Arrrrrrrrrg

Just got an e-mail from HotMovies that they want to hold in hand, all 2257 docs from studios!!!!

Because the FSC challenge was denied in July - even though the Judge used our favorite word of the year "Moribund", to describe enforcement efforts.

Of course, we all have docs.

But, handing them over to a big entity like HotMovies with thousands of studios, and tens of thousands of movies, raises flags, and concerns about security, and promises to not share with parties other than on request of the current Admin, nor Hillary's in 2017-2024.

Especially since part of its company got into that Tax problem in 2010.

In 2007, after the witch hunt started in the late summer 2006, the good guys at AEBN employed an office of paralegals to scour the docs (and we had to similarly produce them as HM is requesting now 6 years later) of all the movies on hand, from all of the studios. About a year later, they closed that group, after all the early no-doc movies had been deleted, and new releases were fitting with the regs.

Is it me, or am I concerned that this entity is not worthy of our trust? Somewhat in the context of "Patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel".

I wonder how many studios will agree to provide docs, how many have lack of docs and will go away, and how many will go away because they don't want any 3rd party to hold docs?

I know of a couple of studios that fit the "don't want to" part!

It's for you to decide if the $$ you make from being with them is worth the risk.

The revenue is ridiculously low, for the assertion that consumers would rather watch streams of video (VOD), tiny, grainy, stop-and-start, jerky video one-time, than have a tangible DVD in hand.

My tangible DVD sales typically outpace the combined total of all of my VOD providers.

I sell my DVDs In Sleeve for $6.99 plus post. The same 70-minute VOD would cost the consumer $5.60-$7.00 to view on-line, depending on the size of the pre-paid block of time they purchased, and at what discount.

Of course, the cherry-pickers would watch less than $.25 of the movie, by constantly fast-forwarding and rewinding. We video editors know that concept as "scrubbing," which is different from the scrubbing that payment processors do by cleaning out the customers and credit cards that have been used in chargebacks and frauds.

It is going to be interesting to see how many studios drop off the map because they don't have docs, or don't want to provide.

And, if other VOD portals will follow suit. (I'm kind of thinking: Not!). But if they do, will web masters be required to (hold docs), next.

While it is OK to redact (magic marker out) the info on an ID that is not the performer's name and DOB, the sheer fact that a performer's real name, associated with his stage name, is in someone else's hands, is the real risk factor. I have nude models in my catalog that have been actors in movies such as "Super Bad" and "Vampire Boys.", regional and national TV ad campaigns, and several MTV reality game shows.

Until Edward Snowden gets a lead role in a porn, I'm kind of leaning towards "big risk".

Looks like you could be in a difficult position as you did make promises to some models that their information wouldn't be shared :blush:

No such "promises" here. Model releases can be provided to "successors and assigns", per their language.

Oh sweet so you're in the clear that's awesome!

I can relate to how you feel about giving any model info out to a 3rd party.

More importantly, if you feel you can't trust a business with a models redacted 2257 info, why would you do business with that entity in the first place?

Ahh yes, "why would I do business with (any) entity in the first place?".

The money is ridiculous, yes. Wasn't always that way 2005-2010, but it has been since the day they went dark for a few hours in November 2010, during the IRS-related incident (regarding a different part of their company, in a different part of their office building, that they got caught up in, nevertheless).

Do I *not* want to be part of thousands of studios and tens of thousands of movies? No, I do not want, to not be a part of something!*

Despite the financial shenanigans of a different part of their corporate house, they have forged relationships with two other important players in the biz.

Do I *not* want to be part of that growing network? While some networks have faltered in recent years, and other networks have grown up around me, no, I do not want, to not be a part of possible growth!

Actually, the only reason why I'm sticking with them, is that one of their network partners typically earns me more revenue in a month, than all of my sales partners combined. (Not including *me*).

I do not want to do like some (former) big mouths here, and slam the door on the future.

I'm satisfied with the present, but not complacent enough, to not want to be part of the future.

I do like selling my DVDs, and wish I had more exposure - as even with repeat customers, there is a limit on expectations of repeat orders.


(* I hope our non-English speaking friends, can understand "double negatives" used in a literary style.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickbaer

Ahh yes, "why would I do business with (any) entity in the first place?".

The money is ridiculous, yes. Wasn't always that way 2005-2010, but it has been since the day they went dark for a few hours in November 2010, during the IRS-related incident (regarding a different part of their company, in a different part of their office building, that they got caught up in, nevertheless).

Do I *not* want to be part of thousands of studios and tens of thousands of movies? No, I do not want, to not be a part of something!*

Despite the financial shenanigans of a different part of their corporate house, they have forged relationships with two other important players in the biz.

Do I *not* want to be part of that growing network? While some networks have faltered in recent years, and other networks have grown up around me, no, I do not want, to not be a part of possible growth!

Actually, the only reason why I'm sticking with them, is that one of their network partners typically earns me more revenue in a month, than all of my sales partners combined. (Not including *me*).

I do not want to do like some (former) big mouths here, and slam the door on the future.

I'm satisfied with the present, but not complacent enough, to not want to be part of the future.

I do like selling my DVDs, and wish I had more exposure - as even with repeat customers, there is a limit on expectations of repeat orders.


(* I hope our non-English speaking friends, can understand "double negatives" used in a literary style.)

---

That makes it more clear and I think you're onto something there