Quote:
Originally Posted by LizAEBN
*sigh*
OK, or we could get into a semantics debate.
For the purposes of this conversation, yes, Violet Blue did advocate the use of tubes, as noted here .
This quote, specifically, indicates advocacy of watching porn for free in its entirety:
"When Violet sits down to watch porn for personal pleasure, she says she has a checklist of criteria. "If I don't want to pay for them, I can go online to one of the free tube sites that are basically like YouTube for porn, and I can select by genre. I can click on something [and then] click away if I don't like it," she says. "It's a much more targeted experience for someone like me.""
In particular, her use of "if I don't want to pay" indicates that porn shouldn't be paid for. [Also: you're welcome for having actual the actual points to which I am referring made easily available. See how much easier that makes it to actually discuss things?]
Which is the conversation I was curious about, not semantical debate.
But if you feel it's more important to rehash old news instead of debate, that's fine too.
And Toby? Thank you for getting my point. |
Trying to belittle me to avoid a topic
you brought up is a very sad method of conversation. But if you are that sensitive about the point, as well you should be, then do what you must to feel better.
Tube sites, as "tube sites" for free porn remain a reality, and will only get worse as time goes on. If not for the fact that people prefer "free" to something they pay for, then for the fact that people who "grew up" in the web business value their content completely differently than the people that actually created the home consumer video business, back in the 80's.
The internet offered a new "method" of porn delivery. It was good for a while, because it was "new and exciting."
While I realize it's not a popular opinion, non "special" content has very little value en-mass. While the under 35 crowd seems to think they invented porn, in fact there is tons of "good porn" sitting on shelves around the country that can be gotten for next to free. At some point, it is going to flood the industry. As soon as the old license holders find a way to monetize it, even for a few cents. I'm not sure why this constantly surprises people when it happens. People are used to watching TV for free, the trade off being they are subjected to commercials. It's a long standing model. The people have been trained.
Those same people were trained to go to their local porn shop, or through the mail, to get their porn. After all that getting in the car and going effort, we gave them 90 minutes of porn for about $3. That IS the model in their head.
A: Free with commercials
B: Low cost without commercials, and/or a little hassle.
Now comes tube sites: OOOH, porn for free, if we get away with it!
And they WILL get away with it, by simply bouncing the servers around the world to places where they don't care about your American Copyright. And the government isn't going to lift a finger to help you.
Now comes the "profesional tube siters" et all, with their idea: Let's "fool" then into thinking they are getting "free porn" but pinch them before they get too much. Hopefully, we'll crank up the male libido in 30 seconds (not a bad bet) and convince them, in their sexual desire haze, to pull out their credit cards and enter it to reach climax.
Yea, that works once or twice. But REAL quick, they figure out you REALLY aren't a tube site, just a teaser, and now it becomes just another marketing ploy. Make it little flashier, talk it up, and it lasts another cycle. Ultimately though, the consumer, who isn't as dumb as Oprah thinks he is, figures it out.
So, what do we (the industry) do? Get mad at the message deliverer, and make war on the customer because he's choosing "free" over paying for something. And don't forget, he can do it without getting caught. And you're all surprised? Please.
That's NOT what I got from Violet blue, who I though was being more of a "reporter" in the piece, and reporting on the state of the industry. Which, by the way, is why
she was there, and NOT a rep from a tube site.
In fact, I think she did you guys a huge favor, by bringing a new audience to your door to sell to. I would be very surprised if there wasn't an uptick in your sales?
To me, this phrase: "I can go online to one of the free tube sites that are basically like YouTube for porn, and I can select by genre. I can click on something [and then] click away if I don't like it" says she can browse for free, and click away before paying for something that doesn't fit her fetish. And as she's a fetish girl, that makes sense.
She doesn't say "Oh yea, I get everything I need for free without ever paying on a tube site."
She is basically promoting YOUR sales model, no? sample, and if you like, stay and [sic] buy? Exactly WHERE does she advocate "stealing" content?
I would have preferred Regina Lynn, by Violet got the job done.
YOU (liz) projected your own view and fears on what she said. A perfectly understandable thing to do in your job. I simply don't agree with your slant, and think your dead bang wrong for doing so. Further, being "outraged" (Which might be a bit strong) by her perceived tacit approval of tube sites (according to you,) is just wrong.
If we want to know, we should ask her the question.
Oh, wait, we can, she's already spoken on the issue:
http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchi...g-presses.html
and:
http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchi...le-column.html
It sure seems from what she says that she sees tube sites as competition for her product as well. So, if you want to infer what she's saying, you would infer she
opposes tube sites, not that she
endorses them.
The English language is a poor enough means of communication when people are face to face and can read the subtle clues that can go with the speech, when you put a bag over a person's head and ears, the printed word loses quite a bit. But please don't project your paranoia onto my words, or expect chivalry to bolster your position on the topic.