|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Sorry, it is inevitable"
If you can stand one more post on this topic.
It seems to me there is a lot of rage on the forum regarding piracy without many solutions. As an initial matter, MikeHoncho47 in Bratty's thread is right. If you put a video up for sale here you have to expect that it will appear to a wider viewing base than who you sold it to. It is just how the internet works. In fact, this problem, to the extent we want to call it that, has been around longer than the internet.*
The short term solution, much as it pains me to say because I hate it, is streaming. Sites like Patreon allow the producer to upload videos and have a monthly subscription rate. It is difficult -- much more difficult-- to take a video streaming from Patreon and extract it to a site like Thisvid than it is to upload a video one has purchased from here and downloaded. I don't like sites like Patreon because I like to "own" the video and watch it any time I want without worrying about a monthly subscription. But we are talking solutions here, not my pet peeves.
There are drawbacks, though, to this type of solution. From my selfish perspective, I don't like it for the reason stated above. From the producer's perspective, it may hurt sales. If a lot of people feel the way I do, they may spend less on vids than they did before. More fundamentally, it hurts small producers. Think of a world where it is all streaming with monthly subscriptions -- roughly between $10 and $20 a month. If I am a pie fan, I might look at my budget and the back catalog of producers and decide that I am just going to stream SlapstickStuff, Rev, and MessyGirl. Maybe I switch it up in different months, but the small producer, the person just trying to get their foot in the door and does not have a strong catalog, is going to find it rough sledding in a world of pure streaming.
I think the next evolution is for a site (maybe UMD) to become a streamer. You pay a monthly price and you can pick from a whole selection of different producers. This could help the small producer. But how expensive would it be? What about those producers who do not want to work within this conglomerate streamer? Well then maybe you get some competition (Prime, Hulu, and Netflix). Feasible, I don't know. But name calling and rending of clothing isn't gonna solve the problem, the internet and pirates are usually one step ahead.
*The music industry is telling here. When I was growing up in the 1980s I would go to used record stores. Really, this is not a huge jump from what people are complaining about now. Artist A sells his work to customer C, customer C turns around and sells it to a used record shop for cash and turns that cash into a new purchase of Artist B, meanwhile CKCP can buy Artist A's work at a discount and Artist A never sees any money from that sale. It is like trading with a middleman.
Or consider the 1990s. Me and my college friends would exchange cassette tapes we made of music we discovered and want others to hear. "Dude, check out this Guided By Voices tape and tell me what you think." "Hey man, I just sent you a cassette of this new band, Uncle Tupelo, I think you will like it."
Of course, things were different then because NO INTERNET.
But the music industry is telling in that regard as well. Enter the 2000s. Remember Napster? That was sort of like a Thisvid for music with similar shady goings-on. The music industry went ballistic, sued people, killed Napster, but it did not stop piracy or music sharing. It couldn't. IT WAS INEVITABLE with the internet.
So now we have Spotify and the like. Streaming services. Problem solved right? Well, I am not so sure. I would argue that the artists are not much better off under this scenario than they were in the 1980s, 1990s and, even 2000s. Seems to me that small acts have a harder time breaking in than they did before (does everyone, other than me, solely listen to Taylor Swift and similar top 40 stuff?). The variety of music seems to suffer as well-- all music kinda blends together. Modern "country" sounds like top 40, which sounds like the latest in R&B, which sounds like "rock" and everything, EVERYTHING is run through a machine. But I digress and I am old.
The bottom line is that this is still evolving. But we are never going back to a time when there was no piracy, no trading, because that time, to the extent it ever existed, died with modern technology. Now, the internet will always win out.
It seems to me there is a lot of rage on the forum regarding piracy without many solutions. As an initial matter, MikeHoncho47 in Bratty's thread is right. If you put a video up for sale here you have to expect that it will appear to a wider viewing base than who you sold it to. It is just how the internet works. In fact, this problem, to the extent we want to call it that, has been around longer than the internet.*
The short term solution, much as it pains me to say because I hate it, is streaming. Sites like Patreon allow the producer to upload videos and have a monthly subscription rate. It is difficult -- much more difficult-- to take a video streaming from Patreon and extract it to a site like Thisvid than it is to upload a video one has purchased from here and downloaded. I don't like sites like Patreon because I like to "own" the video and watch it any time I want without worrying about a monthly subscription. But we are talking solutions here, not my pet peeves.
There are drawbacks, though, to this type of solution. From my selfish perspective, I don't like it for the reason stated above. From the producer's perspective, it may hurt sales. If a lot of people feel the way I do, they may spend less on vids than they did before. More fundamentally, it hurts small producers. Think of a world where it is all streaming with monthly subscriptions -- roughly between $10 and $20 a month. If I am a pie fan, I might look at my budget and the back catalog of producers and decide that I am just going to stream SlapstickStuff, Rev, and MessyGirl. Maybe I switch it up in different months, but the small producer, the person just trying to get their foot in the door and does not have a strong catalog, is going to find it rough sledding in a world of pure streaming.
I think the next evolution is for a site (maybe UMD) to become a streamer. You pay a monthly price and you can pick from a whole selection of different producers. This could help the small producer. But how expensive would it be? What about those producers who do not want to work within this conglomerate streamer? Well then maybe you get some competition (Prime, Hulu, and Netflix). Feasible, I don't know. But name calling and rending of clothing isn't gonna solve the problem, the internet and pirates are usually one step ahead.
*The music industry is telling here. When I was growing up in the 1980s I would go to used record stores. Really, this is not a huge jump from what people are complaining about now. Artist A sells his work to customer C, customer C turns around and sells it to a used record shop for cash and turns that cash into a new purchase of Artist B, meanwhile CKCP can buy Artist A's work at a discount and Artist A never sees any money from that sale. It is like trading with a middleman.
Or consider the 1990s. Me and my college friends would exchange cassette tapes we made of music we discovered and want others to hear. "Dude, check out this Guided By Voices tape and tell me what you think." "Hey man, I just sent you a cassette of this new band, Uncle Tupelo, I think you will like it."
Of course, things were different then because NO INTERNET.
But the music industry is telling in that regard as well. Enter the 2000s. Remember Napster? That was sort of like a Thisvid for music with similar shady goings-on. The music industry went ballistic, sued people, killed Napster, but it did not stop piracy or music sharing. It couldn't. IT WAS INEVITABLE with the internet.
So now we have Spotify and the like. Streaming services. Problem solved right? Well, I am not so sure. I would argue that the artists are not much better off under this scenario than they were in the 1980s, 1990s and, even 2000s. Seems to me that small acts have a harder time breaking in than they did before (does everyone, other than me, solely listen to Taylor Swift and similar top 40 stuff?). The variety of music seems to suffer as well-- all music kinda blends together. Modern "country" sounds like top 40, which sounds like the latest in R&B, which sounds like "rock" and everything, EVERYTHING is run through a machine. But I digress and I am old.
The bottom line is that this is still evolving. But we are never going back to a time when there was no piracy, no trading, because that time, to the extent it ever existed, died with modern technology. Now, the internet will always win out.
Saturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
The solution to the problem is not going to be achieved with technology.
It's trivially easy for someone to turn a streamed scene into a local video if they want to, I'm not going to post a how-to guide but honestly, it's not difficult.
The solution will come when people accept that respecting creative work is more important than immediate personal wants, in the same way that people can mostly be trusted to go into shops and pay for the things they pick up rather than just legging it out the door with them.
As I mentioned on the main thread, customers are customers not because producers make it hard to pirate, but because customers are honest and decent people who recognise the value of content creation and are willing to pay a fair price to obtain that content. Doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to piracy, far from it, infringers need to be stomped on and piracy-emabling sites need to be taken down. But never lose sight of the decent ordinary folk who are willing to pay fair prices for work.
It's trivially easy for someone to turn a streamed scene into a local video if they want to, I'm not going to post a how-to guide but honestly, it's not difficult.
The solution will come when people accept that respecting creative work is more important than immediate personal wants, in the same way that people can mostly be trusted to go into shops and pay for the things they pick up rather than just legging it out the door with them.
As I mentioned on the main thread, customers are customers not because producers make it hard to pirate, but because customers are honest and decent people who recognise the value of content creation and are willing to pay a fair price to obtain that content. Doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to piracy, far from it, infringers need to be stomped on and piracy-emabling sites need to be taken down. But never lose sight of the decent ordinary folk who are willing to pay fair prices for work.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
There are plenty of pirated vids from Patreon and other streaming platforms online. People being assholes is the main problem here. The only thing streaming solves is that the creator has a smaller, more personal audience base who is still less likely to pirate. But you can't write away the "rage" people like myself and others expressed in that other thread, because it was specifically about people being assholes. It didn't need to turn into a somewhat condescending lecture on why it's "inevitable this will happen online because the internet." Or more unnecessary opinions on how a woman should weigh this out before making content when she clearly did weigh it out. No. People are choosing to be fucking assholes. That's the source of the problem here, not the internet.
CKCP said: If you can stand one more post on this topic.
It seems to me there is a lot of rage on the forum regarding piracy without many solutions.
It seems to me there is a lot of rage on the forum regarding piracy without many solutions.
The solutions aren't ideal, but they're there:
1. Notify producers if and when content is pirated so they can issue DMCA requests.
2. Discourage piracy in general.
Admittedly, there isn't a ton to be done *proactively* about piracy aside from #2. If you check out some of the threads of pirate sites when some producers appeal to their better natures, some commenters will say things like "Piracy is just the cost of doing business, I hate when people come here and cry about it." Those folks may not be dissuaded so easily.
People who have their content pirated have a right to be outraged. But the way I see it is, it's like a big college dorm and someone smashed a window with a brick. Sometimes people want to march out the entire dorm and berate them because of the smashed window when clearly there were only a few specific people who smashed the window. But I totally get it if it's YOUR window that's smashed. You need the catharsis to get you through that feeling of betrayal.
BUT then you have people who decide to come in and out of the dorm through the smashed window instead of reporting it, because it's easier or whatever. I think that's where we might be able to see progress, if people can be persuaded to report the smashed window instead of ignoring it.
Can people be stopped from pirating content? Maybe not entirely, though I'm open to suggestions. But there are plenty of ways to minimize the damage, so let's not throw up our hands and say it's inevitable.
CKCP said: If you can stand one more post on this topic.
It seems to me there is a lot of rage on the forum regarding piracy without many solutions. As an initial matter, MikeHoncho47 in Bratty's thread is right. If you put a video up for sale here you have to expect that it will appear to a wider viewing base than who you sold it to. It is just how the internet works. In fact, this problem, to the extent we want to call it that, has been around longer than the internet.*
The short term solution, much as it pains me to say because I hate it, is streaming. Sites like Patreon allow the producer to upload videos and have a monthly subscription rate. It is difficult -- much more difficult-- to take a video streaming from Patreon and extract it to a site like Thisvid than it is to upload a video one has purchased from here and downloaded. I don't like sites like Patreon because I like to "own" the video and watch it any time I want without worrying about a monthly subscription. But we are talking solutions here, not my pet peeves.
There are drawbacks, though, to this type of solution. From my selfish perspective, I don't like it for the reason stated above. From the producer's perspective, it may hurt sales. If a lot of people feel the way I do, they may spend less on vids than they did before. More fundamentally, it hurts small producers. Think of a world where it is all streaming with monthly subscriptions -- roughly between $10 and $20 a month. If I am a pie fan, I might look at my budget and the back catalog of producers and decide that I am just going to stream SlapstickStuff, Rev, and MessyGirl. Maybe I switch it up in different months, but the small producer, the person just trying to get their foot in the door and does not have a strong catalog, is going to find it rough sledding in a world of pure streaming.
I think the next evolution is for a site (maybe UMD) to become a streamer. You pay a monthly price and you can pick from a whole selection of different producers. This could help the small producer. But how expensive would it be? What about those producers who do not want to work within this conglomerate streamer? Well then maybe you get some competition (Prime, Hulu, and Netflix). Feasible, I don't know. But name calling and rending of clothing isn't gonna solve the problem, the internet and pirates are usually one step ahead.
*The music industry is telling here. When I was growing up in the 1980s I would go to used record stores. Really, this is not a huge jump from what people are complaining about now. Artist A sells his work to customer C, customer C turns around and sells it to a used record shop for cash and turns that cash into a new purchase of Artist B, meanwhile CKCP can buy Artist A's work at a discount and Artist A never sees any money from that sale. It is like trading with a middleman.
Or consider the 1990s. Me and my college friends would exchange cassette tapes we made of music we discovered and want others to hear. "Dude, check out this Guided By Voices tape and tell me what you think." "Hey man, I just sent you a cassette of this new band, Uncle Tupelo, I think you will like it."
Of course, things were different then because NO INTERNET.
But the music industry is telling in that regard as well. Enter the 2000s. Remember Napster? That was sort of like a Thisvid for music with similar shady goings-on. The music industry went ballistic, sued people, killed Napster, but it did not stop piracy or music sharing. It couldn't. IT WAS INEVITABLE with the internet.
So now we have Spotify and the like. Streaming services. Problem solved right? Well, I am not so sure. I would argue that the artists are not much better off under this scenario than they were in the 1980s, 1990s and, even 2000s. Seems to me that small acts have a harder time breaking in than they did before (does everyone, other than me, solely listen to Taylor Swift and similar top 40 stuff?). The variety of music seems to suffer as well-- all music kinda blends together. Modern "country" sounds like top 40, which sounds like the latest in R&B, which sounds like "rock" and everything, EVERYTHING is run through a machine. But I digress and I am old.
The bottom line is that this is still evolving. But we are never going back to a time when there was no piracy, no trading, because that time, to the extent it ever existed, died with modern technology. Now, the internet will always win out.
It seems to me there is a lot of rage on the forum regarding piracy without many solutions. As an initial matter, MikeHoncho47 in Bratty's thread is right. If you put a video up for sale here you have to expect that it will appear to a wider viewing base than who you sold it to. It is just how the internet works. In fact, this problem, to the extent we want to call it that, has been around longer than the internet.*
The short term solution, much as it pains me to say because I hate it, is streaming. Sites like Patreon allow the producer to upload videos and have a monthly subscription rate. It is difficult -- much more difficult-- to take a video streaming from Patreon and extract it to a site like Thisvid than it is to upload a video one has purchased from here and downloaded. I don't like sites like Patreon because I like to "own" the video and watch it any time I want without worrying about a monthly subscription. But we are talking solutions here, not my pet peeves.
There are drawbacks, though, to this type of solution. From my selfish perspective, I don't like it for the reason stated above. From the producer's perspective, it may hurt sales. If a lot of people feel the way I do, they may spend less on vids than they did before. More fundamentally, it hurts small producers. Think of a world where it is all streaming with monthly subscriptions -- roughly between $10 and $20 a month. If I am a pie fan, I might look at my budget and the back catalog of producers and decide that I am just going to stream SlapstickStuff, Rev, and MessyGirl. Maybe I switch it up in different months, but the small producer, the person just trying to get their foot in the door and does not have a strong catalog, is going to find it rough sledding in a world of pure streaming.
I think the next evolution is for a site (maybe UMD) to become a streamer. You pay a monthly price and you can pick from a whole selection of different producers. This could help the small producer. But how expensive would it be? What about those producers who do not want to work within this conglomerate streamer? Well then maybe you get some competition (Prime, Hulu, and Netflix). Feasible, I don't know. But name calling and rending of clothing isn't gonna solve the problem, the internet and pirates are usually one step ahead.
*The music industry is telling here. When I was growing up in the 1980s I would go to used record stores. Really, this is not a huge jump from what people are complaining about now. Artist A sells his work to customer C, customer C turns around and sells it to a used record shop for cash and turns that cash into a new purchase of Artist B, meanwhile CKCP can buy Artist A's work at a discount and Artist A never sees any money from that sale. It is like trading with a middleman.
Or consider the 1990s. Me and my college friends would exchange cassette tapes we made of music we discovered and want others to hear. "Dude, check out this Guided By Voices tape and tell me what you think." "Hey man, I just sent you a cassette of this new band, Uncle Tupelo, I think you will like it."
Of course, things were different then because NO INTERNET.
But the music industry is telling in that regard as well. Enter the 2000s. Remember Napster? That was sort of like a Thisvid for music with similar shady goings-on. The music industry went ballistic, sued people, killed Napster, but it did not stop piracy or music sharing. It couldn't. IT WAS INEVITABLE with the internet.
So now we have Spotify and the like. Streaming services. Problem solved right? Well, I am not so sure. I would argue that the artists are not much better off under this scenario than they were in the 1980s, 1990s and, even 2000s. Seems to me that small acts have a harder time breaking in than they did before (does everyone, other than me, solely listen to Taylor Swift and similar top 40 stuff?). The variety of music seems to suffer as well-- all music kinda blends together. Modern "country" sounds like top 40, which sounds like the latest in R&B, which sounds like "rock" and everything, EVERYTHING is run through a machine. But I digress and I am old.
The bottom line is that this is still evolving. But we are never going back to a time when there was no piracy, no trading, because that time, to the extent it ever existed, died with modern technology. Now, the internet will always win out.
I don't know if you realised this, and judging by your lecture, I'm sure you didn't, but the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
People need to just be good people. The problem is that no matter where you go, there will always be someone who will ruin it for others, then wonder why they can't get content they want anymore.
Check my site to see my friends get messy.
Gungeon Master said:
the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
People need to just be good people. The problem is that no matter where you go, there will always be someone who will ruin it for others, then wonder why they can't get content they want anymore.
the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
People need to just be good people. The problem is that no matter where you go, there will always be someone who will ruin it for others, then wonder why they can't get content they want anymore.
OOOOF
Yikes, this hits so hard for me. I mean, it's definitely how it feels when this kind of thing happens and someone responds with "you should have expected it." It's the exact same mentality, and the fact that it's only men who keep saying this about a woman's experience, well, it just hits kinda differently than I'm sure they're meaning to come across. The reality is that this isn't just happening in the adult industry, which is what CKCP is actually trying to point out. People who aren't adult models or performers are exploited and abused just the same by bitter angry exes or people who were rejected, there are many private vids and pics that get traded and shared just as much. So then it becomes, "you shouldn't have done that in the first place" but that's not how life works. It's just as naive to assume that doing things only with people you trust means that you're safe. People get secretly filmed all the time by those people they thought they could trust. I've caught men filming me when I'm just walking around town when I'm dressed a certain way, and they're definitely using that footage and posting it somewhere. We may as well all just throw our hands up in the air because we're technically vulnerable every time we step out in public and someone chooses to interpret our actions any way they want to justify their actions against us. So yes, the problem is people, and no, the solution isn't going to come easily or implement simply. You can't control the quality of people who are born and raised in this world. So is there even a solution to the human condition? Seems like a pretty daunting question with no solution in sight. But maybe, can we start blocking ip addresses of people we find proof of pirating content? Wouldn't that be a good way to slow someone down if they're publicly identified and blocked by everyone? Can't we create a way that a file can send a notification every time it's uploaded to a new location, and then be able to see where the file is being stored in every location it's stored?
CKCP said: Sites like Patreon allow the producer to upload videos and have a monthly subscription rate. It is difficult -- much more difficult-- to take a video streaming from Patreon and extract it to a site like.
Patreon is not the saviour nor is streaming the answer.
I have run a Patreon site for 4 years and so I know how it works and what their policies are regarding adult content, and so I can say that Patreon do NOT allow adult fetish producers to upload video content to their platform. They only allow general mainstream G rated media to be uploaded to their site, not adult fetish producers. All the adult fetish producers are "ineligible" to upload videos to their system. That is what it says on my Patreon profile, i.e. "ineligible for uploads." Patreon DO allow some fetishes to be on their blogs, i.e. PG and R rated only, but X rated is forbidden, and so I only post my PG and R rated media to Patreon. I have been suspended and audited 3 times in the last 3 years by Patreon overlords, and was able to make some changes in order to restore my account, so eventually I passed their audits. Their main reason for suspending me was that I had links in my posts that linked to my external sites (that had X rated media) and I made the mistake of quoting links to my Vidown and UMD stores, and Patreon has blacklisted both Vidown and UMD as porn sites, so we are not allowed to link to those sites. I had to clean up my Patreon blog and eliminate links they would not allow.
Basically Patreon will allow me to post PG and R rate texts and images only .... but I am not allowed to upload videos. What I do (and most other adult producers do on Patreon) is that I host my videos on cloud hosting sites like Google Drive and Dropbox ... and quote those links in my Patreon channel, because Patreon will allow links to Google Drive and Dropbox.
You can set protection controls over your links if you use Google Drive or Dropbox, so there is some level of control with cloud hosting.
Anyway, producers who create adult fetish media are not using Patreon for hosting their videos, they are using external links, mostly to cloud hosting services.
Sadly, moving to streaming-only services is not going to solve the problem of piracy, because as every pc gamer knows there are VERY easy ways today to screen capture whatever is playing on your pc monitor and save and download your screen play to your pc as an MP4 file. There very few streaming websites that can block a person from being able to capture the screen and save it using the most popular screen capture program (which I won't name, but I am sure any pc gamer who likes to record their game play knows it).
For 90% of all streaming sites, you can easily bypass their download prevention controls by activating a screen capture program and capturing the screen. So far I have only found one streaming site that can actually block a screen capture program (and what it does is, when you attempt a screen capture all you get a blank black screen and no picture).
Sadly there is little we do can do because:
a) filing takedown requests on Youtube and other platforms is like playing a game of "wack a mole" at the fairground, i.e. sure you can knock it down, but then the same person simply uploads it again or opens a new account.
b) many streaming platforms are hosted outside of the USA and Europe and they do not care about copyright laws. E.G. I had one entity last year who set up an entire duplicate of my Megastore site that was hosted in mainland China and they stole over 800 of my videos and duplicated them on a Chinese website. This is a country that brazenly makes carbon copies of Rolls Royce, Range Rover, Mercedes and all the top sports cars are cloned, so if they could not care less about ripping off the Auto Industry they are hardly likely to care about pirating my silly little videos.
The only thing we can do to combat the pirates is to build up your own brand and loyalty among your own supporters. Be good to your fans and customers, and they will support you.
The good news is, UMD is the number one WAM site in the world where 90% of all WAM fans go, and UMD has a good internal system that defends the copyright of every producer, and has policies and moderators in place to defend against rogue clips being posted. So, UMD is a "safe zone" for wam producers and fans. I would not worry about external sites hosting pirated clips, because the people who support those site were never going to support you anyway, so you are not losing any potential sales from legitimate customers.
This post should really be moved to the Producers Forum.
Do unto others, then run
Gungeon Master said:
I don't know if you realised this, and judging by your lecture, I'm sure you didn't, but the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
People need to just be good people. The problem is that no matter where you go, there will always be someone who will ruin it for others, then wonder why they can't get content they want anymore.
I don't know if you realised this, and judging by your lecture, I'm sure you didn't, but the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
People need to just be good people. The problem is that no matter where you go, there will always be someone who will ruin it for others, then wonder why they can't get content they want anymore.
50000000% this
The solution will come when people accept that respecting creative work is more important than immediate personal wants, in the same way that people can mostly be trusted to go into shops and pay for the things they pick up rather than just legging it out the door with them.
Or the Spotify model - make the price for content so trivially low that people do not bother to pirate it because they won't make their cost back.
But that only works if there are some big hitters to attract the subscriptions.
In this context, it would be as if UMD offered a streaming sub for ALL videos uploaded to the site at (say) $20 per month and out of that paid the supplier according to popularity. But I doubt that would make as much for the suppliers even if we assume the time and effort of setting it all up was zero.
Gungeon Master said:
I don't know if you realised this, and judging by your lecture, I'm sure you didn't, but the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
I don't know if you realised this, and judging by your lecture, I'm sure you didn't, but the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
I'd say it's not the same, because in THAT example, the person being assaulted suffers an actual and direct harm.
Whereas pirating a video does NOT NECESSARILY cause an actual or direct harm. Indeed in the majority of circumstances someone getting a pirated video would never have bought the video in the first place.
It's also why it's not counted as theft. Because the video producer still has everything they had before the video was pirated. This is why there have been all sorts of laws passed to make piracy illegal, because without them, it's so difficult to stop it through "conventional" means.
Gungeon Master said:
I don't know if you realised this, and judging by your lecture, I'm sure you didn't, but the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
People need to just be good people. The problem is that no matter where you go, there will always be someone who will ruin it for others, then wonder why they can't get content they want anymore.
CKCP said: If you can stand one more post on this topic.
It seems to me there is a lot of rage on the forum regarding piracy without many solutions. As an initial matter, MikeHoncho47 in Bratty's thread is right. If you put a video up for sale here you have to expect that it will appear to a wider viewing base than who you sold it to. It is just how the internet works. In fact, this problem, to the extent we want to call it that, has been around longer than the internet.*
The short term solution, much as it pains me to say because I hate it, is streaming. Sites like Patreon allow the producer to upload videos and have a monthly subscription rate. It is difficult -- much more difficult-- to take a video streaming from Patreon and extract it to a site like Thisvid than it is to upload a video one has purchased from here and downloaded. I don't like sites like Patreon because I like to "own" the video and watch it any time I want without worrying about a monthly subscription. But we are talking solutions here, not my pet peeves.
There are drawbacks, though, to this type of solution. From my selfish perspective, I don't like it for the reason stated above. From the producer's perspective, it may hurt sales. If a lot of people feel the way I do, they may spend less on vids than they did before. More fundamentally, it hurts small producers. Think of a world where it is all streaming with monthly subscriptions -- roughly between $10 and $20 a month. If I am a pie fan, I might look at my budget and the back catalog of producers and decide that I am just going to stream SlapstickStuff, Rev, and MessyGirl. Maybe I switch it up in different months, but the small producer, the person just trying to get their foot in the door and does not have a strong catalog, is going to find it rough sledding in a world of pure streaming.
I think the next evolution is for a site (maybe UMD) to become a streamer. You pay a monthly price and you can pick from a whole selection of different producers. This could help the small producer. But how expensive would it be? What about those producers who do not want to work within this conglomerate streamer? Well then maybe you get some competition (Prime, Hulu, and Netflix). Feasible, I don't know. But name calling and rending of clothing isn't gonna solve the problem, the internet and pirates are usually one step ahead.
*The music industry is telling here. When I was growing up in the 1980s I would go to used record stores. Really, this is not a huge jump from what people are complaining about now. Artist A sells his work to customer C, customer C turns around and sells it to a used record shop for cash and turns that cash into a new purchase of Artist B, meanwhile CKCP can buy Artist A's work at a discount and Artist A never sees any money from that sale. It is like trading with a middleman.
Or consider the 1990s. Me and my college friends would exchange cassette tapes we made of music we discovered and want others to hear. "Dude, check out this Guided By Voices tape and tell me what you think." "Hey man, I just sent you a cassette of this new band, Uncle Tupelo, I think you will like it."
Of course, things were different then because NO INTERNET.
But the music industry is telling in that regard as well. Enter the 2000s. Remember Napster? That was sort of like a Thisvid for music with similar shady goings-on. The music industry went ballistic, sued people, killed Napster, but it did not stop piracy or music sharing. It couldn't. IT WAS INEVITABLE with the internet.
So now we have Spotify and the like. Streaming services. Problem solved right? Well, I am not so sure. I would argue that the artists are not much better off under this scenario than they were in the 1980s, 1990s and, even 2000s. Seems to me that small acts have a harder time breaking in than they did before (does everyone, other than me, solely listen to Taylor Swift and similar top 40 stuff?). The variety of music seems to suffer as well-- all music kinda blends together. Modern "country" sounds like top 40, which sounds like the latest in R&B, which sounds like "rock" and everything, EVERYTHING is run through a machine. But I digress and I am old.
The bottom line is that this is still evolving. But we are never going back to a time when there was no piracy, no trading, because that time, to the extent it ever existed, died with modern technology. Now, the internet will always win out.
It seems to me there is a lot of rage on the forum regarding piracy without many solutions. As an initial matter, MikeHoncho47 in Bratty's thread is right. If you put a video up for sale here you have to expect that it will appear to a wider viewing base than who you sold it to. It is just how the internet works. In fact, this problem, to the extent we want to call it that, has been around longer than the internet.*
The short term solution, much as it pains me to say because I hate it, is streaming. Sites like Patreon allow the producer to upload videos and have a monthly subscription rate. It is difficult -- much more difficult-- to take a video streaming from Patreon and extract it to a site like Thisvid than it is to upload a video one has purchased from here and downloaded. I don't like sites like Patreon because I like to "own" the video and watch it any time I want without worrying about a monthly subscription. But we are talking solutions here, not my pet peeves.
There are drawbacks, though, to this type of solution. From my selfish perspective, I don't like it for the reason stated above. From the producer's perspective, it may hurt sales. If a lot of people feel the way I do, they may spend less on vids than they did before. More fundamentally, it hurts small producers. Think of a world where it is all streaming with monthly subscriptions -- roughly between $10 and $20 a month. If I am a pie fan, I might look at my budget and the back catalog of producers and decide that I am just going to stream SlapstickStuff, Rev, and MessyGirl. Maybe I switch it up in different months, but the small producer, the person just trying to get their foot in the door and does not have a strong catalog, is going to find it rough sledding in a world of pure streaming.
I think the next evolution is for a site (maybe UMD) to become a streamer. You pay a monthly price and you can pick from a whole selection of different producers. This could help the small producer. But how expensive would it be? What about those producers who do not want to work within this conglomerate streamer? Well then maybe you get some competition (Prime, Hulu, and Netflix). Feasible, I don't know. But name calling and rending of clothing isn't gonna solve the problem, the internet and pirates are usually one step ahead.
*The music industry is telling here. When I was growing up in the 1980s I would go to used record stores. Really, this is not a huge jump from what people are complaining about now. Artist A sells his work to customer C, customer C turns around and sells it to a used record shop for cash and turns that cash into a new purchase of Artist B, meanwhile CKCP can buy Artist A's work at a discount and Artist A never sees any money from that sale. It is like trading with a middleman.
Or consider the 1990s. Me and my college friends would exchange cassette tapes we made of music we discovered and want others to hear. "Dude, check out this Guided By Voices tape and tell me what you think." "Hey man, I just sent you a cassette of this new band, Uncle Tupelo, I think you will like it."
Of course, things were different then because NO INTERNET.
But the music industry is telling in that regard as well. Enter the 2000s. Remember Napster? That was sort of like a Thisvid for music with similar shady goings-on. The music industry went ballistic, sued people, killed Napster, but it did not stop piracy or music sharing. It couldn't. IT WAS INEVITABLE with the internet.
So now we have Spotify and the like. Streaming services. Problem solved right? Well, I am not so sure. I would argue that the artists are not much better off under this scenario than they were in the 1980s, 1990s and, even 2000s. Seems to me that small acts have a harder time breaking in than they did before (does everyone, other than me, solely listen to Taylor Swift and similar top 40 stuff?). The variety of music seems to suffer as well-- all music kinda blends together. Modern "country" sounds like top 40, which sounds like the latest in R&B, which sounds like "rock" and everything, EVERYTHING is run through a machine. But I digress and I am old.
The bottom line is that this is still evolving. But we are never going back to a time when there was no piracy, no trading, because that time, to the extent it ever existed, died with modern technology. Now, the internet will always win out.
I don't know if you realised this, and judging by your lecture, I'm sure you didn't, but the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
People need to just be good people. The problem is that no matter where you go, there will always be someone who will ruin it for others, then wonder why they can't get content they want anymore.
With due respect, your first paragraph, I think, is a bad analogy. The internet is not a rapist. I think rape is probably more preventable then "the internet" -- also, we can certainly live without rapists, but, honestly, we can't in this day and age (barring some Dune scenario) live without the internet. We have to learn to address the piracy issue.
To the second paragraph-- people need to be good people. Others chimed in with this solution as well. I wish it were that easy. Ain't happening. People are not always good, as you kinda point out. If you think you can shame assholes into not being assholes by being angry on a message board, you are wrong. I tried to open up the forum to ideas to solve a problem and people get angry at me (rapist apologist! Jesus Christ!) and say people should stop being assholes. Sorry, that isn't a solution.
I'll never pay for content I can't own. Especially spankbank content.
CKCP said: To the second paragraph-- people need to be good people. Others chimed in with this solution as well. I wish it were that easy. Ain't happening. People are not always good, as you kinda point out. If you think you can shame assholes into not being assholes by being angry on a message board, you are wrong. I tried to open up the forum to ideas to solve a problem and people get angry at me (rapist apologist! Jesus Christ!) and say people should stop being assholes. Sorry, that isn't a solution.
So, first off, I don't think anyone is literally accusing you of being a rape apologist. To me, what people are saying is that (1) your reasoning has a fundamental moral flaw and (2) its fundamental moral flaw is the same one as the one that shows up when people blame rape victims for how they dress. That doesn't make you a rape apologist, but it does (or, at least, should) force you to reckon with the moral stance that you're taking.
Why bother with morality, you may ask? Well, for one thing, because technical solutions also fail. As many people have already pointed out, you're not going to stop piracy with advanced technology. Least of all is this going to happen here on the UMD, which is far from the best-funded website on the planet. If Hollywood and Nintendo and the entire recording industry can't invent a surefire anti-piracy technology, we're not going to. So there's that.
Also, it's worth pointing out that culture is a hell of a lot stronger than you're giving it credit for. To give just one easy example, the murder rate in the US is 6.4 per 100,000. In Japan it's 0.2. That's not because Japan has some kind of futuristic anti-murder tech that we in the states refuse to import. For the most part, it's because they have a culture that prioritizes prosocial behavior and we have a culture that lionizes violence. If it can work for murder, it can probably work for pirating porn clips. This is another very strong reason to think of piracy as a moral issue and not a technological one.
And, yes, changing the culture is hard. It won't happen overnight. But it's much, much more likely to happen when people can come together in support of a common moral cause instead of deflecting, which seems to be what you're doing. I know that's not what you mean to do; in your mind, you think you're being helpful. But it sure looks and feels as though you're being a lot less helpful than you think you are.
Which brings me to my last point. Even if you choose to believe (despite the evidence) that technology really is a reliable answer, and even if you choose to believe (despite the evidence) that morals have no power to change behavior, there's still a question about what type of community or people we want to be. Seen from this angle, the outcry over piracy is only partially about finding solutions. In part, it's also about being the type of people who listen to each other's hurts and respond in supportive, empathetic ways. Even if I'm factually wrong about everything else (which I'm not, but okay), people here still have a right to decide to be supportive and empathetic just for the sake of being supportive and empathetic. After all, support and empathy can go a long way, especially when there is no practical advice that can actually solve the problem in the next five minutes.
Does that help you to understand where people are coming from?
caramba said:
Or the Spotify model - make the price for content so trivially low that people do not bother to pirate it because they won't make their cost back.
Or the Spotify model - make the price for content so trivially low that people do not bother to pirate it because they won't make their cost back.
That model is the one that totally fleeces artists.
Weird Al even called out Spotify on their own platform in his wrap video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvePsU0IgKA
Realistically. In the digital era the only way to ensure artists/producers/models you like keep on making the content you enjoy, is to support them directly. Buy scenes. Don't share them. Go to concerts. Buy merchandise etc.
 Love you, too |
caramba said:
I'd say it's not the same, because in THAT example, the person being assaulted suffers an actual and direct harm.
Whereas pirating a video does NOT NECESSARILY cause an actual or direct harm. Indeed in the majority of circumstances someone getting a pirated video would never have bought the video in the first place.
It's also why it's not counted as theft. Because the video producer still has everything they had before the video was pirated. This is why there have been all sorts of laws passed to make piracy illegal, because without them, it's so difficult to stop it through "conventional" means.
Gungeon Master said:
I don't know if you realised this, and judging by your lecture, I'm sure you didn't, but the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
I don't know if you realised this, and judging by your lecture, I'm sure you didn't, but the "it's on the Internet, so it's going to be pirated," is the same mentality as "she's wearing those clothes, so she's going to be assaulted."
I'd say it's not the same, because in THAT example, the person being assaulted suffers an actual and direct harm.
Whereas pirating a video does NOT NECESSARILY cause an actual or direct harm. Indeed in the majority of circumstances someone getting a pirated video would never have bought the video in the first place.
It's also why it's not counted as theft. Because the video producer still has everything they had before the video was pirated. This is why there have been all sorts of laws passed to make piracy illegal, because without them, it's so difficult to stop it through "conventional" means.
I know the actions are very different, but it's not the actions I'm talking about (I understand that one is more horrifying than the other); it's the statement being made. Put simply, it's victim blaming, even if it's not intentional from CKCP. Pirating media still causes harm, but in a financial aspect. If I make something and sell it to one person for $5, and then 4 other people have it, that's $20 of lost revenue.
It's been said by others, but it may one day get to the point when producers just say "well, what's the point if it's going to be pirated," and then decide to stop making content.
Check my site to see my friends get messy.
Saturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
caramba said: Or the Spotify model - make the price for content so trivially low that people do not bother to pirate it because they won't make their cost back.
Given there are people out there pirating entirely free content, that isn't going to work.
And apropos of several posts in different threads, no, encoding a unique video for each user isn't going to work either, for multiple reasons:
1. Who's going to pay for the banks of supercomputers needed to do the real-time encoding?
2. What difference would it make? You prove a leak came from user X. User X says "oh shit, sorry, I clicked on a dodgy link and my system got hacked, they stole everything I had." Given that no-one is exactly going to do a CSI-level investigation on a fetish video copyright case, how do you prove it was deliberate piracy?
Technical solutions are not the solution. Honest and decent customers are.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
messyhot said:
That model is the one that totally fleeces artists.
Weird Al even called out Spotify on their own platform in his wrap video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvePsU0IgKA
Realistically. In the digital era the only way to ensure artists/producers/models you like keep on making the content you enjoy, is to support them directly. Buy scenes. Don't share them. Go to concerts. Buy merchandise etc.
caramba said:
Or the Spotify model - make the price for content so trivially low that people do not bother to pirate it because they won't make their cost back.
Or the Spotify model - make the price for content so trivially low that people do not bother to pirate it because they won't make their cost back.
That model is the one that totally fleeces artists.
Weird Al even called out Spotify on their own platform in his wrap video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvePsU0IgKA
Realistically. In the digital era the only way to ensure artists/producers/models you like keep on making the content you enjoy, is to support them directly. Buy scenes. Don't share them. Go to concerts. Buy merchandise etc.
This^. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
It really isn't all that complicated. "Don't be a dick, be a fan instead"
-Support your favorite producers.
-Buy customs from them (and stop lowballing their work)
-Share and retweet their social media posts. It helps us stay engaged
-Report Piracy wherever you see it
-and for God's sake, stop saying things like "it's inevitable". That is a slap in the face of every producer here who has skin in the game. It's a shunning of responsibility and moreover doesn't present any solution. It isn't inevitable. It shouldn't be happening, PERIOD. Especially in a community as small and tight knit as this one.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
CreamMeAgain said:
So is there even a solution to the human condition?
So is there even a solution to the human condition?
THIS is the right question. And the answer is surprisingly simple as well.
"Love thy neighbor as you love yourself" or the more secular "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Of course, we don't all do that; and even the best of us, can't do that to a universal degree. The problem of course is that a lot of people just don't fucking care. They ENJOY being pricks and causing problems.
Damn fool of a tuber
DungeonMasterOne said: The solution to the problem is not going to be achieved with technology.
It's trivially easy for someone to turn a streamed scene into a local video if they want to, I'm not going to post a how-to guide but honestly, it's not difficult.
It's trivially easy for someone to turn a streamed scene into a local video if they want to, I'm not going to post a how-to guide but honestly, it's not difficult.
Yep. I have a fairly large collection (FOR MY OWN USE, I'm not a hypocrite) of streamed videos I've saved because they're awesome and who knows if they'll still be available for me to watch 10 years from now.
I dunno why but I've been brain storming all morning about the last thread and bratty
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J1RAkKW7EIY
Onlyfans and patreon don't seem to protecting the creators at the moment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J1RAkKW7EIY
Onlyfans and patreon don't seem to protecting the creators at the moment.
Paint with play and surrender
|
Love you, too |
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In