Is porn DVD really on it's way out?

What about HD-DVD? Isn't it the perfect platform for porn? Who wants "clarity and detail so crisp, so defined... you can literally see the pores in the actors' skin" unless they are watching porn?

I think regular DVD has a lot of life left in it, and once VOD reaches the level of clairty that surfers want, the home market will come up with something else. Besides, I don't think DVD will lose to VOD except in markets where adult DVD rental is scarce. I'm not a fan of paying $59.99 for a DVD, and neither are a lot of other people.

By the way, Welcome back to me after 5 weeks on shitty slow dial up. How horrible. I have a new respect for the word "pity" when it comes to dialup folks. AOL and Paypal were the worst.

Lastly, as a side note, I say forget Blu-Ray even though I plan on buying a Playstation 3 because it doesn't have the DVD name on it. People are already familiar with HDTV, so naturally HD-DVD would seem more familiar to consumers than hearing Blu-Ray for the first time. Sounds like laser surgery equipment.

One additional factor, specifically to us: Adult distribution will be different from mainstream. Quinten Tarantino gets to sell his movies via an enormous retail distribution system, including Target and Wal Mart, etc.

CitiBoyz and D&E Productions do not have that luxury. Real & Raw Las Vegas won't ever be sitting next to Real Genius at Best Buy. So adult movie producers will be much faster at finding new methods of delivery of their product.

And more and more of my friends really have stopped driving all the way downtown to Tapelenders like they used to to rent movies. They don't have to because more and more of what they want is online.

Has anyone else noticed the old fashioned gay bookstores, with the clothes, lube and rainbow candles up front and porn in the back, getting skinnier and skinnier? I went to Austin's Tapelenders the this Summer, I'd stopped going there in the past 24 months cause I have absolutely no reason to rent anything anymore.

What was once a huge vast area of movies for rent looked very small. They'd eliminated all their VHS. The selection was all DVD, and the selection was anything but varied. In fact it was predominantly bareback movies and twinks. Maybe I could have found a Colt or Kristen Bjorn movie if I'd gotten the flashlight out and looked into all the back nooks.

I was really surprised.... I felt a strong feeling of so you mean that's it???

Here's something: I read in the WSJ a month ago that some classical music producers are starting to ship just empty boxes to retailers. Inside is simply a piece of paper with your download url and key. They take up less shelf space and production/shipping costs are lower. I instantly thought that adult could potentially utilize this.

What if Falcon offered versions of the Velvet Mafia this way? If it's just a box showing models in underwear and a piece of paper inside, could you sell it in bible belt Colorado Springs, or a place that's not a zoned sexually oriented business?

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

I respectfully disagree on the net neutrality issue. The "preferential treatment" scam is just an anticompetitive move on the part of the major transit suppliers so they can restrict competition and provide their own (overpriced) services and extort a cut from those who are already charging the recipients of services (i.e., membership website owners) but are not owned by the major transit provider.

There is still plenty of money to be made on providing transit.

---

Thanks for responding to this. I understand your point.

I don't know. I just hear one of those "Red Alerts" piping up from the bridge of the Enterprise when I read about this. All I know is that when you start restricting what companies can charge for, they cut back what they do. And that's the wrong way.

I guess it boils down to people who think there are "imperfections" in how the market works, so we therefore need government to step in a fix those "imperfections." While over on the other side, people take the position that competiton and leaving state meddling out of the picture works best in the long run.

Yes, individual bloggers and start ups conceivably could be shut out of the Internet by a cartel of mean ISPs. But this issue is drivien by companies like Microsoft and Google, who do not want SBC or Earthlink one day to say, "hey if you want to be on our network, you need to pay us money."

Well, those companies enjoy hefty cash positions which I think could be worth asking - what's wrong with an ISP, whose pipes are full of Google/YouTube data, asking them for more money?

And I still do not understand why people blow off the consequence of a Bush operated FCC being handed more oversight rules on Internet operation.

If a big bank changes the rules to extract more money from adult web operators (like VISA) we don't go to the government and try to make that illegal. We just adapt and figure out new ways to do business.

The alternative is everything gets stuck in the mud.

Steve

it's NOT just Google and Micro$oft that are in favor of net neutrality. It is practically everyone involved in the networking and architecture side of the Net, including practically all of the original architects of the Net.

Remember that when the Net's predecessor was created in the 1970s, and Tim Berners-Lee wrote the specs for the World Wide Web, the groups involved specifically created language that ensured that the technoligies were public and open to all. Without that, it would never have become the large, vital business and entertainment communications channel that it is.

Now the big transit providers want to muck up something that's worked perfectly, and for no other reason than their own greed.

NO ONE benefits if the transit providers are allowed to control what traffic flows across their fiber based on the source or nature of the content... except the greedy companies that own the fiber. EVERYONE benefits if the fiber continues to be open to all sites that wish to be viewed and if all users can view whatever sites they want.

As for the notion of the transit providers being paid extra for YouTube or Google Video traffic, bullshit. Transit is transit. If bandwidth goes up because there's more video or voice traffic, then those who are already paying for transit (ISPs, end users, web hosts) pay more in proportion to the amount of bandwidth they are using... but not because of the nature of their content or where it's coming from. That is simply wrong. It's anticompetitive, monopolistic, and driven by nothing other than greed.

If there were a million major transit providers and they could compete with each other, some offering open transit and some offering restricted, or preferential transit, that would be one thing. But something like 80% of the US Internet transit is owned by about 4 companies: AT&T/Bellsouth, Sprint, Comcast, and Worldcom/MCI. And -- big surprise -- all of them are in favor (and most likely working together under cover) of being able to hose the consumer through selective prioritizing of traffic. There aren't enough smaller providers (or lit fiber owned by the smaller guys) to provide for the traffic needs. If/when it comes to pass, it will be a HUGE clusterfuck for the 'net in many ways we can't even imagine.

I'm no expert, but the articles I've read by people who are and who have spent their lives understanding the technology behind the net say it is nothing short of a disaster. But the loser Republicans have already been bought off on the issue and will most likely stifle any efforts to protect neutrality unless we can throw the corrupt pieces of shit out of office in a few weeks.

True, there's an impressive endorsement line there..... isn't Vinton Cerf supporting it?

I'm still skeptical. I would even suggest that Net Neutrality creates an environment where ISP's are limited from charging for things, so the end result will be a world with fewer ISPs. Which is certainly the wrong way to go.

(We lived with regulated phone monoplies for decades... now let's make it a point to turn the Internet into this?)

The US's banking system is far less regulated then in other countries. That is why if you live in France or Canada, sure customers will probably enjoy lower interest rates and transaction fees, but there are a much smaller number of banks, meaning it will be more difficult to get an account that fits your needs. (we hear about this on GWW often) Then the system propogates an environment where even more government protective bank oversight is needed, because there's such a small number of banks from which people can choose.

And you suggest that the Big 4 ISPs are colluding..... that's strange to me. Have you found a business area that does not have any backstabbing or undercutting??? I guess I could never see anything like that in this industry, so something like that in telecommunications is easy to envision. (wisecrack joke)

I still hear that red alert. I think Lt. Reily has taken over the Enterprise's engine room and he's singing I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen over the intercom. But maybe I'm just hearing things....

http://www.friskyfans.org/catphotos/bare/sulu1.jpg

Steve

So you are saying that it's OK for someone like AT&T who have one of the largest internet backbones in the US and provideo DSL for which consumers pay and for which ATT makes about $20 profit per customer. Then they also charge Network Operations Centers and Hosting facilities for the connectivity

AND

without net neutrality, the will charge AGAIN the high trafficked sites, which can be any site!


What if when ATT is done with their UVerse service, and creates their content portal, they tell you your site receives too many ATT DSL users and it's taking from the already paltry 25Mbps bandwith for UVERSE, so you have to pay AT&T for every ATT DSL users that comes to your site.

If you don't pay we'll just block you or make available 10kbps bandwith for it, dial up speeds.

Doesn't matter that your hosting facility has an ATT 10gigE pipe in the back yard and it's included in your price you have to pay again!?!

I would think that soon EVERYTHING (movies, music etc.) will soon be available without the need for discs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

True, there's an impressive endorsement line there..... isn't Vinton Cerf supporting it?

---

Yes, he and a lot of the other major "fathers" of the Net.

I guess perhaps we just have a difference of perspective. I'm not in favor of a ton of regulation, but, for example, I would be willing to wager that the banking industry in Canada is a hell of a lot less corrupt than the one in the US.

It absolutely floors me what Chase has been able to get away with in fucking over their 10,000,000 cardholders. I read somewhere that up to 60% of their cardholders have gotten screwed over through constant "updates" to Chase's terms of service that basically have the effect of ensuring that very few cardholders actually get the rates or benefits they were promised. The sort of thing where making one late payment to any creditor who reports to your credit entitles Chase to increase your interest rate, sometimes by 3 times what the contracted rate was. (There's a class action against them for this, apparently.) And things like saying "Your payment has to arrive by 10am in order to be counted as having arrived that day" which are intentionally rigged to make people who pay at the last minute get screwed over.

Of course, people like me who obsess over their credit reports and watch everything like a hawk are generally not screwed, but that's a small percentage of the population, and it shouldn't be necessary to do that.

In an environment where big business is less and less ethical, I think that some level of governmental regulation to at least ensure a reasonably level playing field and encourage competition is a good thing. But of course, government in the US is *also* corrupt as hell, so the likelihood of getting anything much of any consequence isn't so great.

I seriously doubt we'd ever get a Fair Collection Practices Act or a Fair Credit Reporting Act, or any other legislation that meaningfully protects consumers passed in 2006, and I think that's pretty sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jIgG

So you are saying that it's OK for someone like AT&T who have one of the largest internet backbones in the US and provideo DSL for which consumers pay and for which ATT makes about $20 profit per customer. Then they also charge Network Operations Centers and Hosting facilities for the connectivity

AND

without net neutrality, the will charge AGAIN the high trafficked sites, which can be any site!

---

What if scenarios.

What if the handful of airlines who flew from the US Mid-West into San Diego colluded together, raising the price of their round trip tickets $100? It can't be that hard, right? Heck, if the "Big 4" ISPs, can collude, why aren't groups of 4 airlines colluding for big fat profilts to mid sized American cities?

The answer to all nightmare what if scenarios is that for prices to stay high, all the participating conpanies must stick with it. With airfares, they don't. If American Airlines raises its fares, they all have to follow, else the rate hike dissapears.

I don't understand why it is unthinkable for AT&T to want to gain market share with MCI or Verizon.

Once again, if you basiclly feel the market has "imperfections" which must be "corrected" by the government, you are probably comfortable with Net Neutrality. If you think the market eventually works out its flaws, and adding government meddling only makes thing worse, then you probably oppose it.

Steve