Oprah show

[EmporerEJ]

Your thoughts?

I thought good. Showed the industry in a VERY favorable light, and once Oprah accepts it, America Accepts it.

Plus, will make Jenna another mil.

Sorry I didn't see Reginna Lynn on there as an expert.

[miz_wright]

I'm going to try to watch it tonight. How were the others?

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

I'm going to try to watch it tonight. How were the others?

Not bad at all. I thought we were treated VERY fairly, I'd even say, positively.
Oprah and Lisa Ling both made positive signs towards the industry.
Everyone seemed very professional.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Not bad at all. I thought we were treated VERY fairly, I'd even say, positively.
Oprah and Lisa Ling both made positive signs towards the industry.
Everyone seemed very professional.

Its good to see outsiders making steps forward but this business has a lot of healing to do from the inside.

We have people that are self proclaimed gurus and big ballers that say they are making the bucks in one breath and then in another call KBs girl friend a hooker and a skank.

Progress starts within.

[DannyCox]

I got a kick listening to Jenna talk about how she's changed the business and made it so much better for all the new girls just staring out. Jenna is still as delusional as she always was!

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Not bad at all. I thought we were treated VERY fairly, I'd even say, positively.
Oprah and Lisa Ling both made positive signs towards the industry.
Everyone seemed very professional.

The porn business will always be on the edge. The more respectable it gets, the less money we make. I hope these girls always look like tramps and whores dressed up for tv. We make our money out of tramps and whores and one thing for damn sure, pimps will never be respectable.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I got a kick listening to Jenna talk about how she's changed the business and made it so much better for all the new girls just staring out. Jenna is still as delusional as she always was!

Yea, that same thing smacked me in the face a couple of times.
I found her a but contempuous. But hey, I don't care, we all know better. She wants to be "respectable" now, and she has accomplished much.

Bu, back when I was selling porn in the early 80's, I don't recall her "changing anything."

I do remember a particular "Hedgehog," that made a big difference, then, as now, and is much more humble, and, "likable."

[softball]

Bu, back when I was selling porn in the early 80's, I don't recall her "changing anything."

Well, considering she was eight years old I can't believe you wouldn't think that would make a difference. Your thoughts?

[EmporerEJ]

Apparently sarcasm doesn't travel well in print.

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Apparently sarcasm doesn't travel well in print.

good recovery....

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

good recovery....

Recovery nothing. what is it with you? MUST you turn everything into some kind of bullshit argument? As if ANY of it mattered anyhow. She's a self centered porn star, that THINKS she's more important than she ever was. Big surprise. Whoopsie do. I know her story, I read her book, did you? Of course not.

I remember another porn star that thought she was something, then rolled on the industry. She was "big" in the 80's. Now people say her name and spit.

All I care about is she actually did the industry, and me, by extension, some good today. If she wants to think she taught the world how to give blowjobs, what do I care?

And if you're too dense to figure out what I meant in my post, so what? I've told you before, I've got no interest in anything you say. But you just can't leave it alone. Am I really that interesting to you, that you must constantly hump my leg?

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Recovery nothing. what is it with you? MUST you turn everything into some kind of bullshit argument? As if ANY of it mattered anyhow. She's a self centered porn star, that THINKS she's more important than she ever was. Big surprise. Whoopsie do. I know her story, I read her book, did you? Of course not.

I remember another porn star that thought she was something, then rolled on the industry. She was "big" in the 80's. Now people say her name and spit.

All I care about is she actually did the industry, and me, by extension, some good today. If she wants to think she taught the world how to give blowjobs, what do I care?

And if you're too dense to figure out what I meant in my post, so what? I've told you before, I've got no interest in anything you say. But you just can't leave it alone. Am I really that interesting to you, that you must constantly hump my leg?

not such a good recovery

[TheEnforcer]

I certainly think she's a good spokesperson for the biz. A hell of a lot better than a story i saw on the Huffington Post that sickened me earlier today.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

I certainly think she's a good spokesperson for the biz. A hell of a lot better than a story i saw on the Huffington Post that sickened me earlier today.

Which was...?

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

I certainly think she's a good spokesperson for the biz. A hell of a lot better than a story i saw on the Huffington Post that sickened me earlier today.

Yes, link please. Don't make me wade through the huffington post.

[miz_wright]

Beyond the nature of Jenna's comments, was anyone else distraught that there was someone on the show that appeared to advocate the use of tubes?

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

Beyond the nature of Jenna's comments, was anyone else distraught that there was someone on the show that appeared to advocate the use of tubes?

That's a funny question, coming from you.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

That's a funny question, coming from you.

Glad I can amuse, but I don't see the humour?

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

Glad I can amuse, but I don't see the humour?

Not funny "ha ha," funny "curious." As in, doesn't AEBN operate a "tube" site?
In fact, don't you all have a "cloudy" past with that?

And that's "you" in the 3rd person, not first or second.

English is a very imprecise language.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Not funny "ha ha," funny "curious." As in, doesn't AEBN operate a "tube" site?
In fact, don't you all have a "cloudy" past with that?

And that's "you" in the 3rd person, not first or second.

English is a very imprecise language.

"Cloudy" is bringing up issues that have long since been rectified simply for the purpose of beating a horse that has been dead for years and immaterial to the question at hand.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

"Cloudy" is bringing up issues that have long since been rectified simply for the purpose of beating a horse that has been dead for years and immaterial to the question at hand.

No, I specifically said "cloudy," so as to avoid the chance of bringing up the issue you just specified, in the manner you seem to be hinting at. And I STILL won't bring it up for that reason.

I'm simply saying, that from a public perception issue, which is usually wrong, your company operates a tube site now. (Although, I think you might argue it is now an "up-sell site," it is still perceived to be a tube site for marketing purposes, no?

SO......for you to object to the promotion of "tube sites," whatever they may be, actually, and the public's perception, is certainly "cloudy." Because, although you may call it an "upsell site," the public will still perceive it as a "tube site," which I think is exactly your intention?

[EmporerEJ]

And now, Oprah is quitting.
I predict: Watch.....coming soon, the "Oprah Network."
I further predict, her child shows will follow...Dr Oz, Dr Phil, Rachael Ray, and more to come.

[Toby]

Let me interject a little something here in the interest of clarity.

I do believe Liz was referring to illegal tube sites with her original query above, which is a far cry from anything owned by AEBN.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Toby

Let me interject a little something here in the interest of clarity.

I do believe Liz was referring to illegal tube sites with her original query above, which is a far cry from anything owned by AEBN.

I appreciate your input, but she didn't say that, and I don't recall that happening on the show, and I was very careful to not mention anything of that sort.

And I don't particularly like being accused of saying something wrong, which I didn't. However, if what you suggest is the case, then the topic WOULD be pertinent for discusion, which, I still believe it wasn't.

However, in any case, I didn't bring it up, now did I?

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

No, I specifically said "cloudy," so as to avoid the chance of bringing up the issue you just specified, in the manner you seem to be hinting at. And I STILL won't bring it up for that reason.

I'm simply saying, that from a public perception issue, which is usually wrong, your company operates a tube site now. (Although, I think you might argue it is now an "up-sell site," it is still perceived to be a tube site for marketing purposes, no?)

SO......for you to object to the promotion of "tube sites," whatever they may be, actually, and the public's perception, is certainly "cloudy." Because, although you may call it an "upsell site," the public will still perceive it as a "tube site," which I think is exactly your intention?

Originally Posted by Toby

Let me interject a little something here in the interest of clarity.

I do believe Liz was referring to illegal tube sites with her original query above, which is a far cry from anything owned by AEBN.

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I appreciate your input, but she didn't say that, and I don't recall that happening on the show, and I was very careful to not mention anything of that sort.

And I don't particularly like being accused of saying something wrong, which I didn't. However, if what you suggest is the case, then the topic WOULD be pertinent for discusion, which, I still believe it wasn't.

However, in any case, I didn't bring it up, now did I?

*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.

[EmporerEJ]

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.

[Toby]

http://www.tycamtech.com/ffvb

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Toby

http://www.tycamtech.com/ffvb

That's cute, but what's the point? Are people "compelled" to read because it's there?

Somebody developed that with waaaaayyyyy too much time on their hands.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

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.

Well, given that the topic as a whole has been quite a hot button for debate, I thought it was worth discussing - particularly in light of conversation regarding the show as a whole. I found it an interesting point that no one had mentioned. I don't recall saying that I was outraged, but given the people with whom I work on both sides of the issue, I will see it through the lens of my work.

Which I suspect is natural.

As part of the generation that thinks we "invented porn," I also grew up with the idea that yes, content is commodotised. I will readily admit that the advent of the internet as it's known today brought with it a glut of free content and the ready exchange of ideas and media for free. However, all artists, regardless of medium, do deserve to be paid for the work that they do. In countless other areas, threads, and discussions, I have had myriad conversations regarding how to monetise without stabbing the consumer in the jugular.

It's kind of immaterial, though, as my primary point wasn't to belittle you. I apologise that my choice to try to remain on topic was perceived that way. It wasn't my intent.

Having said that, clearly, this is clearly not productive debate, as we appear to be at the same impasse/ discussion points that have previously been covered ad infinitum, so I will thank you for your input and vacate this thread.

[gonzo]

Regina Lynn and Violet Blue are both acquaintances of mine and I was in contact with them and many other media professionals last year and we talked on a variety of topics over the course of the year.

It doesnt surprise me that either lady would be at any event as a reporter.

Ive valued their input in the past as well as Kathi Brewer.

There are a lot of savvy media people out there that get and embrace this business.. Ive enjoyed meeting them and hope to have an extended dialog with more in the future.

From my observation the tubes seem to be more effective than the old circle jerk sites which I still see TGPs using with a heavy skim to outside sites usually STILL loaded with underage and bestiality content.

And lets be honest...the MGP of the past were nothing more than a very limited version of the tubes.

I agree with you in that regard. Those of us that were in this from the start would have NEVER considered ripping off someone elses video in the form of clips of full scenes.

And lets talk about the clips themselves and the lack of understand on what they are for. They are to entice the consumer to buy the video in an on demand format or DVD.

New sites and studios have the first 3 minutes of any random video as a clip. What happened to the quick action like the old 70s drive in trailers where you could see who was in the movie doing hardcore but the scene wasnt on long enough for you to focus on leaving you unable to get your jerk on.

Made you want to see that movie and I think the tubes would be even more effective if the studios used that formula opposed to the first 3 minutes of the video.

I dont get hard from the 2257 information... I just click another clip.

[EmporerEJ]

I don't think you'd catch Kathee dead on the Oprah show, or any other TV appearance.
:-)
Violet, I don't know very well.

Regina talks well in front of the camera, and I think is a bit more "sensitive" to the needs of the commercial adult world in her conversation.

But anybody that can hold their own and look comfortable (like Violet did,) on Oprah with the largest possible audience of millions staring at her, deserves a very big pat on the back. She did well, and I think did a good job of "de-stigmatizing" the industry for middle America. And I think she only spoke of what most people were thinking, anyhow.

As for the early porn, oh yea, I remember the 8MM (Super and standard, B&W and color, no sound.) We sold/rented those too. By the time you had the leader threaded on the take up reel, you were into the action. 50 footers were 2.5 minutes, and the big 200 footers were only 8-10 minutes.
Won't forget them anytime soon.

But no, the videos I was referring to is the mass that was created mid 80's, early 90's direct for video. One studio that sticks out in my mind was western visuals. I think I had their entire catalog in all my stores.And of course, the taboo american style series that actually wore out., and had to be replaced. and it was "Shot on real film!"

Those are the titles I'm talking about, lurking around out there in the ether, waiting to be dumped onto the world. There is no way you are ever gonna get those people "properly paid." And none of them require 2257, as of course, that was before 2257.

We'll see.
But back to the topic at hand. any way you slice it, it was a great big "Good" for the industry, in my opinion.