Another one bites the dust

models will want payments upfront for shoots ... no model is going to shoot for a 3rd party company for free on the whim that they may or maynot make some decent dollar back ...

Now a model that owns her own website and produces her own content is slight different but we alreay have a varient of that for getting paid a royalty back on some of the big VOD and Clipsites ..

For example ...

I shoot 1 hardcore of me with x Model.. now my outlay cost is this ...

Model Fee £
Photographer Fee £
Editing/etc Fee £

This then goes up on my offical paysite , i then use the same content on other outlets such as aebn, hotmovies, mns, rude etc and i get paid 25%/30% of whenever it sells.. now if i sell my rent one of my movies scenes on my cam site i use in the uk i then earn 70% of £2.99/£3.99 for everytime its rented ... which can rack up to about 200pounds in a week or so ..

But I dont pay out royalities to other performers they were paid a one off fee to shoot exclusively for me, and i can do what i wish with that content basically .. So not sure how a model release would work allowing models extra money back years down the line for shoots ..would be interesting to see that one take shape .

As it stands at moment if a model/company is smart they will use all the other various clip/revenue outlets they can to increase their passive income,, it doesnt take much effeort to rehash some existing content in other channles to earn you an extra 1k a month .

Macshreash the method you talk about is never going to happen as there is no real clear who runs the internet ..Would that be Google? Microsoft? BT etc is it the ISP as they carry the signal provide the means, is it micorsoft as they made the internet, is it google as they rule the internet pratically now it seems ...

In terms of piracy - there is no way to stop it, if it can be made and posted somewhere it will be copied and given away.. all you can do is try minimise the damage you sustain from it ..by whatever means at your disposal..legal action is perfectly fine. stealing is stealing at the end of the day.

You could stop offering downloads and encrupted streaming only instead that is tied to one machines mediaplayer i forget what this tech is called but i have seen it .. it basically locks out people sharing it ...but with the quality of video cameras today you could just as easily stick a camera on tripod and record your screen if you cant rip the video directly ..

Its an interesting debate and an interesting area of where the interent will develop and how industries such adult, music, movies, gaming will adapt to its changes ... personally i think membership sites are dying medium .. i think something more akin to Itunes for porn would be neat as people can pay for what they want or rent what they want ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacShreach

"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.

---

lol Well it sure as hell isn't like the way it works. The model gets paid a one time fee. These companies can look for these models anywhere, and they pay them whatever they're willing to walk away with. Just imagine how many TS in the desperate days of their early transition have taken practically nothing to do these shoots. lol And think of how far your money could go in the Third World with that approach.

But I suspect you have your work cut out for, in terms of proposing this new "residual" approach to the current shemale porn companies. lol

And the girls are all too shady and cannibalistic to band together and cooperate, to accomplish anything to help the younger, more up-and-coming girls.

And there is no advertising money in shemale porn. lol The only thing being advertised in shemale porn is more shemale porn, and the occasional dildo. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacShreach

Sour grapes, pet?

---

Far from it. Bemusement.

I read this article earlier...I'd be interested in both of yours...Mac and Steven's...opinion on it.

Whereas the ideas expressed work in the mainstream world...I don't know if it does or could apply to the porn world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco...ever-kill-you/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness

good another pirate site goes down ..

---

And two more go up.

BT Junkie wasn't even really a site in it's own right. Just one of a number of search engine type sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiffany Anne

I read this article earlier...I'd be interested in both of yours...Mac and Steven's...opinion on it.

Whereas the ideas expressed work in the mainstream world...I don't know if it does or could apply to the porn world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco...ever-kill-you/


And two more go up.

BT Junkie wasn't even really a site in it's own right. Just one of a number of search engine type sites.

---

The model he put forward (which I think he took from elsewhere) would be excellent and as I've stated before, when we get to the Itunes model or the Steam model, then yes that is the way forward, in the delivery. Some of the main points in his article were naive though and suffer from the same flawed logic that most people who enjoy piracy go for, "we're not actually stealing, it's not tangible, it can be replaced, I wouldn't have bought it anyway". That may be so for that individual but when they're presenting it to others who MAY have bought it, then it represents a lost sale.

There is no doubt in my mind, that our multi-strategy approach to piracy is working for us.

a pointed reflection.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

a pointed reflection.....

---

that just about says it all.:Bowdown:

Mega upload has closed but won't this just give all the other file sharing sites a chance to take its place?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ays-study.html

Someone will contest what I am posting but YES Kim just like when Napster died we all found an alternative.....
the only catch this time is the "anonymous" hackers are going after government sites until they learn their lesson and leave the file sharing folks alone.....