Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Porn Business News

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Porn Business News

    With the demise of the porn politics thread I couldn't figure out where to put this, so here's a new thread:

    US court spanks porn company over credit card copyright suit.
    (I like The Register's subtitle: "No third leg to stand on." )
    Long article, but as Spock would say with a raised eyebrow, fascinating.
    The upshot: Probably best that they lost.

    BTW, for those who haven't heard of it, the referenced porn site has nothing at all in common with AW.com, there is nothing at all natural about it or its models. I can get huge quantities of their stuff from the newsgroups, not a single image I've looked at is worthwhile IMHO, either in quality or content.

    #2
    In the voice of Nelson Muntz: Ha ha!! The only content of theirs that I liked were the sets of Elisa Bridges, one of my absolute favorite models. It's unfortunate that toward the end of her life she worked for some sub-par (imo) sites.

    Certainly, any site is rightly upset at unauthorised use of their content, but going after credit card companies is far-fetched to say the least.

    HM
    Last edited by Havemercy; 9 July 2007, 10:01 PM.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Havemercy View Post
      Certainly, any site is rightly upset at unauthorised use of their content, but going after credit card companies is far-fetched to say the least.
      Not really, it worked for mp3 and online medication sites. Take away a site's option to earn/get money for whatever it sells and it will stop selling it eventually. Tried subscribing to an adult site using American Express recently ??

      Any creditcard-sale means profit for the CC companies (in effect they earn money on any illegal copy which is paid via their card). The trouble would be that they'd have to respond and act on all sorts of bogus claims. But going after the money route is a very viable option. Perfect10 is a bit too sue-happy though.

      I wonder why esp. MasterCard didn't revoke the processing-rights of the infringing-site. They usually are quite happy to do so.

      Comment


        #4
        My first thought to this was "WTF? Are they on crack?"

        Then I ready your reply.

        Actually, my thought remains "WTF? Are they on crack?"

        Aside from the publicity they might get from such a high-profile case, I can't begin to figure out what it is they were hoping for. How exactly can you hold the CC companies accountable? I mean, sure, no Visa, no website, but what is Visa supposed to do, hire someone to search every nook and cranny of a website that wants to do business with them to make sure they don't have unlicensed material? (Then again, it wouldn't be too hard to find someone to take the job.) Why didn't they just sue the site themselves instead? Or Paycom? (Or CCBill, or whomever handles their transactions). At least *they* have ads to websites from time to time.

        What would have been really funny is for that website to win its case and then all CC companies to say "okay, just to be safe, we won't do business with online adult websites anymore... including said original website." OK, not funny funny as AW would cease to exist, but you get the idea.

        Comment


          #5
          Ah yes, it would have made more sense to sue their creditcard-processor, agreed. Would also work MUCH better 'cos they don't want any fuss with the CC companies

          Comment


            #6
            Perfect 10 is at it again, this time against the Microsoft Live search engine.
            Apparently Perfect 10 sells their thumbnails to cellphone users, so Microsoft Live's thumbnailing hurts their business.
            Perfect 10 shows steep learning curve, sues Microsoft over thumbnails
            (I love the headline!)

            Fact of the week: "a search of the federal court system reveals no less than 28 lawsuits filed by Perfect 10 over the past several years".

            Wow. A Litigious porn site. Whoda thunkit.

            Comment


              #7
              It's sort of interesting in that not THAT many adult sites opt to go all the legal way. Why they're not sueing file-share sites (rapidshare and the like) I don't know. Much easier to proof violations, though much harder to collect money. Then again, why did they start this case?

              (a) fame
              (b) fortune
              (c) to stop what they honestly view as an abuse of their content

              Come to think of it.. HOW do a search engine gain access to their member-only images anyway? Must be those other thieving small sites which provide those pics for 'free'. Obviously they should go after those sites, but that doesn't pay out as much.

              Mostly answer (b) I think here, yep

              Comment


                #8
                This is a headline that could strike fear into the hearts of porn businesspeople throughout Oz:
                Australia to spend $189 million on anti-porn tech initiative.
                Well, that's not too scary, but this sub-header from the article is:
                "Proposal would impose jail sentences for possessing five or more pornographic movies"
                Oi!
                For now they are just talking about the Northern Territories, but others are arguing "the problems of pornography must be extended Australia-wide. Don't all children need protecting?"
                The article makes a good case that the so-called "family values" groups advocating these draconian measures are giving up on parenting, which is the best way to control the adverse effects of pornography on children.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by arsby View Post
                  The article makes a good case that the so-called "family values" groups advocating these draconian measures are giving up on parenting, which is the best way to control the adverse effects of pornography on children.
                  It’s this sorta thing that makes my blood boil. I have alluded to this before but too many couples sleep walk into relationships and marriage without thinking of the long-term consequences. One of the consequences of the "me" generation is that everything is geared to self and pleasure without due regard to responsibilities. The "Its OK to raise children out of wedlock ‘cos marriage is only a piece of paper" bollocks results in parents who never appreciated or foresaw the long term graft needed to raise children within a family unit, absolving themselves of parental responsibility and supporting schools whenever there is a discipline issue with the children.

                  I’m starting to sound like my husband in one his right-wing rants but as a society we only have ourselves to blame at the mission creep intrusion of the nanny state. Our moral weakness allows governments to give themselves a bit more power.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Hmm.. well most comments here would be political in nature which is not allowed I think so best not.
                    I think I can safely say that this proposal isn't motivated by a true wish to protect the children (kids usually know better how to circumvent filtering systems than their parents).

                    Indeed it would be nice parents started well.. parenting ?

                    I had no idea the political climate was so much anti-adult/porn in Australia btw. I know AW dvds can't be sold to locations inside Australia but that's about. Hosting is done in the USA due to high prices in Aus. as far as I know. Wonder if this sentiment will cause (big/well known) sites as AW trouble?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Mrs Roops View Post
                      One of the consequences of the "me" generation is that everything is geared to self and pleasure without due regard to responsibilities. The "Its OK to raise children out of wedlock ‘cos marriage is only a piece of paper" bollocks results in parents who never appreciated or foresaw the long term graft needed to raise children within a family unit,
                      I don't quite understand this argument. Why would you have to take raising children less seriously just because you take marriage less seriously?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by fransAW View Post
                        I had no idea the political climate was so much anti-adult/porn in Australia btw.
                        It's not. It's an election year.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          That pretty much says it all.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Vid Dude View Post
                            It's not. It's an election year.
                            Yes it is an election year, but we are also under a neo-conservative federal government and I think that has more to do with it than anything else. I don't think the porn-industry will register much in peoples minds here when they're choosing who to vote for.

                            There are always going to be anti-porn laws and people kicking up a fuss in every country, particularly Church groups. the best argument against those who wish to bring in these draconian laws is to argue that this is an attack on free speech. If we ban porn (or ownership of porn) why not violent movies, video games and a whole list of other media that may adversely affect children?

                            -b

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                              the best argument against those who wish to bring in these draconian laws is to argue that this is an attack on free speech. If we ban porn (or ownership of porn) why not violent movies, video games and a whole list of other media that may adversely affect children?
                              You're so right, Bonnie!!

                              Oh, and by the way,I liked your other avatar much better!!

                              takochan

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by yoledey View Post
                                I don't quite understand this argument. Why would you have to take raising children less seriously just because you take marriage less seriously?
                                People who are feckless enough to enter into a state of matrimony without due regard to the long term commitment needed are just as likely to have children on the same basis. Too often couples think that having a child will save the marriage. In the UK at any rate, there is evidence that children from a broken home or where the parents have separated are statistically more likely to do less well at school. There is also a correlation between juvenile delinquency and broken homes.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Mrs Roops View Post
                                  People who are feckless enough to enter into a state of matrimony without due regard to the long term commitment needed are just as likely to have children on the same basis. ... In the UK at any rate, there is evidence that children from a broken home or where the parents have separated are statistically more likely to do less well at school. There is also a correlation between juvenile delinquency and broken homes.
                                  Right on, Mrs R. The key word is "feckless" — and believe me, fecklessness has long been rife here in NZ, with all the consequences you mention, and then some...

                                  takochan

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by takochan View Post
                                    ...The key word is "feckless"...
                                    Look, I know this is a porn site and there's free speech and all, but I think really think that we should all maintain some standards of verbal decency on these boards. I think you should all watch your fecking mouths.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                                      Yes it is an election year, but we are also under a neo-conservative federal government and I think that has more to do with it than anything else. I don't think the porn-industry will register much in peoples minds here when they're choosing who to vote for.

                                      There are always going to be anti-porn laws and people kicking up a fuss in every country, particularly Church groups. the best argument against those who wish to bring in these draconian laws is to argue that this is an attack on free speech. If we ban porn (or ownership of porn) why not violent movies, video games and a whole list of other media that may adversely affect children?

                                      -b
                                      Don't give them any ideas!

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by takochan View Post
                                        You're so right, Bonnie!!

                                        Oh, and by the way,I liked your other avatar much better!!

                                        takochan
                                        Yah, this one looks like a trailer for a '50s horror flick. (Except for the model)

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by Mrs Roops View Post
                                          People who are feckless enough to enter into a state of matrimony without due regard to the long term commitment needed are just as likely to have children on the same basis. Too often couples think that having a child will save the marriage.
                                          It is not necessary to regard marriage as a lifetime commitment or something that deserves to be upheld with colossal efforts, at least not any more than a non-marriage relationship does. What significance to attribute to the state of matrimony is a matter of choice, a choice that two adults can make in agreement with each other. If it is considered by both parties to be just a piece of paper (with some legal consequences, of course), there is no reason why anyone of them should come to harm because of it.

                                          Having a child is completely different, because a child does not have the choice of being born or not. Therefore, whereas a marriage can be renounced, the responsibility that comes with a child cannot be escaped under any circumstances (well, adoption). For that reason, I think having a child is always a bigger step than getting married, and the decision requires more consideration (regardless of one’s marital status).

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Wow, Yoledey, did you really mean that? I think it’s universally accepted that marriage is a biding social and legal contract “until death do us part”. Marriages fail for all sorts of reasons but what hope is there for society if there are people who enter into marriage with the express intent of the union being a temporary arrangement? I wonder do you treat all contracts in the same cavalier fashion? Does this mean your word is never to be trusted?

                                            At least you seem to take child rearing a bit more seriously, though unfortunately some couples appear to take the same blasé attitude with regards to having children as you do with marriage. There is a horrendous price to be paid for this, firstly by the children, secondly by society and of course the taxpayer.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by Mrs Roops View Post
                                              I think it’s universally accepted that marriage is a biding social and legal contract “until death do us part”.
                                              I actually don’t think it’s universally accepted. For one thing, our legal systems do recognize the right of a married person to file for divorce, even unilaterally. Furthermore, given the present rate of divorce, people do understand that whatever they feel when they get married there is a probability that the marriage will end. Even it the oath taken at the wedding ceremony, literally taken, means that the marriage must last as long as both persons live, the actual agreement between the parties – implicit or explicit – can and most likely will be different from that. I guess you can call that hypocrisy if you want. If people really thought death was the only escape from marriage, I think they would not marry.

                                              Originally posted by Mrs Roops View Post
                                              what hope is there for society if there are people who enter into marriage with the express intent of the union being a temporary arrangement?
                                              I don’t see why that should pose a threat to society at all.

                                              Originally posted by Mrs Roops View Post
                                              I wonder do you treat all contracts in the same cavalier fashion? Does this mean your word is never to be trusted?
                                              I take all contracts I enter into very seriously, and I detest hypocrisy. Now I will not consider getting married through a Christian ceremony, and to the extent that it’s possible I will see to it that the vow I take if and when I marry will conform to my view of matrimony.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                That could be the whole problem in a nutshell--this emphasis on what people feel during the ceremony. Here in the US, weddings have become their own industry, and I fear that men and women are swept up in the romance of the ceremony without being prepared for the hard work of marriage. My parents were full of good intentions but simply were not prepared for the day-to-day give-and-take of marriage. The result was a lot of avoidable tragedy. Millions of couples have experienced the same thing--both they and their children pay. I am not arguing for a return to the days when divorce was nearly impossible--women were treated like dirt in those days and men given a blank check for very bad behavior. But the pendulum has swung too far when people are getting married with the thought in the back of their minds that if it doesn't work out--i.e., if my feelings change--then I can always get divorced. It's about a lot more than feelings.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by artlover View Post
                                                  I am not arguing for a return to the days when divorce was nearly impossible--women were treated like dirt in those days and men given a blank check for very bad behavior. But the pendulum has swung too far when people are getting married with the thought in the back of their minds that if it doesn't work out--i.e., if my feelings change--then I can always get divorced. It's about a lot more than feelings.
                                                  Yes, I’ve always maintained that these days couples rush into marriage without thinking through the consequences or the huge emotional investment needed to make the union work.

                                                  I wish yoledey well, firstly in finding a partner who is prepared to marry him and have children on the basis that the union is not intended to be for keeps.

                                                  Secondly, I hope he finds a licensed wedding official who is permitted by law to change the wedding vows according to his philosophy. Even reading most of the secular vows available I have yet to find anything along the lines of, "I give you my hand, my heart, and my love, from this day forward for as long as we shall both live/ I see fit/ until I get bored/ until I find a younger woman/ until you stop giving blowjobs". (Strike out items that don’t apply). Ok I’m being facetious, but you get my drift. The point is he will have to recite the vows knowing he will break them.

                                                  And what of the children? What do you say to them? "Sorry but I never signed up to be with Mom for keeps, now promise me that you’ll look after her"?

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    Originally posted by Mrs Roops View Post
                                                    I wish yoledey well, firstly in finding a partner who is prepared to marry him and have children on the basis that the union is not intended to be for keeps.
                                                    Like I said, having children is a very different thing. I would feel more of an obligation to commit to my relationship if I were to have children with my partner than if I were to marry her. To me, deciding to have children would be the big step.

                                                    Originally posted by Mrs Roops View Post
                                                    Secondly, I hope he finds a licensed wedding official who is permitted by law to change the wedding vows according to his philosophy.
                                                    I can reassure you by saying that the Swedish secular ceremony, the short version ("20 seconds"), will do the trick:

                                                    "You have declared that you want to enter into matrimony with each other. Do you NN then take this NN to be your wife? [I do]
                                                    Do you NN take this NN to be your husband? [I do]
                                                    I now pronounce you man and wife."

                                                    No drivel here

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by yoledey View Post
                                                      Like I said, having children is a very different thing. I would feel more of an obligation to commit to my relationship if I were to have children with my partner than if I were to marry her. To me, deciding to have children would be the big step.
                                                      I'll agree on that part, but what would be the point of marriage in your view if you don't want/anticpate to have kids? You don't NEED to be married these days to live together It's not that divorce should be illegal again but people would do well to think about marriage as permanent and decide if they truly want that before going into it. (never mind the 6-month marriages around Hollywood, Ca.. sheesh). A little bit more forthought and purposefully deciding which responsibilities you want to take on.. would be a good idea for lotsa people.

                                                      Or is this just me getting older??

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        If by "drivel" you mean "in sickness and health, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, till death do you part," then sign me up as a drivelist. Better drivel than the bad poetry that is so often inflicted on innocent guests.

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by fransAW View Post
                                                          I'll agree on that part, but what would be the point of marriage in your view if you don't want/anticpate to have kids?
                                                          Yeah it’s this bit I find hard to understand. Yoledey seems to advocate a two-tier level of commitment depending on whether or not you wish to raise children with his betrothed. Taking this simply does this mean there are some women who are worth a second class betrothal and commitment (ie marriage-lite) and other women who are worthy of the full commitment including sharing the responsibility of raising children. What qualities would the full commitment woman have as opposed to the temporary commitment partner?
                                                          Originally posted by yoledey View Post
                                                          I can reassure you by saying that the Swedish secular ceremony, the short version ("20 seconds"), will do the trick:
                                                          "You have declared that you want to enter into matrimony with each other. Do you NN then take this NN to be your wife? [I do]
                                                          Do you NN take this NN to be your husband? [I do]
                                                          I now pronounce you man and wife."

                                                          No drivel here
                                                          I think most people will take it as read that when you are saying you wish to enter into matrimony, even with a short ceremony, you are confirming unconditional faithfulness, love and permanence.
                                                          Last edited by Mrs Roops; 23 August 2007, 02:45 PM.

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            All this talk about marriage, I was married 27 years before my wife past on some 6 years ago, and although there were some rocky times we both I say "Both" stuck with it and not just for the kids as many quote as a reason for staying in a rocky marriage. But because we "Both" made a commitment in our vows to make it work.

                                                            Enough of the soapbox, I would say something about the no kids thing, but that would put me back on the soapbox and I don't want to bore you.

                                                            One last thing, what does marriage have to do with Porn Business News anyway?

                                                            Comment

                                                            Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

                                                             
                                                            Sign up for the abby newsletter. Don't worry, we'll NEVER share your email address with anyone.
                                                            Working...
                                                            X