost $200,000 a year from the peak.

So now she has to hustle as hard as she can just to get BACK to what she was making before...if she can physically do it.

Loss of shooting revenue, loss of travel AND top dollar to represent companies at the shows here in the U.S. and Europe. And slow loss of earning potential in escorting and stripping.

You know, I've been around "pornstars"/hookers/strippers since the early 1980's. And the entire game is built around the synergy of "fame".

gideongallery has never even seen a girl naked in real life. Much less have any firsthand knowledge of how the game is played or how our online adult industry (which you are supposed to be part of to even be on GFY) works.

I think that Eric needs to have BarryP. take a long look at gideongallery and determine if he shouldn't be banished from here.

Just because he pretends to be one of us by flying an out of date pussycash banner doesn't fool anybody. I say it's time for him to go back to the stolen content/pirate/torrent/ forums where he belongs...

SURFS UP Gideongallery!

That was the whole point.

gideongallery is trying to imply piracy has increased sales when there are whole new ways and reasons for people to buy music that didn't exist in 1999.

Oh so you are saying their "piracy tax" is also used for state subsidizations of porn? I don't think so and no government or porn industry is going to "adapt something from it". You must be illusional...

Not only that...but one can only imagine how incredibly lucrative the music industry would be right now without piracy but with all the new technologies.

For instance...I'd LIKE to go buy The Cult "Sonic Temple" CD to put in my car (I'm gonna go see them on Thursday night). But...thanks to piracy of music, every music store in the world is shut down. So I have to go to Walmart or Best Buy. And guess what? They don't have it!

So now the only choice I have would be to try and find .mp3 compressed versions online and get each song one by one...or order it off of amazon and wait for it to be delivered.

No more going to the music store and getting what I want when I want. And my fond memories of going to the big music stores like Peaches (I lived in Florida) were finding the record I wanted, and THEN seeing something else and impulse buying.

Those days are gone. Buying it all online can sometimes be real convenient (if a song is brand new), but it took away all the fun of getting an album and it also made music seem sort of insignificant compared to what it used to feel like to go find the record, open the package, etc.

Insignificant to the point where you would buy more and listen to something less times as you don't have an actual record sat in a sleeve and digital music is a bit throwaway?

Great post! :thumbsup

Not even reading the thread.

50.

Exactly, and the loss of "album" sales to "single" sales hurts as well. You used to buy an album for maybe 2 or 3 great songs, but overtime you would often gain an appreciation of the songs that didn't get airplay too. Sometimes the album conveyed a "feeling" that carried throughout the tracks. Now people are buying one single track at a time. There is no time to decide if you even like any of the other songs the artist has made, because you never allowed them to grow on you. In addition, the sound quality of these compressed files often suck, but since that's the easiest way to consume them, you even lose out on rich full quality sound now as well.

Yep...if Exile On Mainstreet were released for the first time today, everyone would just buy the single online to "Tumbling Dice" and one of the greatest rock records of all time would be mostly unheard.

And think of Led Zeppelin. Very rarely did they have a big single. Whole Lotta Love was their only top ten track. What a loss it would be.

Well christ, when you can go to YouTube and hear all new tracks of an album on demand the moment it's out. That's not some seedy pirate site behind the scenes but right in broad daylight so to speak as the 3rd highest traffic site on the planet!

I'm not sure I'm entirely against the music biz going more towards song by song vs. album - it had started getting to the point where record companies stuff a few radio singles per album and fill the rest of the space with crap. That said, I'd imagine it might hurt smaller artists who may get 1 of their songs seen and consequently get only 1 of their songs sold. Music has never been an industry where a significant amount of its participants see success, but it's also not exactly comforting to know that the most visible artists in the past decade have been for the most part glorified whores with millions of dollars of marketing behind them.

Now you've got artists like Kanye West putting out a new single every week. There's got to be a loss in quality if they're pushing them out the door that quickly, just to capitalize on the buzz and single sales.

You can find a lossless version of Sonic Temple to download with a quick search :winkwink:

Yep. The music business used to be about selling art and albums, now it is about selling singles.

I can't fully blame them. The consumer has spoken and most of them just want to buy individual songs and not entire albums, but what it does is kill the art form. These days artists are more interested in making the hit single that they can sell a million of, sell as a ringtone and create a catchy video for instead of writing a quality album that can be taking as a full work of art.

It is all kind of sad to me.

Jesus H Christ. I need to get this guy on ignore.

And miss all the fun of laughing at gideongallery? Please rethink it. He is a goldmine of fail.

show me one single example of me ever saying everything should be free.

i defend fair use and the use of technology to provide superior service in a way consistent with the rights already established

using the torrents like a vcr
using torrents like a radio station

using the tube sites to make commentaries.

the adaption is how to change your content so that when people do that stuff you still make money.

think of tit this way, if you refused to put your shit on the tape cassette, you ONLY lost money from the VCR.

same thing here, the three live interaction stuff is just a small example of what is available there are more than 100 (103) that will work in porn too (even more in mainstream).

The paper says the artists made the increase on live performance and less on digital/physical sales. In adult industry that would correspond to making more money on live sexshows or dating, which is also happening (by various sponsors paying and profit indirectly such thievery). But that doesn't mean the ones not perfoming live make more money and it's not an excuse for stealing others artistic work to promote another service. So the argument using file-sharing as "promotion" for an "overall" industry is basically flawed.

The paper is also limited to an isolated economy. They didn't include trade export or import. In adult industry that would correspond to excluding worldwide internet trade.

You can't compare two complete different products, complete different market situations (including laws), one industry that is subsidiziated with one industry that is not and never will be, and then conclude and talk about adaption.

There are many great photographers especially within the art niche and they can't (or will) adapt to live performance. Asking them to do so is like asking a painter to paint live. It's stupid and without any respect for his artistic talent. When some assholes reduce the value of his work by promoting something else or distribute it for free, the result will be less quality or in worst case he move to another niche. No matter how much Torrentfreak troll with their propaganda, Manwin troll with "what our laywers say", it destroys the economy for these artists and, it destroys cultural freedom which is the most shame about it all.

have you read any of the different countries piracy tax laws. Change a couple of things in how you produce your porn and you could get money from that funds in 21 countries.

there and hundreds of things you could do.

hell look at robbie product placement will not work in this industry bullshit statement

go back and look at the arguements made about product placement not working in music videos



and then look at the way companies successfully changed the game and you can quickly realize how to do the "impossible" task of getting product placement in porn.

I'd say file sharing started in 1997.

So you're saying that ~14 years later, artists are making more than they did 1.5 decades ago?

Smooth.

And the top graph shows total revenues going sideways.. That's bad business gideon.

And maybe Norway had a shit music scene 15 years ago?

diamond rio created the mp3 technology in 1992 (actually earlier than that they legalized it )

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/MP3/rio.html

the concept of selling songs individually cheaply in digital format was something that was repeatedly proposed by diamond and copycats of their technology.

The record companies refused to do it.

Napster forced the issue
and itunes became viable because piracy forced those companies to adapt.




fact is it is easier to find new obscure artist you have never heard of or would never hear of if it were not for technology now available

dan bull
JC
10,000 of artist release their content under CC-NC-A
people can freely share their content and they get paid, leveraging piracy taxes, open store fronts (where they keep 100% instead of 10%) and tours

there are all kinds of things you can do if you understand the difference.

The techniques are there for a no nothing band to do the impossible job of getting a product placement deal for their music video. Get the entire video paid for and pocket 4-10k extra. You just have to understand how the market has changed, and what you have to do to change your content to respond.

You can call it what you want, it's taking someone else's work and taking it upon yourself to determine how they chose to have it distributed....which is for free.

Radio stations pays for the rights to broadcast the music, so it isn't really "free" it's subsidized by advertisers.

If someone refused to put their shit on tape and they CHOOSE to lose money from the VCR, it's their right to do so...it's not your right to do it for them.

If an artist wants to give their music away for free or allow their movies to be watched for free, it's their call, not yours.

How do you get this notion that you can decide how someone monetizes or chooses not to monetize from new technologies? What gives YOU the right to determine that for someone else's work, regardless of how many other avenues of income they have?

"You can get funds"... You do not know much about this industry do you? No government or tax funds is going to compensate you, if you show them screenshots of illegal downloads of Midgets Fucked In Anal Vol.3.

Product placement... are you going to ask Petter Hegre to put Coca-Cola or tampoo advertising into his artistic photos?

every single piracy technology that was bitched about by the clueless masses made those arguements

every single one of those technologies improve the bottom line, and expanded freedom regarding expression.

your arguement about painters and photographers is total bullshit by the way

one word

TEACH

I'm not bitching about technology. I'm bitching about those using it for illegal purposes and think illusionally it's about freedom.
Why? Quality painting and photographing takes lots of preparation and work. Look at the photographers for Met-Art.com which also have metcams, but how could they do their photos and editing of their recorded movies live in same quality?

i know the laws your just talking out of your ass.


like i said

your making the same exact arguements made for music videos. "company a would not want to be associated with content b"

the only thing that has changed is the reasons why.

the solution has already been found.

your rights end the second mine begin and vice versa

copyright law only gives you the right to control the monitization of your content, not to censor other people.

if you choose to give up the monetization, then you lose nothing from it being given away for free, since you would make nothing by refusing to exploit the technology.

Yea, torrents and tubes are popular for vcr/radio/commentary like Viagra is popular to increase bloodflow throughout the body. Nope, sorry...people use torrents and tubes to get shit for free that they would otherwise have to pay for, and people use Viagra to make their penis hard. You can try to pretend otherwise to make your point but it doesn't change the truth.

I have a question though - you say not everything should be free. What is your opinion of places like Rapidshare charging money for premium access/faster download of copyrighted material? How is that any different than someone recording a VHS of copyrighted material and reselling it, which is against the law?

bullshit more than 50% of all torrent is tv shows
add in movies that have aired on tv and that jumps even higher.

many countries like canada has a piracy tax for music so that paid for too

and commentary

"Check out my favorite quest crew dance routine" is a commentary that makes no sense whatsoever without showing you the clip of the content



rapidshare doesn't charge for faster download of copyrighted material, they charge for faster access for downloading material weather it copyrighted, public domain, or authorized to be distributed. They offer a service which is not directly profiting from the infringment but can be used for infringing purposes.

your misrepresenting the vcr as an infringer.

btw the point is the same, as a user i could use a vcr for legitimate actions (timeshifting) and i could use rapidshare for legitimate purposes (commentary, parody, etc)

just because it could be use for illegal purpose doesn't give you a right to take way the technology completely.

Yeah? Which country compensate for PORN piracy through tax funds?
Please don't say Norway, their laws and regulations barely allow porn.




Lets put that "solution" on a test. What kind of product placement will you put in these photos (before you uploaded it for free to others) without destroying the artistic value:

http://camelfart.com/sinfulempire.jpg
http://camelfart.com/09.jpg

if i tell you do you agree to put every single piece of content you ever produce/have produced into the public domain.

you want me to give you the solution for free, do all the work for you and not get paid a cent.

oh and btw you can't add product placement after the content is you have to do it before the content is shot that the point. The product is intergrated into the content so it can't be skipped.

No, keep your secrets to yourself. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I knew you couldn't answer :thumbsup

love this kind of artistic expression

Again, you compare completely different things. Trust me, placing advertisings into one MP3, between lines and chapters in a book, into a highly artistic photo, whatever... is not going to raise the artistic value. It will destroy the product and any potential revenue from other products is still NOT an excuse for distributing it without authorization.
An artist, a writer or a photographer should be able to do whatever HE/SHE wants with his work and no one or nothing else should force him to do otherwise. THAT is freedom and if you do not understand that, then go back to school.

So Gideon,

Did you ever find that email you had supposedly sent The Doc when he made the business offer to you a while back?

You had told him you sent an email and were staring to build sites to get the ball rolling on the project. The email never arrived and when you were asked for proof that you sent it, you seemed to disappear.

Did it ever turn up?

I'm guessing no which means you are back on the scene spouting your bullshit theories again with no credibility.

BINGO! gideongallery exposed himself for what he is...worthless.

He did NOTHING. And still has done NOTHING. He is a disgrace as a human being and just can't help himself but to come over to GFY and spout the propaganda he reads and then re-reads all night on bit torrent forums. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's classic! And now he is thedoc's BITCH.

I have argued this point with gideon ad nauseum and he won't listen. He believes that so long as he isn't hurting you from selling it, he can take it for free. Never mind that by taking it now he might be diluting a future market or maybe that you may only want a select number of copies out there, he feels that it you won't sell it to him he has the right to take it.

He feels a movie should be released in all mediums on the same day it is available in theaters. So he feels that when a movie opens in theaters on a Friday that it should also be available on DVD, pay per view, premium cable, basic cable and free TV on that day. If needed the movie appearing on basic cable and free TV can be edited. This way all customers could have the movie available to them in their desired format at the time of its release. If you then chose to release in theaters, DVD and pay per view, but not the others, the free TV and cable customers should then be allowed to download it since you didn't offer it in their desired format and if you chose to leave that money on the table then their taking it doesn't hurt the movie financially. Again, never mind that they might want to see how well the movie does at the box office before settling on a broadcast fee, give it to him now in the format he wants it he should be allowed to take it.