Connecting With Fans... In The Porn Industry?

from the business-models-and-pornography dept

The same professors who recently wrote on the Freakonomics blog about how restaurant innovation thrives without copyright recently wrote another post about how the porn industry is also thriving despite widespread infringement. Even though there is copyright on porn works, with rampant infringement, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of less porn being made these days. The professors make the argument that the overall porn marketplace will likely adapt and change without copyright enforcement, but it certainly won't go away:

Here's a prediction: the porn-tube sites are here to stay, and yet many, many people and companies will continue to produce pornography -- even in the face of virtually uncontrolled copying. Like it or not (and we'll leave the morality of this subject to others), there is huge demand for porn. And although we are not economists, we feel safe in saying that where there is demand, there will be supply....

In short, the porn-tube sites probably won't kill the porn industry. But they will change it. Production is likely to shift even more from "features" to short porn-tube-friendly clips....

They then try to suggest some business models that the porn industry might pick up in the changing marketplace. One is to go upscale (such as an upcoming 3D porn film) that gives people additional "reasons to buy." The other is to focus in on specific niches.

The predictions are a bit simplistic, and economist and Techdirt reader Eric Crampton wrote in to point us to his own attempt at applying my "connect with fans + reason to buy" formula to the porn industry. He finds the suggestions in the Freakonomics article not very workable, and also points out that some of the classic "reasons to buy" probably wouldn't work all that well, at least in some circles. Unlike with musicians, people are probably a lot less interested in wearing a t-shirt highlighting their favorite porn star (yes, I'm sure there are some exceptions, but...).

He then suggests that touring is a possibility -- with online clips being used as enticement to come out and see "live" performances of some kind, though, I would imagine that might not fully work either. I would guess that for most -- "stripping" and "porn" aren't quite the same thing, and while I'm not familiar with how licenses for strip clubs work, I'd have to imagine that most don't allow actual sexual acts between people to happen either. Though, the Freakonomics article does say that some porn actresses use online clips to drive people to come see them strip -- which is a higher margin business.

Of course, a commenter suggests an even more obvious (though very illegal, mostly) form of CwF+RtB: prostitution. Though, that's got all sorts of problems as well.

What surprises me is that one of the more obvious models is mostly left out: straight up advertising. One thing that porn does well is attract a lot of eyeballs. In fact, plenty of online porn sites have supported themselves with advertising for ages. There's no reason for that to change. And, certainly you could think of interesting "tiers" that some top porn stars could use to attract people to pay for greater levels of access, such as private videos, chats and the like. A few months ago, someone had submitted a story about a porn star who was offering special packages on her website where she would attend sporting events with you (I believe for the Phoenix Suns), but I can't find that submission any more.

Either way, I have to concur with the initial analysis. Whatever the business model that comes out, it doesn't seem likely that porn is going away any time soon, even if copyright is totally ignored.

Filed Under: business models, economics, porn

More Porn Companies Filing Mass Lawsuits Against File Sharers

from the easier-to-get-people-to-pay-up dept

While lots of attention has been paid to US Copyright Group, and its effort to bring mass automated copyright infringement "pre-settlement letters" to the US, it's worth remembering that the pioneers of this sort of thing, Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law, used a lot of porn movie makers early on. That might be because that's who first hired them... or, it might be because everyone involved figured that it was much easier to get people to pay up quickly and quietly if they were accused of downloading gay porn, rather than having to go to trial over the issue. This is not, of course, to say there's anything wrong with gay porn for those into that sort of thing, but in general, most people probably don't want to have it broadcast to the world that they're involved in any sort of lawsuit over downloaded porn, gay or straight, with the case for settling being even more compelling for those who were not openly gay.

It appears that a similar calculus may have brought such lawsuits over to the US. It's not clear if this is part of any coordinated campaign by a law firm, as we've seen elsewhere, but THREsq reports that 65 "John Does" have been sued for accessing a gay porn movie via BitTorrent in a Texas court. The complaint reads like most of the other, similar complaints we've seen, explaining the basics of BitTorrent to establish the claim that these "Does" infringed on the copyright. Once again, it seems like an open question as to whether or not it's actually legal to include all of these defendants in a single lawsuit. It's also not clear if the goal here is to send similar pre-settlement letters, but that sure seems likely.

Filed Under: copyright, porn

Record Labels Suing Porn Websites For Using Their Songs

from the sue-everyone dept

Michael Scott points us to the news that a bunch of big record labels have found their latest target for copyright infringement lawsuits: porn websites. Apparently, some of the websites that make their own videos have been including popular songs -- and some (*gasp*!) even show the actors lip-syncing along. It seems that the porn sites chose songs with... descriptive titles: Justin Timberlake's SexyBack, Michael Jackson's Don't Stop (Til You Get Enough) and Katy Perry's I Kissed a Girl. Assuming this ever gets to court, you have to imagine it will make for an interesting day in the courtroom when the "evidence" is shown.

Filed Under: copyright, music, porn

Strange Bedfellows: IsoHunt And Andrew Cuomo?

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

This one is a bit odd and unexpected. We recently reported on how grandstanding New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo had kicked off a new project that would create a database of child porn, and offer up hashes to any website that wanted to use it to block such content from being uploaded. While the general concept seemed good, it wasn't clear how this database was being generated, or if there were safeguards in place to make sure that the list really only included illegal images. Either way, it appears that Cuomo has welcomed with open arms a surprising company who wants to use the database: IsoHunt. Yes, the torrent search engine in the midst of a legal battle for its survival has agreed to use the hash database to prevent access to such images via its system.

Considering that Cuomo thrust himself in the middle of the file sharing debate by supposedly trying (and failing) to broker backroom deals with ISPs to get them to embrace three strikes policies, it seems a bit surprising that he would embrace a site like IsoHunt. That said, it seems that he appears a lot more interested in getting publicity over child porn issues rather than copyright. As for IsoHunt, this also appears to be a pretty calculated move. Part of the site's legal argument is that the judge's demand to filter by keyword is way too broad, and it has argued that a similar hash database would make more sense. So, it's no surprise that IsoHunt wasted little time in letting the judge know about this new deal.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, copyright, hash database, porn
Companies: isohunt

Parents Television Council Demands Details Of Comcast's Porn Revenue

from the of-all-the-complaints... dept

I still think those opposed to the Comcast/NBC Universal merger are overreacting, but I have to admit the most amusing effort to deal with the merger may come from the Parents Television Council, the group famous for flooding the FCC with complaints every time it hears about something it doesn't believe belongs on TV. Apparently, PTC is now demanding that Comcast reveal how much money it makes from porn. Honestly, I'm wondering if it got the idea from a recent episode of 30 Rock, which has been using the "fictional" ongoing merger between NBC (in the show) and Kabletown to mock the proposed real-life merger. In one episode, a Kabletown exec claims that the entire business is funded on porn, and execs don't have to do anything, because the money just rolls in.

"Comcast is one of the most far-reaching distributors of pornography in the communities it serves, raising serious questions about whether the company meets the character and public interest obligations required," said PTC President Tim Winter.

Interesting. I didn't realize that "character" was part of how the FCC reviewed mergers. Good luck with that one, PTC.

Filed Under: parents television council, porn, revenue
Companies: comcast, nbc universal

So Much For 'Freedom From Porn' As iPhone 4 Sex Chat Services Prepare For Business

from the you-can't-stop-the-porn dept

It really was just a few weeks back that Steve Jobs defended the closed nature of the iPad and iPhone app store as offering "freedom from porn." But even Jobs must know that when you offer up new ways to communicate, one of the first businesses that takes advantage of it is going to be the porn industry. So while I may still not be convinced that video calling is really set to take off, it appears that there is one industry set to embrace the iPhone's "FaceTime" video calling: porn. Apparently, at least one company is already looking for women to be part of a new sex chat offering using FaceTime on the iPhone:

Starting an online interactive pornography firm where woman will use the iphone 4 to video chat with potential customers on a pay as you go basis.

Hours are flexible, pay will increase as the business builds. Woman will receive a free iphone 4 to use as personal time when not working. Woman will talk to potential clients and chat with them and perform various acts as desired by clients. All information will be confidential.

Freedom from porn, Steve? It seems that some "think different."

Filed Under: iphones, porn
Companies: apple

South African Politicians Want To Ban All Porn Online

from the how-do-you-define-porn dept

What is it with politicians who don't understand basic concepts? Apparently, the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs in South Africa, Malusi Gigaba, thinks that it's possible to ban online porn. When people pointed out that it's just not that easy, he responded thusly:

"Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts... There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it...."

Well, actually, Mr. Gigaba, there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons. Brakes and seatbelts have pretty easily defined tasks: slowing a car down and preventing you from flying forward in the event of a sudden stop. You can engineer that easily. What you can't engineer is a definition of porn that works. What is pornography? To each person it might be entirely different. How do you build a system that knows?

Furthermore, of course, there's a question of why you would even want to do so. That's not made at all clear in the article, but if you're talking about consenting adults trying to find some porn online, what's the problem with that?

Filed Under: ban, malusi gigaba, porn, south africa

Federal Agencies May Lose Funding For R&D Projects Because The NSF Didn't Fire An Employee Who Saw Porn

from the there-goes-the-sec dept

Washington DC can be a funny place when it comes to negotiating legislation. Apparently, an effort to renew a program that provides billions in funding for important long term research efforts (you know, the kind of programs the government should be funding) may get held up over some amendments added to the bill... including one that would ban federal money going to any gov't employees disciplined for viewing porn on their computers. Effectively, the amendment means if you view porn on your computer as a gov't employee, you are fired. Actually, you don't even have to view the porn. The language says no federal funding can go:

"to salaries to those officially disciplined for violations regarding the viewing, downloading, or exchanging of pornography..."

Want to get a federal employee fired? Send them an email with a pornographic picture as an attachment. What does this particular amendment have to do with federal funding for research? Apparently, the guy who wrote the amendment says he's upset about giving money to the NSF, because it merely "disciplined" and suspended rather than fired an employee found with porn on his computer. Of course, give the recent revelations about porn web surfing at the SEC, if this goes through, say goodbye to the SEC.

Because no one wants to be seen as supporting government employees viewing porn, this particular amendment passed easily. We're coming up on election season, and you can bet no Congressional reps wanted to hand their opponents this line in a commercial: "While in Congress, Rep. X voted in favor of letting federal employees view porn on their computers..." or something along those lines.

Of course, that same amendment also pulls funding for a number of programs and may cause the entire bill to be withdrawn, leaving the status of funding for a lot of research in limbo. Now, I'm all for making sure that the funding is used in a reasonable manner, and if certain programs are ineffective, it's worth looking to see if they should be removed from the bill. But, to lump in decisions on funding with a program about firing employees who view porn just seems like a crass political ploy during a debate on a particularly important issue. It may be par for the course in Congress, but to those of us who actually care about innovation, it's stories like this that make us so cynical about the US government.

Filed Under: federal funding, nsf, porn, r&d

Apple Needs To Offer More, Less Porn, Depending Who You Ask

from the wiggles-and-jiggles dept

Apple's recent scuff up in the media over banning a Putlitzer prize-winning cartoonist from the application store only served to once again highlight Apple's inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary application store approval process. It also directed people's attention to the fact that Mark Fiore certainly wasn't the first person to have an application banned for strange things like "ridiculing public figures," which violates Apple's iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. In fact, there have been 16 applications banned for this most grievous of offenses, and as is usually the case with Apple, the company spent most of their time ignoring questions about why content continues to be inconsistently blocked.

This latest scuff up about Apple gate-keeping also gave some people a platform to once again complain that Apple shouldn't be blocking access to pornography. While Apple's PR department can't apparently answer a straight question about their app approval process, Steve Jobs did personally take time to respond to one user's e-mailed porn concerns by telling him to go buy an Android phone:

"Fiore's app will be in the store shortly. That was a mistake. However, we do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy and (sic) Android phone."

Not that Google and the porn industry didn't appreciate the shout out, but porn isn't really as big of an issue as Apple's inconsistent approval process (which Jobs once again really doesn't explain). Apple already makes a very nice porn application called Safari for those interested. While Apple does ban porn, they've perhaps more annoyingly banned applications for being porn that weren't (like a swimsuit sales application). Meanwhile, even though Jobs says he has a "moral responsibility" to keep porn off the iPhone, the Parents Television Council this week proclaimed he's not doing a good enough job. The group personally, painstakingly cataloged everything they felt was filthy in the app store:

"Typical content has included items with names like "Shawna Lee Private Dance," which shows a porn starlet with her hand down the front of her bikini bottom fondling herself; "Love Positions Free," with a drawing titled "doggystyle," showing a couple having sex; "1001 Boobs Lite;" and "Tasty Pasties 18+ Amateurs" (at one point, the 11^th most popular "app" out of thousands on iTunes). All of these applications are free -- and available to children."

Of course if the Parents Television Council's findings show anything (aside from the fact the Council spent a lot of time looking at half-naked women) it highlights -- once again -- that nobody understands how Apple determines worthy content. Amusingly, the Council didn't bother to complain about the Android Marketplace, where users can freely get porn of all kinds -- not just the odd smattering of soft-core apps that passed Apple's incoherent muster. Not that trying to censor porn apps really matters, given the existence of something some people call "a browser," which provides people of all ages access to a universe of content of all kinds. Apparently, nobody can win in this strange equation, be it porn fans, porn opponents, developers, or Shawna Lee.

Filed Under: app store, porn
Companies: apple

New Ransomware Targets Porn Pirates, Makes Copyright Threats

from the hey-that's-a-good-idea dept

Ransomware viruses that hijack a a user's computer and demand payment for snake-oil anti-virus software are nothing new, but there's a new twist on it in Japan. A new virus targets people downloading hentai (an explicit form of anime cartoons) from P2P networks, and poses as an installation screen for a game that asks for users' personal info. Once this is entered, it starts taking screengrabs of users' web activity, which it posts online under their name, and asks for payment of 1500 yen (about $16) to "settle your violation of copyright law" and take down the page. There's a similar scam running in Europe, says a security firm, in which a virus scans a computer's hard drive, and regardless of what it finds, demands payment of $400 for a "pretrial settlement" of copyright infringement claims. Essentially these scams are just online versions of what firms like Digiprotect, ACS:Law and Davenport Lyons do through the mail -- send out thousands of letters demanding people pay up for supposedly downloading copyrighted content. That scheme (which manages to ensnare plenty of innocent users) is quite profitable for the firms that run it -- so it shouldn't be too surprising to see malware scammers move in. It's an interesting question, though: really, what's the fundamental difference between what the malware peddlers and these supposedly legitimate companies are doing?

Filed Under: copyright, porn, ransomware