Another one bites the dust

[Nicole Dupre]

You can include me out of that one, chum. I want to see a free internet because it is a logical and profitable way forward. Content providers should pay for the content they provide.

Huh? Content providers should pay for what they provide? You've lost me. If I have a restaurant, I should cook and serve you a meal and pay your tab?

[Nicole Dupre]

No one deserves to walk just away from the sites with any content in the first place. If you want to buy the site's content and walk away with it, maybe that should be an option. Maybe you should get taken to a separate page where you pay for all the content for $300 or something. However you want to structure it, I don't care. But you need to pay for it. Being a member for a lousy $30 and taking everything you can steal is just nuts.

And camming is just sad; punching in on a time clock to spontaneously get horny? lol What nonsense. Talk about being a monkey expected to dance and do tricks when someone waves a peanut at you. Cam models are not paid nearly enough. They just do it because they won't make squat from porn.

You fucking jackasses don't deserve shit for free. Not porn, not music, and not films. Entertain yourselves if you're so fucking special.

[MacShreach]

Huh? Content providers should pay for what they provide? You've lost me. If I have a restaurant, I should cook and serve you a meal and pay your tab?

No, I mean your restaurant should pay the farmer, or the wholesaler or wherever you buy your produce from, and then charge the customer for the food it sells--similarly, people providing content on the Internet should pay the people who make it, they should absolutely not be just using it to make money and paying no-one.

[GroobySteven]

That is a non-sequitur, and no, I will not let you away with it. In the UK, the only channel you pay towards is the BBC, via the Licence Fee. All other channels work by an advertising revenue model or a subscription revenue model. If I watch advertising-based television like STV, for example, or C4 or C5, they get no money from me via the Licence Fee, thus I am watching their content for free. Q.E.D.

You would not have been able to switch on your television unless you'd paid the license fee. So therefore, those free television channels you watch would have been broadcasting and you, wouldn't have had a medium to play it on. This is just a silly argument. YOU have paid to watch television. Whether you switch on the BBC or not, is your choice.

Free internet is like advertising-based television in this way: we pay by being exposed to advertising, which is sold. Content, which is required to encourage us to watch the channel, is paid for by the channel, not by us; in the end it is paid by the advertisers, who add the price to their products, so, if I buy that product, I will pay a proportion of the cost of the television channel. But I don't have to buy the product.

This is the way forward for the Internet, and it will inevitably happen, because there is no way that using legislation to deny a free market as large as this is going to result in anything other than a huge black economy, which is in no-one's interest. I believe the internet should be free so that everyone can access it, because I think that this will be, in the long term, the most useful, and ultimately, the most profitable path.

What has to happen, however, is that content producers must get a share of the advertising revenue that is being generated, which at present they do not, and that is unfair. Unfortunately the short-sightedness of some traditional content producers has caused them to target the end-user instead of using their legal muscle to arrive at a deal with the internet-based companies, which is something they actually could achieve.

I certainly don't want to pay directly for the Internet, but I see nothing wrong in that, as long as the content providers are getting their share of the advertising revenue that a free internet generates, which is a huge economy.

Sticking your head in the sand has an unfortunate consequence...

I agree with all of the above and that is pretty much how a business like ours works now. A multi-tiered approach to selling premium outlets, to running free sites/channels like http://www.tgirls.com or http://www.tgflix.com which profit from advertising and from the potential onsell of tangible products.

So your free channels of say C4 spend money to produce content. They then partially profit from that content by broadcasting it and selling advertising space within the commercial breaks or product placement within the program. All very well but a massive part of their profit also comes from selling the foreign broadcast rights to that content. When an individual steals the content and broadcasts it for free, on his own channel with his own commercial breaks making advertising revenue for himself ... and everybody knows that the content on this channel, is completely stolen - then both the thief and the end user, should have renumeration action taken against them for the loss of that income.

[GroobySteven]

No, I mean your restaurant should pay the farmer, or the wholesaler or wherever you buy your produce from, and then charge the customer for the food it sells--similarly, people providing content on the Internet should pay the people who make it, they should absolutely not be just using it to make money and paying no-one.

Absolutely.

[MacShreach]

You would not have been able to switch on your television unless you'd paid the license fee. So therefore, those free television channels you watch would have been broadcasting and you, wouldn't have had a medium to play it on. This is just a silly argument. YOU have paid to watch television. Whether you switch on the BBC or not, is your choice.



I agree with all of the above and that is pretty much how a business like ours works now. A multi-tiered approach to selling premium outlets, to running free sites/channels like http://www.tgirls.com or http://www.tgflix.com which profit from advertising and from the potential onsell of tangible products.

So your free channels of say C4 spend money to produce content. They then partially profit from that content by broadcasting it and selling advertising space within the commercial breaks or product placement within the program. All very well but a massive part of their profit also comes from selling the foreign broadcast rights to that content. When an individual steals the content and broadcasts it for free, on his own channel with his own commercial breaks making advertising revenue for himself ... and everybody knows that the content on this channel, is completely stolen - then both the thief and the end user, should have renumeration action taken against them for the loss of that income.

I'm sorry you don't understand basic logic; that really isn't my problem though and I refer you to my previous posts on the subject of the UK licence fee, in which the point has been well established. I am afraid your repeating a logical error over and over again is not going to make it correct.

C4 does indeed make content to broadcast, and sells that. But a far greater part of its content it buys in from independent production companies as well as major studios, upon which, of course, it does not charge residuals, and it pays the people who make that content.

Clearly, if C4 were not paying these providers, then they would take action. Those who broadcast content must pay for it, either by producing it themselves or by paying those who do. That is what I have been saying; thank you for catching up.

Similarly, people who make content have to strike a deal with internet companies to get residuals from that content. It doesn't stop them selling it direct, it just opens up another revenue stream.

[GroobySteven]

You are welcome. I'm pleased to see you are now on the same page.

[Nicole Dupre]

I'm sorry you don't understand basic logic; that really isn't my problem though and I refer you to my previous posts on the subject of the UK licence fee, in which the point has been well established. I am afraid your repeating a logical error over and over again is not going to make it correct.

C4 does indeed make content to broadcast, and sells that. But a far greater part of its content it buys in from independent production companies as well as major studios, upon which, of course, it does not charge residuals, and it pays the people who make that content.

Clearly, if C4 were not paying these providers, then they would take action. Those who broadcast content must pay for it, either by producing it themselves or by paying those who do. That is what I have been saying; thank you for catching up.

Similarly, people who make content have to strike a deal with internet companies to get residuals from that content. It doesn't stop them selling it direct, it just opens up another revenue stream.

"Residuals"?

You've lost me again. On solo sites, the girl and the webmaster each get a cut. The money was already laid out to produce the content. On multi-girl sites, the webmaster already paid the models and shooters. Where in the equation does it ever make sense to allow some loser to download it all for free? And why are these losers sharing it with anyone? Should we pay them something to rob it and upload it back to the internet too? lol

And how does this "force the people who broadcast it" stuff you're talking about work onlne? Do you expect my broadband provider to pay my site for the privilege of having it contained in their cable signal? lol

It sounds like you're getting into concepts similar to publishing rights and royalties as well. Do you think Seanchai is going to pay his models royalties? Or do you think we're going to sell him publishing rights to the content we appear in? In the case of Grooby, he's already made his investment. He paid the models and shooters. It's not unlike the record companies paying all of those blues and early rock artists to make them a record. Down the road, they're not getting anything for it because they don't own the recordings. But that's not the issue. Those deals are struck up before the fact. The issue is, why is anyone possessing something that they haven't paid for? They don't own it.

[MacShreach]

You are welcome. I'm pleased to see you are now on the same page.

Sour grapes, pet?

[MacShreach]

"Residuals"?

You've lost me again. On solo sites, the girl and the webmaster each get a cut. The money was already laid out to produce the content. On multi-girl sites, the webmaster already paid the models and shooters. Where in the equation does it ever make sense to allow some loser to download it all for free? And why are these losers sharing it with anyone? Should we pay them something to rob it and upload it back to the internet too? lol

And how does this "force the people who broadcast it" stuff you're talking about work onlne? Do you expect my broadband provider to pay my site for the privilege of having it contained in their cable signal? lol

It sounds like you're getting into concepts similar to publishing rights and royalties as well. Do you think Seanchai is going to pay his models royalties? Or do you think we're going to sell him publishing rights to the content we appear in? In the case of Grooby, he's already made his investment. He paid the models and shooters. It's not unlike the record companies paying all of those blues and early rock artists to make them a record. Down the road, they're not getting anything for it because they don't own the recordings. But that's not the issue. Those deals are struck up before the fact. The issue is, why is anyone possessing something that they haven't paid for? They don't own it.

"Residuals." You get paid every time something is broadcast, printed, published, etc.It is a standard model everywhere, apparently, except the internet. In your Grooby example, if an actress had residual rights, then she would get paid for the work and again, whenever the work was sold. Just the same as a songwriter gets 9% of every sale of a song, irrespective of who sings it or sells it; there are organisations that ensure that money is paid. Very early blues and rock artists may have been selling rights outright, but since at least the 50's, residuals have been the model, with the artist receiving an advance on these from the record company, rather than a rights buy-out.

It's all about publishing rights and royalties. Seanchai is an independent producer who sells his work directly through websites. He could also sell through other sites and charge a royalty.

If you look at the broader media, basically this is already how things are set up. For some reason the Internet seems to think it has its own rules. Google, for example, makes squillions from advertising to people searching for content that they give diddly-squat for. We are not talking about insignificant sums of money here. All I'm saying is thatsome of that advertising revenue--whoever collects it--should go back to the artist, content producer, whatever, and this approach is likely to be a lot more productive and profitable than trying to get the horse back in the stable.

I wasn't talking abut ISPs being charged, although I certainly don't see why not--that was looked into several years ago but got stalled. But in the UK, for example, all radio stations pay a fee to broadcast music, and that is collected and returned to the artists, via the recording companies. Why shouldn't ISPs pay a fee in a similar way?

These models are all in place and have been shown to work....why is the internet different?

I am not arguing that people should be allowed to steal; I am arguing that in the long run, a properly set up, free model, where the artists get paid via royalties, if you like, will be more economically viable than the present mess.