Journals6
Newest
What is the point of them?
7 min read
It's been a sad and somewhat disturbing reality since the beginning of the internet that piracy is a fact of life. But at the moment I'm not going into the topic of the thieves who feel they're entitled to make more profit by stealing the works of others than the creators of said work can ever hope to earn with it. I won't go into the pernicious online environment that's evolved where theft has become the accepted norm, and anyone who creates anything online (or anything that can be made into a digital file) is expected, in effect, to work for free. And people don't feel the producers are justified in their outrage at being victimized by this system. What other legal business is expected to happily lose most of their profit to theft and piracy?
I can only express my hope that the big companies with their vast resources will ultimately find a way to change things. Sure, it'd be gratifying to see the thieves held accountable, but it's not very likely to happen. What I'd like to see is the rapid implementation of a system that would more effectively discourage piracy, preferably with the advent of a practical micropayment system. Considering that since the beginning of the internet the adult industry has been spearheading the advancement of online technology, I must admit I'm perplexed as to why no one has yet come up with a viable way to keep the industry from going bankrupt because of piracy. But I digress...
Every producer knows his work is being pirated. But if the big entertainment companies with their full-time armies of lawyers can't get their products off the pirate sites, then what chance do we mere individuals have? So insofar as stopping the thieves from making money off of us, we're screwed. But at least their theft is profit-motivated, and thus understandable. They don't care what the content is. Whether it's recipes or software, mainstream movies or hardcore porn, they didn't create it but these criminals are making money off it all the same.
What's less comprehensible is the people who steal copyrighted works for their own self-aggrandizement. Seriously, what is the point of them? I'm specifically referring to those sites where posting the copyrighted works of others is against the terms of service, but it's fairly rampant anyway: Yahoo groups, deviant art, youtube, dailymotion, fetlife, tumblr, pinterest, assorted blogs and various others. These people are presumably fans, otherwise they might as well be posting recipes, software, mainstream movies or hardcore porn. I can only presume they do it because it makes their dicks bigger, and they get to be the hero who has bravely stolen the content of some poor producer and distributed it to keep the originator from ever making back his money from creating it. Sort of like Robin Hood, if Robin Hood was an intestinal parasite.
These misguided "heroes" sharing the wealth they have no claim to really should take a look at what's happening around them. Producers are giving up and calling it quits. These "heroes" are actually parasites that kill the hosts. They can delude themselves by claiming they're doing the producers a favor by promoting their sites, but that's absolute nonsense. It's like telling a manufacturer "Gee, I love your products!" and then stealing and giving away all their inventory and burning down their factory. And here's the kicker: none of us can get fire insurance. Of course, these guys must love it when a producer folds, since then they can make their dicks even bigger by giving away more of the stolen content without fear of repercussions. They claim they're paying homage. Just like Robin Hood, if Robin Hood was a graverobber.
Here's another point to ponder. The filesharing sites are all obviously making a profit or they'd go out of business. So when the "heroes" upload copyrighted material, they're making money for the owners of the filesharing sites, not the people who created the content in the first place. So by patronizing them, the site users are helping to destroy the creators of what they want to see. Instead of supporting the producers who could create more of what they like, they're putting money in the pockets of people who are frequently arrested as criminals.
As a counter to that claim that posting the works of others is "good advertising," if I wanted to promote a particular product, I'd do something like this: This is so cool! www.tfaw.com/Search?_results_u… got the message across without infringing anyone's copyright, and I sent the potential paying customers precisely to where they and the creator would want them to be. It's that simple.
The "stolen content as advertising" is especially laughable when you look at say, the number of clips that might be sold of a scene (perhaps a dozen or so) versus the huge number of views that very same clip would get when it's posted on a tube site (literally thousands). I doubt anyone would advise giving away hundreds of times the amount of goods you're selling as a sound business practice. You might argue that the thousands of freeloaders would never pay to see anything, but even if a small percentage would consider buying if no other option was available, it would've kept lots of producers from giving up. It's a sad commentary on the system where the customer base is obviously there, as shown by the thousands of views, but the producers don't make enough money to stay in business.
It seems the whole business model is evolving insofar as membership sites go. In addition to a depressed economy, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone with a membership site to compete (or even stay afloat) when so much content is given away. If you join some Yahoo groups, you'll legitimately (that is, with permission of the producers) get literally thousands of bondage photos a year sent to your inbox. Many of the photos may not be the highest quality or to your specific taste, but the recipients rarely complain that their free lunch isn't delicious.
The rest of the content on the Yahoo bondage groups is used without permission. Considering they're in violation of Yahoo's copyright policy, we can only assume Yahoo is either turning a blind eye to this rampant disregard of their terms of service, or tacitly approve of the ad revenues it generates as long as the copyright holders don't complain. It doesn't alter the fact these groups are no longer harmless little fan clubs. They're a cancer on the industry, and yet another reason more producers are giving up.
The best example of this was a Yahoo group that had a rather specialized interest. The website that produced this content had very few paying members, one of whom posted everything they released to his Yahoo group (which had considerably more members than the site). Ultimately, the producer couldn't sustain the site since he wasn't making enough money to continue. So the brave hero who shared the wealth managed to cut off his own dick by killing the site.
Everyone needs to recognize that these people who are taking copyrighted works and posting them just for their own self-glorification are not heroes. They're detrimental to a business whose products you like, or you wouldn't be here. They're contributors to a toxic environment, and that's really the only contribution they're making.
I can only express my hope that the big companies with their vast resources will ultimately find a way to change things. Sure, it'd be gratifying to see the thieves held accountable, but it's not very likely to happen. What I'd like to see is the rapid implementation of a system that would more effectively discourage piracy, preferably with the advent of a practical micropayment system. Considering that since the beginning of the internet the adult industry has been spearheading the advancement of online technology, I must admit I'm perplexed as to why no one has yet come up with a viable way to keep the industry from going bankrupt because of piracy. But I digress...
Every producer knows his work is being pirated. But if the big entertainment companies with their full-time armies of lawyers can't get their products off the pirate sites, then what chance do we mere individuals have? So insofar as stopping the thieves from making money off of us, we're screwed. But at least their theft is profit-motivated, and thus understandable. They don't care what the content is. Whether it's recipes or software, mainstream movies or hardcore porn, they didn't create it but these criminals are making money off it all the same.
What's less comprehensible is the people who steal copyrighted works for their own self-aggrandizement. Seriously, what is the point of them? I'm specifically referring to those sites where posting the copyrighted works of others is against the terms of service, but it's fairly rampant anyway: Yahoo groups, deviant art, youtube, dailymotion, fetlife, tumblr, pinterest, assorted blogs and various others. These people are presumably fans, otherwise they might as well be posting recipes, software, mainstream movies or hardcore porn. I can only presume they do it because it makes their dicks bigger, and they get to be the hero who has bravely stolen the content of some poor producer and distributed it to keep the originator from ever making back his money from creating it. Sort of like Robin Hood, if Robin Hood was an intestinal parasite.
These misguided "heroes" sharing the wealth they have no claim to really should take a look at what's happening around them. Producers are giving up and calling it quits. These "heroes" are actually parasites that kill the hosts. They can delude themselves by claiming they're doing the producers a favor by promoting their sites, but that's absolute nonsense. It's like telling a manufacturer "Gee, I love your products!" and then stealing and giving away all their inventory and burning down their factory. And here's the kicker: none of us can get fire insurance. Of course, these guys must love it when a producer folds, since then they can make their dicks even bigger by giving away more of the stolen content without fear of repercussions. They claim they're paying homage. Just like Robin Hood, if Robin Hood was a graverobber.
Here's another point to ponder. The filesharing sites are all obviously making a profit or they'd go out of business. So when the "heroes" upload copyrighted material, they're making money for the owners of the filesharing sites, not the people who created the content in the first place. So by patronizing them, the site users are helping to destroy the creators of what they want to see. Instead of supporting the producers who could create more of what they like, they're putting money in the pockets of people who are frequently arrested as criminals.
As a counter to that claim that posting the works of others is "good advertising," if I wanted to promote a particular product, I'd do something like this: This is so cool! www.tfaw.com/Search?_results_u… got the message across without infringing anyone's copyright, and I sent the potential paying customers precisely to where they and the creator would want them to be. It's that simple.
The "stolen content as advertising" is especially laughable when you look at say, the number of clips that might be sold of a scene (perhaps a dozen or so) versus the huge number of views that very same clip would get when it's posted on a tube site (literally thousands). I doubt anyone would advise giving away hundreds of times the amount of goods you're selling as a sound business practice. You might argue that the thousands of freeloaders would never pay to see anything, but even if a small percentage would consider buying if no other option was available, it would've kept lots of producers from giving up. It's a sad commentary on the system where the customer base is obviously there, as shown by the thousands of views, but the producers don't make enough money to stay in business.
It seems the whole business model is evolving insofar as membership sites go. In addition to a depressed economy, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone with a membership site to compete (or even stay afloat) when so much content is given away. If you join some Yahoo groups, you'll legitimately (that is, with permission of the producers) get literally thousands of bondage photos a year sent to your inbox. Many of the photos may not be the highest quality or to your specific taste, but the recipients rarely complain that their free lunch isn't delicious.
The rest of the content on the Yahoo bondage groups is used without permission. Considering they're in violation of Yahoo's copyright policy, we can only assume Yahoo is either turning a blind eye to this rampant disregard of their terms of service, or tacitly approve of the ad revenues it generates as long as the copyright holders don't complain. It doesn't alter the fact these groups are no longer harmless little fan clubs. They're a cancer on the industry, and yet another reason more producers are giving up.
The best example of this was a Yahoo group that had a rather specialized interest. The website that produced this content had very few paying members, one of whom posted everything they released to his Yahoo group (which had considerably more members than the site). Ultimately, the producer couldn't sustain the site since he wasn't making enough money to continue. So the brave hero who shared the wealth managed to cut off his own dick by killing the site.
Everyone needs to recognize that these people who are taking copyrighted works and posting them just for their own self-glorification are not heroes. They're detrimental to a business whose products you like, or you wouldn't be here. They're contributors to a toxic environment, and that's really the only contribution they're making.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Why I hate Photomanipulators
2 min read
I just had to report another photomanipulator for using one of my copyrighted images. Attention jerkwads: You don't have permission to use my works. You never will. Read Deviant Art's copyright policy about.deviantart.com/policy/co… violating it.
Aside from the copyright issues, my main problem with photomanipulators is they're creating their crap without consent. They don't have my permission as the copyright holder, or the permission of my model, or the permission of the celebrity, or the permission of the photographer who took the celebrity's photo. When I shoot a model I'm required by law to maintain releases. The model I've hired, with my own money, signs the release that says I'm the only person who has the right to use the photos. She has consented to that and no other use by anyone else.
I've never seen a photomanipulator hire a model with his own money to be the body in his manipulations. They always steal the works of others. I've never had a photomanipulator approach me and ask to use my photos. They always steal them.
I wonder how the average photomanipulator would feel if someone took a photo of him and put his face on the body of someone engaged in a sexual act that he did not have an interest in or perhaps might not even approve of, then posted it for distribution on the net. But then, photomanipulators seem to have no respect for the rights of others.
Hey photomanipulators: I'm sorry about your luck that favorite celebrity isn't going to put on lingerie and get tied up by Jay Edwards. Get over it.
A couple of times before I've had run-ins with photomanipulators. (Whose pussy hurts now, Mr. Rhymes-With-Whiny-Bitch?) I'm waiting for one of these chickenshits to grow a pair and tell me to come and get them. Yes, I'd definitely spring for the lawyer's fees to sue you into bankruptcy and make an example of your sorry ass.
Aside from the copyright issues, my main problem with photomanipulators is they're creating their crap without consent. They don't have my permission as the copyright holder, or the permission of my model, or the permission of the celebrity, or the permission of the photographer who took the celebrity's photo. When I shoot a model I'm required by law to maintain releases. The model I've hired, with my own money, signs the release that says I'm the only person who has the right to use the photos. She has consented to that and no other use by anyone else.
I've never seen a photomanipulator hire a model with his own money to be the body in his manipulations. They always steal the works of others. I've never had a photomanipulator approach me and ask to use my photos. They always steal them.
I wonder how the average photomanipulator would feel if someone took a photo of him and put his face on the body of someone engaged in a sexual act that he did not have an interest in or perhaps might not even approve of, then posted it for distribution on the net. But then, photomanipulators seem to have no respect for the rights of others.
Hey photomanipulators: I'm sorry about your luck that favorite celebrity isn't going to put on lingerie and get tied up by Jay Edwards. Get over it.
A couple of times before I've had run-ins with photomanipulators. (Whose pussy hurts now, Mr. Rhymes-With-Whiny-Bitch?) I'm waiting for one of these chickenshits to grow a pair and tell me to come and get them. Yes, I'd definitely spring for the lawyer's fees to sue you into bankruptcy and make an example of your sorry ass.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Happy Year of the Rabbit!
1 min read
I promise I'll try to be less cranky and more organized, write more than one journal entry per year and I'll make an attempt to get caught up with all those notes, comments and correspondence. If you've been waiting for a reply about anything, my apologies for the delay. I usually try to write replies that have some thought... unless I'm bitch-slapping some scumbag thief, in which case I'll shoot from the hip.
By the way, I'd like to thank the good folks at Deviant Art for their quick response on those occasions when someone has rippd me off. If they responded a little faster when I reported those stealing from my friends they'd be just freakin' perfect.
The whole theft/copyright infringement thing is a real hot-button for me because if this is your livelihood, if the majority of the people enjoying your work haven't paid for it and if you've been ripped off as much and for as long as I have, you get really tired of it. A lot of producers just give up and quit, but I'm going to keep on fighting.
By the way, I'd like to thank the good folks at Deviant Art for their quick response on those occasions when someone has rippd me off. If they responded a little faster when I reported those stealing from my friends they'd be just freakin' perfect.
The whole theft/copyright infringement thing is a real hot-button for me because if this is your livelihood, if the majority of the people enjoying your work haven't paid for it and if you've been ripped off as much and for as long as I have, you get really tired of it. A lot of producers just give up and quit, but I'm going to keep on fighting.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
What's with this jackoff?
1 min read
This asswipe thief, DIDlover6661, knows I have no tolerance for his piracy. Because of this, he's blocked me from making any comments on his profile or any of the stolen images he's posted. Now this cocksucker thinks he'll get away with posting MY copyrighted works. Stupid dickwad.
Pay close attention, asshole: Just because you say where you stole an image and put up a link to it, it doesn't give you the right to post anything you don't have the rights to. Read DA's copyright policy. It's written in clear, concise language even someone mentally challenged like you should be able to understand. If you still don't get it, have someone with a normal I.Q. read it and explain it to you.
Pay close attention, asshole: Just because you say where you stole an image and put up a link to it, it doesn't give you the right to post anything you don't have the rights to. Read DA's copyright policy. It's written in clear, concise language even someone mentally challenged like you should be able to understand. If you still don't get it, have someone with a normal I.Q. read it and explain it to you.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
What constitutes 'Popular'?
1 min read
I'm just curious, I guess. There's one search term I use for some of my gallery submissions (and I won't say what it is) which is not widely used. I used to have the #1 most popular entry for that term. Then, it got ousted from the top position, then again, and again -- but why?
I ask this because the stats for these entries go like this:
The "most popular" entry:
Favourites: 15
Views: 587
Downloads 18
Second on the list:
Favourites: 8
Views: 286
Downloads 31
Third for the term:
Favourites: 8
Views: 169
Downloads 27
My deviation:
Favourites: 175
Views: 5,665
Downloads 332
Seriously, what gives?
I ask this because the stats for these entries go like this:
The "most popular" entry:
Favourites: 15
Views: 587
Downloads 18
Second on the list:
Favourites: 8
Views: 286
Downloads 31
Third for the term:
Favourites: 8
Views: 169
Downloads 27
My deviation:
Favourites: 175
Views: 5,665
Downloads 332
Seriously, what gives?
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In