[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Trying to belittle me to avoid a topic you brought up is a very sad method of conversation. But if you are that sensitive about the point, as well you should be, then do what you must to feel better.

Tube sites, as "tube sites" for free porn remain a reality, and will only get worse as time goes on. If not for the fact that people prefer "free" to something they pay for, then for the fact that people who "grew up" in the web business value their content completely differently than the people that actually created the home consumer video business, back in the 80's.
The internet offered a new "method" of porn delivery. It was good for a while, because it was "new and exciting."

While I realize it's not a popular opinion, non "special" content has very little value en-mass. While the under 35 crowd seems to think they invented porn, in fact there is tons of "good porn" sitting on shelves around the country that can be gotten for next to free. At some point, it is going to flood the industry. As soon as the old license holders find a way to monetize it, even for a few cents. I'm not sure why this constantly surprises people when it happens. People are used to watching TV for free, the trade off being they are subjected to commercials. It's a long standing model. The people have been trained.

Those same people were trained to go to their local porn shop, or through the mail, to get their porn. After all that getting in the car and going effort, we gave them 90 minutes of porn for about $3. That IS the model in their head.

A: Free with commercials
B: Low cost without commercials, and/or a little hassle.

Now comes tube sites: OOOH, porn for free, if we get away with it!
And they WILL get away with it, by simply bouncing the servers around the world to places where they don't care about your American Copyright. And the government isn't going to lift a finger to help you.

Now comes the "profesional tube siters" et all, with their idea: Let's "fool" then into thinking they are getting "free porn" but pinch them before they get too much. Hopefully, we'll crank up the male libido in 30 seconds (not a bad bet) and convince them, in their sexual desire haze, to pull out their credit cards and enter it to reach climax.

Yea, that works once or twice. But REAL quick, they figure out you REALLY aren't a tube site, just a teaser, and now it becomes just another marketing ploy. Make it little flashier, talk it up, and it lasts another cycle. Ultimately though, the consumer, who isn't as dumb as Oprah thinks he is, figures it out.

So, what do we (the industry) do? Get mad at the message deliverer, and make war on the customer because he's choosing "free" over paying for something. And don't forget, he can do it without getting caught. And you're all surprised? Please.

That's NOT what I got from Violet blue, who I though was being more of a "reporter" in the piece, and reporting on the state of the industry. Which, by the way, is why she was there, and NOT a rep from a tube site.

In fact, I think she did you guys a huge favor, by bringing a new audience to your door to sell to. I would be very surprised if there wasn't an uptick in your sales?

To me, this phrase: "I can go online to one of the free tube sites that are basically like YouTube for porn, and I can select by genre. I can click on something [and then] click away if I don't like it" says she can browse for free, and click away before paying for something that doesn't fit her fetish. And as she's a fetish girl, that makes sense.

She doesn't say "Oh yea, I get everything I need for free without ever paying on a tube site."

She is basically promoting YOUR sales model, no? sample, and if you like, stay and [sic] buy? Exactly WHERE does she advocate "stealing" content?

I would have preferred Regina Lynn, by Violet got the job done.

YOU (liz) projected your own view and fears on what she said. A perfectly understandable thing to do in your job. I simply don't agree with your slant, and think your dead bang wrong for doing so. Further, being "outraged" (Which might be a bit strong) by her perceived tacit approval of tube sites (according to you,) is just wrong.
If we want to know, we should ask her the question.
Oh, wait, we can, she's already spoken on the issue:

http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchi...g-presses.html

and:

http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchi...le-column.html

It sure seems from what she says that she sees tube sites as competition for her product as well. So, if you want to infer what she's saying, you would infer she opposes tube sites, not that she endorses them.


The English language is a poor enough means of communication when people are face to face and can read the subtle clues that can go with the speech, when you put a bag over a person's head and ears, the printed word loses quite a bit. But please don't project your paranoia onto my words, or expect chivalry to bolster your position on the topic.

Well, given that the topic as a whole has been quite a hot button for debate, I thought it was worth discussing - particularly in light of conversation regarding the show as a whole. I found it an interesting point that no one had mentioned. I don't recall saying that I was outraged, but given the people with whom I work on both sides of the issue, I will see it through the lens of my work.

Which I suspect is natural.

As part of the generation that thinks we "invented porn," I also grew up with the idea that yes, content is commodotised. I will readily admit that the advent of the internet as it's known today brought with it a glut of free content and the ready exchange of ideas and media for free. However, all artists, regardless of medium, do deserve to be paid for the work that they do. In countless other areas, threads, and discussions, I have had myriad conversations regarding how to monetise without stabbing the consumer in the jugular.

It's kind of immaterial, though, as my primary point wasn't to belittle you. I apologise that my choice to try to remain on topic was perceived that way. It wasn't my intent.

Having said that, clearly, this is clearly not productive debate, as we appear to be at the same impasse/ discussion points that have previously been covered ad infinitum, so I will thank you for your input and vacate this thread.