Porn company makes millions by shaming porn consumers(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Porn company makes millions by shaming porn consumers
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-12-12/column-this-porn-company-makes-millions-by-shaming-porn-consumers
71 comments
How do we know that Strike 3, the production company, is not purposely uploading the torrents and then preying on users?
They have a history of doing that, actually. Leonard French has a few videos discussing their tactics.
they probably are. From what the article says, the lawsuits are actually more lucrative than the actual films they make.
Someone else tried that and went to prison. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-....
the article mentions that in this case, what they're doing does actually seem legal, as opposed to the Prenda case (which the article also mentions)
Yes I was just responding to the hypothetical of if they creating and seeding torrents of their own content, which is not something that is alleged against Strike 3 Holdings at this time.
That would certainly be an easy way to collect IP addresses of the "pirates".
Maybe new to LA but we’re way aheada ya here in Chicawgo https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_who_pursued_...
This sounds extremely risky. At a rate of more than 3000 litigations a year, where he essentially threatens to ruin their life if they don't pay, he's bound to find someone crazy or desperate enough to hurt him physically.
> defendants may feel coerced to settle these suits merely to prevent public disclosure of their identifying information, even if they believe they have been misidentified.
So basically blackmailing using Epstein’s business model with different type of contents and audience plus the help of the rigged legal system.
So basically blackmailing using Epstein’s business model with different type of contents and audience plus the help of the rigged legal system.
Knew a guy a decade ago that got hit with one of these. Paid them like 10k if I recall.
If 10k was at stake I would have zero hesitation about lawyer-ing up and fighting it.
I know that a lot of people have valid reasons for wanting to make this type of thing go away as quietly as possible, but I personally have no problem talking about my porn consuming habits on public record. I owned an adult website for 20 years, it was my primary source of income for 15... so that's already on record and my employers know etc.
Even for less than 10k I would be tempted to fight it on principle, but litigation is extremely expensive and stressful, so I understand why many would choose the less expensive option. Which is what these assholes prey upon. I'm sure they are also "willing to settle" for FAR less than the damages they are actually threatening you with. Which is why step #1 is to consult with a lawyer to explore options and find out if they actually have a case (from TFA it sounds like they usually don't).
I know that a lot of people have valid reasons for wanting to make this type of thing go away as quietly as possible, but I personally have no problem talking about my porn consuming habits on public record. I owned an adult website for 20 years, it was my primary source of income for 15... so that's already on record and my employers know etc.
Even for less than 10k I would be tempted to fight it on principle, but litigation is extremely expensive and stressful, so I understand why many would choose the less expensive option. Which is what these assholes prey upon. I'm sure they are also "willing to settle" for FAR less than the damages they are actually threatening you with. Which is why step #1 is to consult with a lawyer to explore options and find out if they actually have a case (from TFA it sounds like they usually don't).
lawerign up and fighting it costs vastly more than 10k in all likelihood.
You don't know that until you get legal advice. A consult isn't always "cheap" but will cost a few hundred, not 10k+. Your lawyer will be able to give you the best & worse case in terms of dollar amounts if you opt to litigate.
The plaintiffs just drop the case if defendants spend any money to fight it, so that the strategy never faces scrutiny in court.
This is very reminiscent of the Prenda law saga: https://arstechnica.com/tag/prenda-law/
they mention that in TFA ^^
If I'm hit with a 5 (or 6!) figure suit, I don't care. I'll tell people myself I watch porn. No one would care anyway. Overall, this is one way society would be a little better if people were a little less prudish.
Well it's one thing for friends and family to be aware in general that you watch porn. It's another thing for it to become public record for potential employers etc to learn that you sought out "blacked raw" videos, which could be perceived as problematic for reasons beyond sexual prudishness.
Beyond which, fighting a 6 figure lawsuit rather than taking a 4 digit settlement can be a dangerous gamble, especially if the copyright infringement did actually take place.
Not to say that I agree with what they're doing, but I can certainly understand why people just take the settlement and move on.
Beyond which, fighting a 6 figure lawsuit rather than taking a 4 digit settlement can be a dangerous gamble, especially if the copyright infringement did actually take place.
Not to say that I agree with what they're doing, but I can certainly understand why people just take the settlement and move on.
What? I cannot imagine an employer not hiring you cause you watch black porn. Thats kinda racist no?
IMO employers discriminate a lot, for random off the cuff reasons. The largest, most lawyered up companies that are glaring lawsuit targets have more of a process. But small-to-mid companies discriminate like crazy. It largely comes down to some guy with authority giving a thumbs down, for whatever reason he wanted. "I didn't think he was that good at SQL" may very well be "I didn't want to hire another Indian" or "This person worked for that guy I met, who I think sucks, which is like a bad vibe". Not hard to imagine having porn lawsuits on your record disqualifying you from a bunch of interviews, but the reasons stated being bullshit technical/cultural fit reasons.
Yeah but the guy above said "blacked raw" might be percieved as problematic for reasons beyond sexual prudishness? Like what?
I dont get that at all
I agree with that.
You're positing that some significant portion of the victims decide to settle like this:
if (shame)
But it's almost certainly this:
if (bankruptcy_risk || shame)
History of RIAA settlements-- where prudishness wasn't a factor-- supports my interpretation.
Furthermore, savings held by the average American supports short-circuiting on bankruptcy_risk and not the other way around.
Edit: clarification
if (shame)
But it's almost certainly this:
if (bankruptcy_risk || shame)
History of RIAA settlements-- where prudishness wasn't a factor-- supports my interpretation.
Furthermore, savings held by the average American supports short-circuiting on bankruptcy_risk and not the other way around.
Edit: clarification
This is a funny thing, if you pay for porn access, my guess is you info is already out that thanks to the various breaches of equifax and experian :)
Plus, now that people heard about Strike 3 Holdings, breach happening in: 10, 9, 8, 7 ....
Plus, now that people heard about Strike 3 Holdings, breach happening in: 10, 9, 8, 7 ....
Yes....I would too.... But would you reveal also the niche dark areas of porn that you are interested in?
Shutting for sarcastic not offensive :)
Shutting for sarcastic not offensive :)
Tangential: speaking of the RIAA and their latest target "stream rippers", Yout v RIAA is still pending in US 2nd circuit if appeals. After Yout lost in district court.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-rec...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66697744/yout-llc-v-rec...
>> Because the cases customarily settle out of court or are withdrawn, “there’s no real vetting of these strategies for identifying infringers,” Pearlman told me. “So the flaws in these identification systems are never exposed and this cycle continues indefinitely.”
The same happens every day in every criminal court, when prosecutors throw lots of bullshit charges at defendants to motivate a plea deal. Maybe that's an effective way to reach roughly the right result without a trial, but it's still wrong.
The same happens every day in every criminal court, when prosecutors throw lots of bullshit charges at defendants to motivate a plea deal. Maybe that's an effective way to reach roughly the right result without a trial, but it's still wrong.
This isn’t complicated. Conducting mass litigation based solely upon IP address evidence should be grounds for disbarment. Doing so with the intention of creating embarrassing public records is extortion and should result in fraud charges.
litigation based solely upon IP address evidence
The applicable rule, in federal court, is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
If I get harassing phone calls from 911-867-6309 shouldn't I should be able to file suit and subpoena the phone company to discover who has the number?
Sorry, but they have a reasonable basis to believe infringing is occuring, and a reasonable basis that it was done from the internet connection in your house. If you want to try to convince the jury that Colombian drug dealers hacked your wifi, knock yourself out.
The applicable rule, in federal court, is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
If I get harassing phone calls from 911-867-6309 shouldn't I should be able to file suit and subpoena the phone company to discover who has the number?
Sorry, but they have a reasonable basis to believe infringing is occuring, and a reasonable basis that it was done from the internet connection in your house. If you want to try to convince the jury that Colombian drug dealers hacked your wifi, knock yourself out.
I'm confused. I'm anti-pornography, so I have no love for these guys. However, the law is clear that downloading videos you do not have license to is illegal. Shouldn't the focus be on fighting the crime. Using courts to enforce sanctions against monetary losses due to illegal activity ought to be encouraged. The government ought to take more action to prevent theft as well. That's what the law says. I fail to see why he should be painted as a bad guy for 'shaming' people for stealing.
As far as I'm concerned, the main issue in the article is indiscriminate use of IP-to-person mapping. If your roommate watches something that gets you sued, with the threat of making the top google result for your name being some porn lawsuit, then he's shaming you for something someone else stole. Yeah, that's being a bad guy.
Because the purposes of these cases aren't to stop people from stealing. They want people stealing, so they can sue them, and get paid to go away. Strike 3 isn't looking for justice, they're just looking to use the court system as a revenue stream.
If people stopped settling, or the settlement amounts dropped significantly, then Strike 3 wouldn't even bother. They want the easy settlement money. And if people stopped the stealing, Strike 3 would probably be pretty unhappy.
If people stopped settling, or the settlement amounts dropped significantly, then Strike 3 wouldn't even bother. They want the easy settlement money. And if people stopped the stealing, Strike 3 would probably be pretty unhappy.
As a judge in the article says, the nature of the accusation is such that misidentified defendants may pay nuisance money just to avoid being publicly accused, even if innocent. The plaintiff might be deliberately exploiting that, too.
It's all in the article.
It's all in the article.
> However, the law is clear that downloading videos you do not have license to is illegal. Shouldn't the focus be on fighting the crime.
This is tort, not crime.
> Using courts to enforce sanctions against monetary losses due to illegal activity ought to be encouraged.
Using unreliable means which target the innocent and a strategy based on reputational harm irrespective of truth to coerce settlement isn’t addressing monetary losses due to illegal activity. It is a practice which by deisgn avoids isn't directed well at actual illegal activity and avoids any consideration of whether there are actual monetary losses.
> The government ought to take more action to prevent theft as well.
This isn't about theft at all.
> That's what the law says.
It would be irrelevant if it were, but its also literally not what the law says.
> I fail to see why he should be painted as a bad guy for 'shaming' people for stealing.
The issue isn't stealing, and it as a major hughlighted aspect of this thr method by which the targets are identified does not, even approximately, reliably identify the person tesponsible for targeted activity.
This is tort, not crime.
> Using courts to enforce sanctions against monetary losses due to illegal activity ought to be encouraged.
Using unreliable means which target the innocent and a strategy based on reputational harm irrespective of truth to coerce settlement isn’t addressing monetary losses due to illegal activity. It is a practice which by deisgn avoids isn't directed well at actual illegal activity and avoids any consideration of whether there are actual monetary losses.
> The government ought to take more action to prevent theft as well.
This isn't about theft at all.
> That's what the law says.
It would be irrelevant if it were, but its also literally not what the law says.
> I fail to see why he should be painted as a bad guy for 'shaming' people for stealing.
The issue isn't stealing, and it as a major hughlighted aspect of this thr method by which the targets are identified does not, even approximately, reliably identify the person tesponsible for targeted activity.
> the law is clear that downloading videos you do not have license to is illegal.
Is the law clear? I thought it was only illegal to upload. Don't people get in trouble with torrents only because BT clients upload while they download? Has something changed over the years?
Is the law clear? I thought it was only illegal to upload. Don't people get in trouble with torrents only because BT clients upload while they download? Has something changed over the years?
Right, so, let me get this straight. This porn company makes films that are, presumably, distributed through licensed channels from which they earn revenue. The lawsuits they're filing are against individuals illegally[0] downloading their movies via bittorrent, from which they obviously don't earn any revenue.
Whilst I think a lot of companies bring bittorrent upon themselves[1], as it were, I'm not entirely convinced I'm quite as outraged by this particular company's conduct as I expected to be when I clicked through to the story.
[0] The ethics here can become decidedly contentious very quickly.
[1] And if you want to know what I mean by companies bringing bittorrent upon themselves, take a look at this discussion and the linked article, currently also on the front page of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38613154. I could feel my blood starting to boil as I read.
Whilst I think a lot of companies bring bittorrent upon themselves[1], as it were, I'm not entirely convinced I'm quite as outraged by this particular company's conduct as I expected to be when I clicked through to the story.
[0] The ethics here can become decidedly contentious very quickly.
[1] And if you want to know what I mean by companies bringing bittorrent upon themselves, take a look at this discussion and the linked article, currently also on the front page of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38613154. I could feel my blood starting to boil as I read.
Here's a guess at some of the reasons this has got people worked up to the point that someone wrote an article in the LA Times:
1. They're being hypocritical. They're making porn that they presumably stand by artistically, and don't believe is "wrong" in some way but are then using the shame of watching it to control people.
2. Linked to 1. they're engaging in blackmail. Pay this hefty fine or we associate your name online with watching porn. They're not just taking this through the courts, they're threatening a public shaming (according to the article at least).
3. The demands are disproportionate and seem to be targetted at how much the firm can get people to settle for rather than redress any actual harm done.
I think it helps to look at how people in society in general judge the problem to use as a baseline here. Most (unverified, my belief/experience) people never had a problem with home taping of music, either for listening to in the car or giving a copy to a friend. Same with CDs. In the UK there are strict limits as to how long you're allowed to keep something taped off the TV that almost no-one ever payed any attention to. Back when software was distributed on CD no-one I know ever had an issue with sharing it around to their friends.
Simply, "piracy" isn't seen as a big deal. People just don't see it as stealing (after all, it's /not/ like stealing a car because you're not denying the owner the actual use of the original), or if they do it's like stealing something harmless that no-one will ever suffer from.
Undoubtedly people who "pirate" copyrighted material have broken some law, but then demanding $5000 with a threat to publicly shame people if they don't pay up is a pretty significant thing to do and disproportionate to the harm the copyright owner has sufferred, considering the status of piracy in society.
*edit The limits on home taping of TV seem to have changed. I believe there was a definite limit, however there is not one now, but there is provision for "Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting""
1. They're being hypocritical. They're making porn that they presumably stand by artistically, and don't believe is "wrong" in some way but are then using the shame of watching it to control people.
2. Linked to 1. they're engaging in blackmail. Pay this hefty fine or we associate your name online with watching porn. They're not just taking this through the courts, they're threatening a public shaming (according to the article at least).
3. The demands are disproportionate and seem to be targetted at how much the firm can get people to settle for rather than redress any actual harm done.
I think it helps to look at how people in society in general judge the problem to use as a baseline here. Most (unverified, my belief/experience) people never had a problem with home taping of music, either for listening to in the car or giving a copy to a friend. Same with CDs. In the UK there are strict limits as to how long you're allowed to keep something taped off the TV that almost no-one ever payed any attention to. Back when software was distributed on CD no-one I know ever had an issue with sharing it around to their friends.
Simply, "piracy" isn't seen as a big deal. People just don't see it as stealing (after all, it's /not/ like stealing a car because you're not denying the owner the actual use of the original), or if they do it's like stealing something harmless that no-one will ever suffer from.
Undoubtedly people who "pirate" copyrighted material have broken some law, but then demanding $5000 with a threat to publicly shame people if they don't pay up is a pretty significant thing to do and disproportionate to the harm the copyright owner has sufferred, considering the status of piracy in society.
*edit The limits on home taping of TV seem to have changed. I believe there was a definite limit, however there is not one now, but there is provision for "Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting""
OK I watch porn. Lots of it, over decades. But I've never come close to getting to the end of the free stuff. Why buy bottled water when the good stuff is raining down and you just have to face up and open your mouth? I get that it's a big industry and lots of people do pay. If you're one could you explain this odd phenomenon? It seems like it's mostly the same actors doing the same things that I see gratis. Maybe I'm just revealing my lack of fine discrimination.
Same goes for downloading torrents even for free. It's the same stuff you see going directly to dozens or hundreds of sites, for free. Maybe you get 70 minutes of it but watch just 12. Even without considering possible legal liability, why bother?
Same goes for downloading torrents even for free. It's the same stuff you see going directly to dozens or hundreds of sites, for free. Maybe you get 70 minutes of it but watch just 12. Even without considering possible legal liability, why bother?
the good stuff is raining down and you just have to face up and open your mouth?
Kinky ;)
I think two things, first, these people downloading videos from torrents might not be aware what they're doing is illegal (and it might not even actually be illegal - just because a lawyer sends you a letter, it doesn't mean you're breaking the law...).
Second, if you like a particular porn star, you want to see their videos, and porn is star driven. It's the same reason Jordans cost so much more than your average sneaker and people line up for them. It's the same reason why Taylor Swift tickets cost so much more than Pink tickets, etc.
Kinky ;)
I think two things, first, these people downloading videos from torrents might not be aware what they're doing is illegal (and it might not even actually be illegal - just because a lawyer sends you a letter, it doesn't mean you're breaking the law...).
Second, if you like a particular porn star, you want to see their videos, and porn is star driven. It's the same reason Jordans cost so much more than your average sneaker and people line up for them. It's the same reason why Taylor Swift tickets cost so much more than Pink tickets, etc.
A while back, I worked for a porn company for 4 years (Kink).
People bought it because they wanted to support it. They wanted to feel like they were part of a community and get access to stuff hot off the press. There were people who were fans of the directors and models. Similar to how people go see movies by a certain director when they are released.
There was definitely a high rate of churn (people who would only pay for a month at a time), but there were also the whales who would buy up subscriptions to all of the sites we had.
We also innovated live pay per minute in HD. No other way to get it without paying for it.
People bought it because they wanted to support it. They wanted to feel like they were part of a community and get access to stuff hot off the press. There were people who were fans of the directors and models. Similar to how people go see movies by a certain director when they are released.
There was definitely a high rate of churn (people who would only pay for a month at a time), but there were also the whales who would buy up subscriptions to all of the sites we had.
We also innovated live pay per minute in HD. No other way to get it without paying for it.
I don't think it's necessary to categorize whales as addicts. Some people simply have more disposable income. Sure, there are a few with obsessive and unhealthy habits, but are they addicted to the porn or the spending? Either way, "addict" is such a loaded word - especially in the context of porn - that it's just not really useful.
Agreed. Edited to remove the word addict.
> No other way to get it without paying for it.
Other than waiting for someone to record and upload it on xvideos
Other than waiting for someone to record and upload it on xvideos
"Live"... people want to be able to write messages to the model and have them perform actions "just for them".
Recording it isn't the same.
Recording it isn't the same.
True, fair point.
I had no idea that there were star directors.
Some of them were also models. The whole AVN Expo world is all about this. Awards, shows, etc...
In some ways, the ultimate loot box.
> ... face up and open your mouth?
Are you watching it right now?
Anyway you're right, it makes no sense to me now that there's streaming. Why wold you ever be caught with anything on your machine, or in your house?
We are actually the first generation since the invention of clay pots to avoid the awkward problem of discovering your kids' porn collection.
Are you watching it right now?
Anyway you're right, it makes no sense to me now that there's streaming. Why wold you ever be caught with anything on your machine, or in your house?
We are actually the first generation since the invention of clay pots to avoid the awkward problem of discovering your kids' porn collection.
Porn studios are niche markets. They pick an aesthetic, a few camera angles, a "plot", and then record the same scene with every actor they can afford to.
So if you have been watching porn for a decade or two, and you know exactly what scratches the itch, then you can drop $30 or so to get more of just that. And if you are bad enough with your finances to let that subscription charge a few extra months, that can add up to a very good profit.
And maybe you just really appreciate a studio! Maybe you like the way they work with talent. Maybe you are tired of the "mainstream" trends, and want to vote with your wallet. If you think of porn subscription more like a donation model, it makes plenty of sense.
--
And then there is VR. A good-bitrate 7K video looks incredible, but it's also pretty huge. Piracy just isn't competitive yet.
--
Finally, there are webcam services. You can't pirate interaction. That's really all there is to it.
So if you have been watching porn for a decade or two, and you know exactly what scratches the itch, then you can drop $30 or so to get more of just that. And if you are bad enough with your finances to let that subscription charge a few extra months, that can add up to a very good profit.
And maybe you just really appreciate a studio! Maybe you like the way they work with talent. Maybe you are tired of the "mainstream" trends, and want to vote with your wallet. If you think of porn subscription more like a donation model, it makes plenty of sense.
--
And then there is VR. A good-bitrate 7K video looks incredible, but it's also pretty huge. Piracy just isn't competitive yet.
--
Finally, there are webcam services. You can't pirate interaction. That's really all there is to it.
The water analogy works both ways. People buy Dasani, Smartwater, Fuji, and the ilk until kingdom come - people want shit that works, they know what they’re getting, and they know it’ll be their tomorrow, and maybe support
You have to remember that for some people porn isn't just about scratching an itch, it's plugging a much bigger void in their life.
[deleted]
video quality and UX
[deleted]
I literally had to pay Strike 3 over $10k for having downloaded some of their videos over torrent.
Ironically I liked their videos enough to be a paying member of one of their websites (even for 2 years before the lawsuit hit me). But downloading torrents was much more convenient, so I foolishly (and without VPN) opted to torrent.
They used Dade County (Florida) court house to send mass accusations (not individual ones as is standard law practice). The lawyer said that letting them know I was a paying member might make them put the screws on me for being the cause of distribution or something, so I silently paid the money and moved on.
Frustrating that they can bypass standard law practice by finding a scumbag courthouse that is willing to ignore due process.
Ironically I liked their videos enough to be a paying member of one of their websites (even for 2 years before the lawsuit hit me). But downloading torrents was much more convenient, so I foolishly (and without VPN) opted to torrent.
They used Dade County (Florida) court house to send mass accusations (not individual ones as is standard law practice). The lawyer said that letting them know I was a paying member might make them put the screws on me for being the cause of distribution or something, so I silently paid the money and moved on.
Frustrating that they can bypass standard law practice by finding a scumbag courthouse that is willing to ignore due process.
Because you paid them for 2 years, and then had the movies on your harddrive, you're supposed to more at risk (based on your lawyer's advice)?
That sounds like the real estate industry. The agent selling you the house is not on your side. The agent helping you buy the house is not on your side. And they're both vaguely colluding to get you pay quickly.
That sounds like the real estate industry. The agent selling you the house is not on your side. The agent helping you buy the house is not on your side. And they're both vaguely colluding to get you pay quickly.
When lawyers cost such obscene amount of dollars per each hour that they "work" it's scary to do anything other than routine as-fast-as-possible route.
My upcoming embarrassment kink startup does the same thing ethically!
Asking for a friend: don't most people use a VPN when they watch porn?
You think most people have a VPN subscription?
If most people did, VPNs would either be illegal or extremely heavily regulated. Just like they are in countries where VPNs are almost mainstream.
If most people did, VPNs would either be illegal or extremely heavily regulated. Just like they are in countries where VPNs are almost mainstream.
Replying for a friend: "No"
[deleted]
Aren't you just shifting the problem somewhere else? I assume VPN providers have to keep effectively the same records as ISPs so you've just created an extra hop to get the data?
BitWiseVibe has the answer below.
Yes, you have created an extra hop. One that bottom feeders will not take. The NSA or CCP might, though.
Yes, you have created an extra hop. One that bottom feeders will not take. The NSA or CCP might, though.
opsec is a constant battle. You are using the VPN, but you have to ensure that you have
1) no other traffic going over that VPN at the same time, so the IP can't be linked to you at that time
2) ensure all your porn traffic goes over the VPN, and never accidentality over your actual IP, keeping an eye on things like dns leaking
You have to be lucky every time, they have to be lucky once.
It certainly won't hurt mask your online presence, but it's not the end of the story, or even the end of the beginning
1) no other traffic going over that VPN at the same time, so the IP can't be linked to you at that time
2) ensure all your porn traffic goes over the VPN, and never accidentality over your actual IP, keeping an eye on things like dns leaking
You have to be lucky every time, they have to be lucky once.
It certainly won't hurt mask your online presence, but it's not the end of the story, or even the end of the beginning
We're not talking about the NSA here. We're talking about copyright trolls trying to pick up low-hanging fruit with a dragnet of lawsuit threats. If they can't pick up your information from subpoenaing the ISP that manages the offending IP, then I doubt they'd go to further effort to hunt you down.
There's a difference between "they could, theoretically" and "they do."
How much effort are these bottom feeders going to put in, when there's so many hapless imbeciles to exploit with no effort?
How much effort are these bottom feeders going to put in, when there's so many hapless imbeciles to exploit with no effort?
I don't give into shame and I'm judgement proof legally. I'm a nightmare for leeches like strike-3
Porn is the perfect example to illustrate how our digital copyright system is simply incapable of sustaining an actual market.
Blockbuster films? Music? Well, you can stream them on one of the 3-5 services. There is just enough of a product to compete with piracy.
Amateur content? We have YouTube, which promises to pay content creators, so long as the content isn't obscene (as defined by YouTube's content policy, and enforced by its algorithmic moderation). There is enough of a product that both creators and viewers are willing to compromise.
Porn? Not a chance. There are the MindGeek services, which are basically YouTube with garbage-bitrate encoding; and there is piracy. Right up until the infamous PornHub purge, piracy was the only game in town!
--
When it comes to porn, if your content isn't freely available on a popular tube site, it may as well not exist. Piracy is the advertising model for the porn industry.
There is a reason that PornHub's bitrate is so bad. It's clearly not just the bandwidth: every video on that site looks like it went through every lossy codec in order, just to make it as chunky as possible. Why? Because you aren't meant to stay. You are meant to pay $30 for a monthly subscription to the studio you like most. As soon as you do that, you get a DRM-free high-bitrate 4K@60 download-as-much-as-you-want as-many-times-as-you-want service. In other words: exactly what Netflix, Spotify, YouTube, and the Digital Copyright industry at large would have us believe is the most unsustainable business model ever, doomed to fail instantly; yet somehow it hasn't failed yet.
But what about torrents? What about eporner and hqporner and all the other high-bitrate obviously-ripped-from-studio-subscription streaming sites? Aren't they killing the industry? They have been around for decades, yet the industry has been chugging along without a hitch.
--
It's abundantly clear that the DMCA hasn't done porn any favors. The only thing it is useful for is to expand MindGeeks moat, and for DMCA trolls like this (Strike 3) to exploit regular people who were just participating in the more "obscene" corners of our digital society.
Blockbuster films? Music? Well, you can stream them on one of the 3-5 services. There is just enough of a product to compete with piracy.
Amateur content? We have YouTube, which promises to pay content creators, so long as the content isn't obscene (as defined by YouTube's content policy, and enforced by its algorithmic moderation). There is enough of a product that both creators and viewers are willing to compromise.
Porn? Not a chance. There are the MindGeek services, which are basically YouTube with garbage-bitrate encoding; and there is piracy. Right up until the infamous PornHub purge, piracy was the only game in town!
--
When it comes to porn, if your content isn't freely available on a popular tube site, it may as well not exist. Piracy is the advertising model for the porn industry.
There is a reason that PornHub's bitrate is so bad. It's clearly not just the bandwidth: every video on that site looks like it went through every lossy codec in order, just to make it as chunky as possible. Why? Because you aren't meant to stay. You are meant to pay $30 for a monthly subscription to the studio you like most. As soon as you do that, you get a DRM-free high-bitrate 4K@60 download-as-much-as-you-want as-many-times-as-you-want service. In other words: exactly what Netflix, Spotify, YouTube, and the Digital Copyright industry at large would have us believe is the most unsustainable business model ever, doomed to fail instantly; yet somehow it hasn't failed yet.
But what about torrents? What about eporner and hqporner and all the other high-bitrate obviously-ripped-from-studio-subscription streaming sites? Aren't they killing the industry? They have been around for decades, yet the industry has been chugging along without a hitch.
--
It's abundantly clear that the DMCA hasn't done porn any favors. The only thing it is useful for is to expand MindGeeks moat, and for DMCA trolls like this (Strike 3) to exploit regular people who were just participating in the more "obscene" corners of our digital society.