egafd.com

Thanks Scott, for posting

"Ben Dover related products (including those he shot in association with Bluebird, for instance) have always been among our most popular products."

This is deeply shocking, I find it VERY hard to believe that people would shell out money to watch someone like this. I am NOT a porn consumer, but I like to think I would prefer more visually stimulating people in action should we say.

I would like to say also that although I am sure that the "Free share" of Porn does affect the business models in some way, what I find astonishing, is that Torrent sites have only been identified in the last 3 years (I am using the BPI and the MPAA actions to date this), Torrents have been around for nearly TWELVE years, I see however that the Tube sites have been around a lot less.

Tube sites, or Video streaming sites require less "bother" for people to view, Torrents can be trickier in having the correct protocols installed on a machine etc

I Will always maintain that based on what I have seen, that it is the TUBE sites that are impacting on the Porn Industry, it is just easier to target the Torrent users. Problem is IF Becker and co decided to go after the TUBE sites, it would cost them money, but it would get a result in having a site closed down.

I am not aiming this at you Scott, but those in the Porn industry, need to show how committed they are to fighting "Copyright Infringement" by actually putting their money where there mouth is, and to target not people who use the Torrent Protocol that has LOTS of legitimate uses but rather the Porn Streaming sites, that have NO legitimate use except to stream copyrighted material.

Just a thought!

(I think OEJ might be awaiting clearance on what to say next)

"This is deeply shocking, I find it VERY hard to believe that people would shell out money to watch someone like this. I am NOT a porn consumer, but I like to think I would prefer more visually stimulating people in action should we say."

Ben's popularity has less to do with his physical appearance, and more to do with the general feeling of his films. Where a lot of American porn has a very serious and foreboding feel, Ben's stuff is always light and fun. His scenes translate to the viewer very well. Plus, he pretty much invented the British porn as we know it.

You, for your own reasons, see him as something of a boogie-man, and I understand why. Won't even fault you for it. But for porn fans, especially older adults who grew up with him on VHS, he's a legend.

"I Will always maintain that based on what I have seen, that it is the TUBE sites that are impacting on the Porn Industry..."

It's not just tube sites. It's not just torrent protocol. It's not just file lockers. It's the combined effect of them all. And if I had to hazard a guess, it'd be that they all have an equal effect on lost sales.

In terms of Ben Dover specifically, OEJ asked if we would boycott his product because of his companies involvement in the letter campaign, I can only say this. The notion is preposterous to even suggest.

If youre going to quote me Scott please do so correctly...

Where did I say or imply you would boycott his product because of his involvement with GEIL

Allow me to cut and post verbatim what I have written so you may read it again:

(cut and posted) To answer bpaws earlier post, would YC boycott Ben Dover products because of its involvement with GEILs actions?

I think not because its not in your interest to do so


Please do not confuse my words with bpaws. It confuses things

Ah! I see Terry. Totally misunderstood what was going on there. This particular forum doesn't easily allow for following specific trains of conversation within a thread.

My apologies, either way. Forgive me?

I am merely stating the fact a producer will see things different from a reseller that licenses products at a fraction of the cost.

If it doesnt sell well, then they can just bail and the producer is left out of pocket because his stuff is available for free everywhere else on the net.

Why would anyone pay for anything if they can knowingly get it for free?

So its always down to the producer to do something that conflicts with their interests and why I strongly believe as you may think otherwise, this is an issue for copyright infringement even if you think the methods are anything but.

one eyed jack wrote:

> I am merely stating the fact a producer will see things
> different from a reseller that licenses products at a fraction
> of the cost.
>
> If it doesnt sell well, then they can just bail and the
> producer is left out of pocket because his stuff is available
> for free everywhere else on the net.

And that's fair. I'm not saying we're coming at it from the exact same perspective. All I am saying is that we stand to lose a lot of money, potentially even our livelihoods, from unauthorized sharing

>
> Why would anyone pay for anything if they can knowingly get it
> for free?

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I know I spend a lot of money on mainstream DVD. All of which I could get for free. And again, I've seen at least two separate studies that show downloaders are often big spenders.

>
> So its always down to the producer to do something that
> conflicts with their interests and why I strongly believe as
> you may think otherwise, this is an issue for copyright
> infringement even if you think the methods are anything but.
>
>

There is an issue of copyright infringement here. No doubt. It's just that we do not back this particular method.

Scott wrote:

There is an issue of copyright infringement here. No doubt. It's just that we do not back this particular method.


Thats the real point for me. Taking a back seat on this because you dont agree with a method is like waiting for the better opportunity to come along which might never happen.

If a method is flawed, it is often improved upon but it has to be implemented first to expose those flaws.

There is no other weapon of choice right now that i know of and remaining inactive on this issue just leads people to carry on as if it isnt a problem.

Piracy, I'll admit has always been there and always has been a problem but the these days its endemic in most peoples minds that everything can be got for free. Whats really poisonous is the notion that you have to be a complete idiot to pay for it as one BBC news report cited a young viewer downloading movies and music (or was it porn?)

I liken this to the invention of the wheel. We had to start out with horse drawn carriages before we had cars and even though the technology is there, its still flawed for the CO2 emissions BUT it is being improved upon.

When I discuss this with most producers, they are all stuck on the same thing...We need to act to show we dont like what is going on. Not once have I seen any of them rubbing their hands in glee licking their lips waiting for the big pay day

@OEJ Wrote "Not once have I seen any of them rubbing their hands in glee licking their lips waiting for the big pay day"

Really? let me enlighten you....

"Everyone is getting eir(sic) bit and I am owed ?17k ffs." "Sent from my iPad"! - Lee Bowden (Leaked emails - acting for Relish Films)

Maybe not rubbing his hands, but waiting for a sizeable chunk methinks, and this was just ONE payment.

@OEJ Wrote "There is no other weapon of choice right now that i know of and remaining inactive on this issue just leads people to carry on as if it isnt a problem."

Hmmm really? I know one that was pretty good at preventing copying, it is called DRM, now tell me why this not good, I have heard that people don't like it, but does it prevent people from buying stuff?

@ScottMcGowan wrote "You, for your own reasons, see him as something of a boogie-man, and I understand why. Won't even fault you for it. But for porn fans, especially older adults who grew up with him on VHS, he's a legend."

Thanks for responding again Scott, I dont actually see him as a "Boogie-man" at all, I see him as someone who is past his best in his profession, who has had marital issues leading to a divorce and loss of a hefty priced mansion, and at the same time, he launched this scheme, he of course failed the first 3 times he tried it and now he is back again.

I actually feel that IF Dover wanted to pursue this, without taking the piss out of the public, he could have done it WITHOUT using the same people(Clem Vogler and Alireza Torabi) as what ACS:LAW used, this is VERY unfortunate and indeed insensitive to those affected by that company. He MUST have known that by using those people he would ignite the anger towards ACS:LAW that led to their downfall.

I appreciated your other comments though and am intrigued by your assessment of Ben Dover and the position and respect he holds in your industry. As I have said I am not a consumer, of the product you sell, (by consumer I mean I dont use porn whether bought or free) I have to say when I was a teenager I watched a lot of films but never heard of this guy until they started this action back in 2010.

Hmmm really? I know one that was pretty good at preventing copying, it is called DRM, now tell me why this not good, I have heard that people don't like it, but does it prevent people from buying stuff?



DRM is years out of date and doesnt work at the best of times as it is crackable and from my understanding of it lost members faster to downloading like no other. Ill just leave it at DRM doesnt work. A quick search around on google and you'll see why

If DRM was so effective we wouldnt be having this problem and there would be no need for anything else and downloading wouldnt be going on in such an epic feverish scale as it is today.