One Porn Star's Political Opinions...

[Jack Davenport]

Mariah you seem to run into a lot of celebrities. A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Robin Zander from Cheap Trick in a convenience store in Safety Harbor of all places.

That was a thrill for me because I grew up listening to their music and I have always been a huge fan.

 

[wdoall]

I'd drink Mariahxxx 's douche..... Lol

 

[wdoall]

I'd drink Mariahxxx 's douche..... Lol

 

[eric2136]

performers know that the viewers don't want to see it. The viewers have killed porn already, so require condoms in every scene and the industry will be over.

Condoms don't seem to be bothering the facial abuse guys business and they have the worst grossest site on the entire interweb...Measure B passes because alot of people in LA have grown weary of the whole porn deal...all the lying, the dirty nastiness, the fakeness, the devil-worshipping, the mysoginy and excessive greed and racism...if porn is such a great industry then just move someplace else where you are more appreciated, and carry on business as usual, and stop blaming other people for your problems.

Yes, the viewers have killed porn. I said it. They killed it by stealing videos and passing them around and sharing them. they no longer pay for the porn they watch

LOL More empty industry rhetoric....What kills porn is that most of it sucks for a variety of different reasons...And instead of providing consumers with what they want and ask for, they try to lie and dictate to consumers what they will take.. And when that shit doesn't sell, blame the consumer for stealing garbage they never wanted in the first place.

Then also what kills porn is that it's basically illegal to make in most places which pushs out most independent producers where all the fresh new ideas would come from..We used to make stuff around here but the risk began to outwiegh the reward. http://oldmags.com/titles/De'Unique-Magazine

Then lastly, the industry wants to run around calling anybody theives who downloaded Hot Jugg Knockers vol #87 (with and estimated street value of $2.00), then turn around to these same people, and try to get free advice for how to improve their shit product that nobody wants....yeah good luck with that.

 

[assari]

Yes, the viewers have killed porn. I said it. They killed it by stealing videos and passing them around and sharing them. they no longer pay for the porn they watch.

Porn viewers are tigh-fisted and cantankerous people.

Those bastards steal and share everything.

 

[Mariahxxx]

so Eric, you don't think that piracy is killing porn? Empty rhetoric????????? You do realize don't you that I have owned my own affiliate program of sites since 2004 and was in the internet business before DSL was common? So who has a better grasp of the business side of porn? you or someone who actually OWNS porn sites and has for more than a decade?

You sure sound bitter about it. Surely you cannot argue that when a product is produced by a company at their cost, and then stolen and passed around to thousands of people that it hurts that company? You can claim the street value of whatever you'd like, but when I setup a shoot for my site I pay for makeup & hair, rent a location, hire someone to shoot it, male talent, and then spend my time editing it and then the day it's released see that someone has downloaded it and added it to a forum for all to download for free or to a bit ******* site, that fucking pisses me off. I spent the money to put it online for viewers, but then some fucking dickhead like you sees it as community property and helps themselves.

You are bitching about porn sucking. That is a matter of opinion, right? So how do you think it's gonna be when there's no production money left, which isn't far off now. companies like naughty america, brazzers, bang bros, porn pros have all cut way back on the rates they pay. they no longer provide makeup on most shoots and most no longer have studios.

I'm sure the porn you were producing (LMAOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!) was brand new in concept and ground breaking, but being illegal hasn't been a problem a single time in Miami or anywhere else for quite a while


I have flown with Robin Zander and his family many times on flights to and from LA and Tampa. He lives in Indian Rocks. Brian Johnson of AC/DC lives in Bradenton and they both show up on Sunday nights at Cuso's in Indian Rocks beach and sit in with the Greg Billings band.

I fly a lot to and from LA and New York. I sat next to John Cena on a flight, Paula Adbul and I drank bloody mary's on a flight to London and were smashed when we landed. I had some fun with Michelle Rodriquez at the Playboy Mansion once.

I have my share of celeb fun

 

[eric2136]

so Eric, you don't think that piracy is killing porn? Empty rhetoric????????? You do realize don't you that I have owned my own affiliate program of sites since 2004 and was in the internet business before DSL was common? So who has a better grasp of the business side of porn? you or someone who actually OWNS porn sites and has for more than a decade?

You sure sound bitter about it. Surely you cannot argue that when a product is produced by a company at their cost, and then stolen and passed around to thousands of people that it hurts that company? You can claim the street value of whatever you'd like, but when I setup a shoot for my site I pay for makeup & hair, rent a location, hire someone to shoot it, male talent, and then spend my time editing it and then the day it's released see that someone has downloaded it and added it to a forum for all to download for free or to a bit ******* site, that fucking pisses me off. I spent the money to put it online for viewers, but then some fucking dickhead like you sees it as community property and helps themselves.

You are bitching about porn sucking. That is a matter of opinion, right? So how do you think it's gonna be when there's no production money left, which isn't far off now. companies like naughty america, brazzers, bang bros, porn pros have all cut way back on the rates they pay. they no longer provide makeup on most shoots and most no longer have studios.

I'm sure the porn you were producing (LMAOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!) was brand new in concept and ground breaking, but being illegal hasn't been a problem a single time in Miami or anywhere else for quite a while

ehhh whatever...Just because you or some porn producers spends money making porn, doesn't mean it's something I want to see, or would spend money for. People watch TV for free, but try putting an epsisode of Two Broke Girls or The House of Payne on Pay-Per-View and see how much money you make...Just because somebody might download something or watch it for free doesn't mean it's not shit, and it doesn't mean they would pay for it if they couldn't get it for free.

Porn is worthless fake garbage..I could give a flying fuck about Bang Bros or their financial issues...I don't watch Naughty America, Brazzers or any of that shit...No offense to you because you know I like you, but I honestly have never watched a scene from any of your sites or even know what your sites are...And I was making porn back on vhs tapes before the internet even existed...I have bought and sold secondary production sites in the past and I keep a primary production site now just for advertisement purposes.

Porn producers catch cases all the time just like Stagliano in 2010...When you are a black independent business making porn you are a target, and spending 5 or 6 figures defending frivolous criminal obscentiy lawsuits is not an option...Having a porn site is not rocket science, alot of people in my area have sites, or used to have sites. But alot got out of it because it was too risky and they weren't making enough money to justify the risk...As I already said.

I don't care what you think about our innovations or creations, just make sure you don't ask me for any creative advice whatsoever...and I don't have anything to be bitter about, just speaking the truth,... you're the one ridiculously ranting about me stealing shit that I haven't even heard of, and blaming everybody but yourself for your industry's problems...

 

[Mariahxxx]

Did I blame you? NO. Where did I blame everybody but me? lol I blamed a lot of people. I left because it's a sinking ship business-wise. I'm not part of the industry's problems. I'm out of the industry for many reasons described previously.

And TV shows are paid for by advertising revenues. Its a different business model altogether. And by the way, people buy episodes of many TV shows on DVD and itunes, so your point is not accurate.

To counter your uneducated statement with fact, when myself or some porn producers spend money making porn and make it available for sale, that becomes our property, which under US laws is forbidden to be redistributed without our consent. When people steal it and pass it around, that is a very clear violation of federal law.

If you hate porn so much, why the fuck are you here? Those sites your friends have don't make money because if they produce half way decent content it's being passed around and no one needs to pay for it. Subscription sites are a dinosaur that is dying. I refuse to work with tube sites and the garbage that now owns the lion's share of the industry. I'd rather close shop than compromise myself like all the others have done. Besides, I'm making more now than I ever have without so fuck them.

I honestly do not understand how someone could not get the logic behind this. If you don't pay for a tangible item, then you are stealing. Just like anything else.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I honestly do not understand how someone could not get the logic behind this. If you don't pay for a tangible item, then you are stealing. Just like anything else.

You just had to bring up Obamacare again , didn't you.

 

[eric2136]

Ok you seriously need to go back and try to comprehend the totality of what I've said rather than spewing some silly recitation of basic copyright law. I have forgotten more about copyright law than you'll ever know.

Did I blame you? NO. Where did I blame everybody but me? lol I blamed a lot of people. I left because it's a sinking ship business-wise. I'm not part of the industry's problems. I'm out of the industry for many reasons described previously.

And TV shows are paid for by advertising revenues. Its a different business model altogether. And by the way, people buy episodes of many TV shows on DVD and itunes, so your point is not accurate.

To counter your uneducated statement with fact, when myself or some porn producers spend money making porn and make it available for sale, that becomes our property, which under US laws is forbidden to be redistributed without our consent. When people steal it and pass it around, that is a very clear violation of federal law.

If you hate porn so much, why the fuck are you here? Those sites your friends have don't make money because if they produce half way decent content it's being passed around and no one needs to pay for it. Subscription sites are a dinosaur that is dying. I refuse to work with tube sites and the garbage that now owns the lion's share of the industry. I'd rather close shop than compromise myself like all the others have done. Besides, I'm making more now than I ever have without so fuck them.

I honestly do not understand how someone could not get the logic behind this. If you don't pay for a tangible item, then you are stealing. Just like anything else.

 

[Mariahxxx]

Whoever you are Eric, you seem like a dick. You have taken everything I have said out of context and turned it around for your own use. What did I say that was "silly"? So you think that me losing money due to pieces of shit stealing my content and then people like you justifying them doing so is silly? I don't think it's silly at all. The totality of what you have said is utter horseshit.

So if you know so much about copyright law then you agree that file sharing is theft, right?

 

[Mariahxxx]

so receiving health care from the government is stealing? oh because the money is taken from tax payers without their consent for that specific purpose right? But the wars and the bloated defense budget and the bail outs of the companies who pay tens of millions of dollars to have stadiums named after them isn't? I know, I know, it's different because you say so lol

 

[Jack Davenport]

Mariah

Are all of your recipes on your food site of your own creation? If not, do you credit the sources of those recipes?

 

[eric2136]

Whoever you are Eric, you seem like a dick. You have taken everything I have said out of context and turned it around for your own use. What did I say that was "silly"? So you think that me losing money due to pieces of shit stealing my content and then people like you justifying them doing so is silly? I don't think it's silly at all. The totality of what you have said is utter horseshit.

So if you know so much about copyright law then you agree that file sharing is theft, right?

Well first of all, what is your evidence that these "pieces of shit are stealing your content". The fact that you aren't financially making what you would like from your sites isn't evidence because, as I already stated, lack of sales is more likely do to a lack of interest in your product.

Secondly, someone stealing your content, and someone file-sharing your content are two different issues. Assuming you could actually prove someone stold your content and then shared it, unless they did it for some sort of obvious commercial enterprise, you would then have to prove that the individuals' noncommercial copying resulted in provable actual harm to you as the copyright holder. Hence the point I made earlier which is that just because someone watches something for free isn't proof that they'd pay for it if they couldn't get it for free. So you can't compute damages theoretically based on the number of downloads for a particular file, number of views, etc., because there is no proof that those individulas would have ever payed for your product otherwise.

And lastly, No, noncommercial file sharing should not constitute an actionable copyright infringement. Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum; http://sunsteinlaw.com/judge-urges-...when-might-sharing-digital-music-be-fair-use/. This type of behavior falls under the Fair Use Doctrine (Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html, and thus should be exempt from the DCMA. Examples of similar noncommercial fair usages would be 1) using an audio, video casette or CD recorder to make mixtapes/video recordings and sharing them with others, or 2) using copyrighted music in your cooking videos or Porn Star Vacation videos and putting them on Youtube without paying royalties to the copyright owner (borderline). Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Well first of all, what is your evidence that these "pieces of shit are stealing your content". The fact that you aren't financially making what you would like from your sites isn't evidence because, as I already stated, lack of sales is more likely do to a lack of interest in your product.

Secondly, someone stealing your content, and someone file-sharing your content are two different issues. Assuming you could actually prove someone stold your content and then shared it, unless they did it for some sort of obvious commercial enterprise, you would then have to prove that the individuals' noncommercial copying resulted in provable actual harm to you as the copyright holder. Hence the point I made earlier which is that just because someone watches something for free isn't proof that they'd pay for it if they couldn't get it for free. So you can't compute damages theoretically based on the number of downloads for a particular file, number of views, etc., because there is no proof that those individulas would have ever payed for your product otherwise.

And lastly, No, noncommercial file sharing should not constitute an actionable copyright infringement. Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum; http://sunsteinlaw.com/judge-urges-...when-might-sharing-digital-music-be-fair-use/. This type of behavior falls under the Fair Use Doctrine (Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html, and thus should be exempt from the DCMA. Examples of similar noncommercial fair usages would be 1) using an audio, video casette or CD recorder to make mixtapes/video recordings and sharing them with others, or 2) using copyrighted music in your cooking videos or Porn Star Vacation videos and putting them on Youtube without paying royalties to the copyright owner (borderline). Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

David Boies would be proud.

 

[eric2136]

David Boies would be proud.

So would Charles Nesson and Terry Fisher.

 

[larss]

Well first of all, what is your evidence that these "pieces of shit are stealing your content". The fact that you aren't financially making what you would like from your sites isn't evidence because, as I already stated, lack of sales is more likely do to a lack of interest in your product.

Secondly, someone stealing your content, and someone file-sharing your content are two different issues. Assuming you could actually prove someone stold your content and then shared it, unless they did it for some sort of obvious commercial enterprise, you would then have to prove that the individuals' noncommercial copying resulted in provable actual harm to you as the copyright holder. Hence the point I made earlier which is that just because someone watches something for free isn't proof that they'd pay for it if they couldn't get it for free. So you can't compute damages theoretically based on the number of downloads for a particular file, number of views, etc., because there is no proof that those individulas would have ever payed for your product otherwise.

And lastly, No, noncommercial file sharing should not constitute an actionable copyright infringement. Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum; http://sunsteinlaw.com/judge-urges-...when-might-sharing-digital-music-be-fair-use/. This type of behavior falls under the Fair Use Doctrine (Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html, and thus should be exempt from the DCMA. Examples of similar noncommercial fair usages would be 1) using an audio, video casette or CD recorder to make mixtapes/video recordings and sharing them with others, or 2) using copyrighted music in your cooking videos or Porn Star Vacation videos and putting them on Youtube without paying royalties to the copyright owner (borderline). Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

I'm not sure of your point here. Sony won the case.
If you download stolen content and watch it, you are depriving the originator of the chance of earning from that content.
Would it be "fair use" to buy a book, photocopy it and then distribute it to anyone on the street? No, because you are not giving the author the chance to sell their work legitimately. This is regardless of whether or not someone would not have bought it - there is no distinction at this point between those that would have purchased the item and those that would not.

 

[eric2136]

I'm not sure of your point here. Sony won the case.
If you download stolen content and watch it, you are depriving the originator of the chance of earning from that content.
Would it be "fair use" to buy a book, photocopy it and then distribute it to anyone on the street? No, because you are not giving the author the chance to sell their work legitimately. This is regardless of whether or not someone would not have bought it - there is no distinction at this point between those that would have purchased the item and those that would not.

Copyright cases are complex and and fair usage in cases of literary texts is different from instances concerning the Internet. Courts proceed very individually on a case to case basis in how they apply the Fair Use Test, but in ALL cases the use... commercial vs. non-commercial... is a key element in the Courts analysis of the facts.

Additionally, the distinction in wether or not a person would have bought the copyrighted work is of tantamount importance in determining the effect of the use upon the potential market (for that work). Such factual estimations are necessary to determine the amount of damages to the copyright owner, if any. A civil action is worthless to a plaintiff without a potential of financial recovery. In other words, you can't expect a 6 figure recovery for infringement apon something that is deemed by the court to be of no extrinsic value.

In the Tenenbaum situation, he lost that case for several factual reasons, most importantly was because Sony was convinced that he had some commercial reason for his actions and they had taken a great interest in his activities over a long period of time to the point of sending him letters asking him to cease.

Another key reason he lost is because his attorney, the world famous Harvard Law proffesor Charles Nesson, tried an innovative strategical defense approach rather than sticking to defending the established elements of Fair Usage. Judge Gertener commented that she didn't like the approach and would have liked to rule for the defendant, but couldn't because of how the case was presented to her.

However, Judge Gertner's decision in this case clearly established a public policy empathetic to file-sharing that has greatly curtailed the number of such suits,. and all but eliminated such suits in instances of non-commercial individual use...Instead the Courts emphasis has moved overwhelmingly towards antagonizing certain file-sharing companies that some allege derive a commercial benefit from copyright infringement.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Copyright cases are complex and and fair usage in cases of literary texts is different from instances concerning the Internet. Courts proceed very individually on a case to case basis in how they apply the Fair Use Test, but in ALL cases the use... commercial vs. non-commercial... is a key element in the Courts analysis of the facts.

Additionally, the distinction in wether or not a person would have bought the copyrighted work is of tantamount importance in determining the effect of the use upon the potential market (for that work). Such factual estimations are necessary to determine the amount of damages to the copyright owner, if any. A civil action is worthless to a plaintiff without a potential of financial recovery. In other words, you can't expect a 6 figure recovery for infringement apon something that is deemed by the court to be of no extrinsic value.

In the Tenenbaum situation, he lost that case for several factual reasons, most importantly was because Sony was convinced that he had some commercial reason for his actions and they had taken a great interest in his activities over a long period of time to the point of sending him letters asking him to cease.

Another key reason he lost is because his attorney, the world famous Harvard Law proffesor Charles Nesson, tried an innovative strategical defense approach rather than sticking to defending the established elements of Fair Usage. Judge Gertener commented that she didn't like the approach and would have liked to rule for the defendant, but couldn't because of how the case was presented to her.

However, Judge Gertner's decision in this case clearly established a public policy empathetic to file-sharing that has greatly curtailed the number of such suits,. and all but eliminated such suits in instances of non-commercial individual use...Instead the Courts emphasis has moved overwhelmingly towards antagonizing certain file-sharing companies that some allege derive a commercial benefit from copyright infringement.

In a nutshell:

Are suits start with damages.

 

[Mariahxxx]

you know what eric, go fuck yourself. you are a fucking asshole I KNOW that my content is being stolen because I used to spend hours a day finding it on illegal tube sites and then emailing those sites to take it down. you can quote all that you wish, but it's dickheads like YOU that keep this cycle continuing so that other losers can jerk their dicks without paying for it. You can claim you have all the great ideas that you wish, and don't worry, I would NEVER ask you for anything.

I hope you get a john doe lawy suit....there are more than 10,000 being served weekly. I know people who are making plenty of money from those.

And by the way loser, I BOUGHT those beats in my cooking videos. The travel videos are using music that has an agreement with youtube to be used with a link under the video so that it can be purchased. So you can once again go fuck yourself. You can sit and hash this shit up trying to sound smart and Im sure you think you're fucking brilliant, but you are a fucking LOSER and the perfect example of why this business is dying. you justify taking someone's property that is for sale and then mass distributing it for everyone else for free. then you say its not stealing? tel microsoft that when you get caught using stolen windows software, or adobe when people use photoshop software they didnt buy. I suppose that's not stealing either right?

YOU aren't a douche drinker. You aspire to be a douche drinker.