My prediction about the pay site business - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

mikeyddddd · 11-01-2008, 01:58 AM

hunnert predictions

Paul Markham · 11-01-2008, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlexxAeon

I don't understand how you can protect the well shot video any more than the blond getting shafted video. They are both just videos. Just because a surfer "appreciates" a scene more does not mean he respects it, and is not going to share it or tube it or torrent it.

Boring run of the mill content sucks, but it is just a small portion of the big problem

You don't get what I'm saying. You can't stop people, probably the Tube site itself, from stealing. You can send them a DMCA and get them to take it down. So if your porn is a cut above the rest like Party Hardcore the surfer has to join if he wants that porn. If your exclusive porn is like 90% of the other exclusive porn in the niche then he just looks at another scene by another sponsor. Your content has to be different and good to make it worth protecting. And yes it will still get stolen and you will still need to get it removed. Most Tubes will in my experience. And it's not a 100% solution.

Hope I explained it well enough this time.

Robbie said how to do it in his post. Great post as well.

Paul Markham · 11-01-2008, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WiredGuy

Now let's figure out a few fixes ;)
WG

This is one of the few things this thread has. This thread and all the other Tube threads.

Paul Markham · 11-01-2008, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You can't keep shooting those same 20 girls fucking those same 10 guys all from LA Direct and make sales when those same people are all over the tube sites in every possible scenario and position.

If I want to see Sara Jay fuck a couple of black guys (and I do), I don't have to pay to see it. Same with all the other girls.

Great post. Thanks.

Or if you just want to see any blond fucking any guy on a sofa. And that's what so many do not get. They grew rich when the consumer had to buy to view porn and now the consumer does not have to buy to view general porn, even exclusive, they're screwed. This applies to the DVD industry as well.

But the moment I talk to a sponsor about producing content he's telling me some guy in Russia will shoot it cheaper or the idea I have to make the content unique is making it too expensive. Recently spoke to a well known sponsor and told him I could shoot unique scenes in a good niche and it would cost 1,000 Euros a hardcore scene down to 500 Euros a solo girl scene. He told me to he can buy HC scenes for $600 and solo for $250. I bet they would be unique. </sarcasm>

Just thinking about the number of members who fill their hard drives with porn scenes. How many members would it take doing this before the BW and hardware costs started to be a problem? Also how many guys are single and have no problem with a home computer full of porn? I doubt if this is a big problem. I have loads of members just looking at scenes on the site because they don't want the wife and kids to see it.

pornjudge · 11-01-2008, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscortBiz

Seriously whats so hard to understand? If someone has 5000 porn files on their HD they are not as quick to join a site as if they would have nothing or way less?

If you have a DVD collection at home of 2000 movies you are not going to rent movies or buy them as often?

I don't agree with you, people like to see new things all the time. I have 300 dvd's here, I never watched them twice. Someone should come up with a real pole and ask surfers why they are not buying porn?

answer will be: why pay when we get it for free, that simple lol. Yes, if a surfer looks at a movie gallery, he will probably see if he could find it on a tube or a torrent & if he cant find it he will probably join that paysite.

Nautilus · 11-01-2008, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgiaasphalt

How do you figure? Say you have 20 videos. Your membership is $20/mo. You just sold that video for $1. The more videos you have, the less their individual value.

Because I'm not counting individual values, just the amount of money we get from one customer, and our bottomline.

Quote:

I do hear what you're saying about consumers not having unlimited budgets and I get that. But, why should they get sooooooo much for such a small monthly fee?

Well not necessary they should. Although I'm debating with you about advantages of all included monthly subscriptions, we ourselves are selling extras for the extra price

Have been doing it for years, and doing pretty well. We upsell our own sites from member zones, and sell access to our entire network for $84.95. That adds up about 25% to our bottomline. Also I'm thinking about your idea about removing archives and upselling them for yet another extra price. I think that might add yet another 10-20% to our bottomline, if done properly.

Quote:

Loss...not necessarily. How about profit margin? As soon as you implement a subscription model your profit margin decreases and continues to decrease with every new song/movie you add. Sure you hope to offset that by selling more subscriptions, but at some point that growth is going to level off or become minimal. Then what? In the long run the subscription model's profitability declines. I definitely don't see their business model as flawed. Just different and in my opinion, more profitable.

I'm pretty sure they're counting profit margins per individual titles, and happy with what they see. And then they report loss. To me that sounds like something is wrong with their approach to doing business online.

Profitability per title is theory, profitability of your entire company is reality. If they can get 10 million members to their content library at $20, their overall profitability would skyrocket. But they went another route - selling individual titles through third party providers, which is wrong in my opinion. iTunes and the likes should be sources of the additional income, like clips4sales and similar site for us, but main income should come from their own site(s). That's why I think they're making like 20% of what they could online, and report losses. Because they use only additional income sources totally ignoring what should be their main focus.

Quote:

Regardless, the subscription model is probably always going to be the primary model in this industry unless there's some huge issue that causes a change.

I certainly agree with that

Paul Markham · 11-01-2008, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornjudge

I don't agree with you, people like to see new things all the time. I have 300 dvd's here, I never watched them twice. Someone should come up with a real pole and ask surfers why they are not buying porn?

Agreed. I have a thousand DVDs, most good films made on real budgets by people who know what they're doing. Very few have I watched more than once. Porn is even more disposable.

Quote:

answer will be: why pay when we get it for free, that simple lol. Yes, if a surfer looks at a movie gallery, he will probably see if he could find it on a tube or a torrent & if he cant find it he will probably join that paysite.

Then we have to make it worth his while to join.

Charge him by the day, at a price he will pay, plus better speed and quality image, maybe have a live web cam girl or girls inside the site to chat to members and put on free shows. All this can be done and we are at fault for not doing it. Just one thing stops us.

Could a site with 100 members joining a day afford it?

100 x $30 = $3,000 a day.

Less 15% processing, 10% server, 10% office admin and 10% content. Leaves 55% or $1650 a day. And yes my figures are probably over the top. So this site could afford to give the members a much better deal. Now why don't we?

You got it. we spend 60% of our turnover, as an industry, getting surfers to the tour.

OK my figures are guessing and general. But they illustrate the biggest problem, we value the guy passing through more than the guy stopping and buying. We must value him more because we spend more time and money on him.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Hi Robbie,

What solution did you use for encrypted streaming? Also, has it affected your rebills, and/or amount of repeated customers?

I'm using Adobe Flash Server. Converted all vids to h264 They stream rtmpe encrypted streaming.

Google it up and do some reading on it. The software cost a grand, and I have a guy on staff who takes care of my servers, so we compiled the neccessary system requirements and installed it ourselves.

After that, the only cost was in the man hours I personally spent re-encoding and uploading the members area to change all the old ones over.

I turned that into a silver lining by convincing my wife that it was finally time to spend 11 grand on my new Dell T7400 Dual XEON x5482 3.2 gig quadcore processors running 64 bit with 16 gigs of RAM. Heh-heh. Took me about one day to re-encode everything. (even the new ones as I came up with some new settings for h264 which got me much smaller file sizes and much faster streaming)

I always try to turn any adversity into an excuse for a new toy.

As for members...yes, it was very scary at first. I lost 20 or so members real fast and it scared the shit out of me. But then that stopped. Now I get about the same amounts of sales and rebills as I did before I started losing sales to tubes and torrents. Which makes me very happy!

I still have a couple of members who joined the first week we opened Claudia-Marie.com And that was the last coupld of days of April 2007. And I have plenty of members that joined in the rest of 2007 as well. So it definitely didn't drive away the faithful at all.

I also offer a VOD section which allows people who don't want to have a membership to download individual scenes for 10 bucks each. I use phantomflicks.com for that. Affiliates get credited for sales to that as well since I encoded the link from the tour page to follow their NATS code. I only offer the older vids from before I started the encrypted streaming.

So some of the older stuff still ends up on tubes and torrents. But I have removeyourcontent.com taking those down as well.

It's a pretty good one-two punch.

In my humble opinion, if you are shooting exclusive content...or even buying it....and you want to make sales then you must protect your stuff. The paysite model DEFINITELY works then.

But I will admit, it took a lot of balls and sleepless nights to go this route. I knew that something had to be done, but it was uncharted waters for me and if I had been wrong it could have ruined me.

That's why more people have not went this route yet. But if and when they do, it will result in more sales/rebills for everyone. It's just a hard business decision to make when there are millions of dollars at stake.

EscortBiz · 11-01-2008, 10:35 AM

props to ya robbie!

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscortBiz

props to ya robbie!

I'd just like to see the tubes and torrents stopped. It obviously isn't happening fast enough legally. So I wish that more paysites were protecting their content. Yeah, I'm doing great with my paysite. But my freesite business was my bread and butter since 1998. Now it's on life support. Thank God I always did revshare. Because trying to make sales to some of the big sites these days is like pulling teeth.

If my affiliate sales to other companies were at the levels they once were, and I was making this paysite money at the same time....I would be filthy fucking rich and a total asshole. lol

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 11:44 AM

Okay, I'm already a total asshole....but you know what I mean

Peter Romero · 11-01-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscortBiz

props to ya robbie!

I'm going to DRM after reading this thread all week. Thanks everyone!

Octopus · 11-01-2008, 12:05 PM

Good post. We have to adapt to these changes. Bigger hard drives and faster connection speeds? So we can sell HD movies. Tubes and torrents? We must sell exclusive content in specific niches.

Nautilus · 11-01-2008, 12:08 PM

Thanks for explanations Robbie. I have couple more questions, if you don't mind.

What bitrate and resolution did you use? Has it affected your bandwidth usage?

I'm especially interested to know if this works OK with HD.

Nautilus · 11-01-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Romero

I'm going to DRM after reading this thread all week. Thanks everyone!

Do you already have any particular DRM solution in mind?

DAMNMAN · 11-01-2008, 01:19 PM

I think the tube sites are one massive problem, Why pay for porn? It's crazy ass free these days.

That said i'm sure somebody will have the next big idea and become the next big thing.

I remember back some years ago when all the posts on the board were about how the adult Internet industry was dead, and then what happened? Bang bus and MILF Hunter came out and immediately made those guys rich and a household names. (I guess they didn't get the memo!!!!)
The question is: Who will it be? And will it be you or me?

Eventually someones gonna make a shit load of money on real estate because of this big ass crash too. It all goes around.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Thanks for explanations Robbie. I have couple more questions, if you don't mind.

What bitrate and resolution did you use? Has it affected your bandwidth usage?

I'm especially interested to know if this works OK with HD.

Im still in SD...but the h264 compression ESPECIALLY works good for HD. Matter of fact, in HD it will give you files far, far smaller than you've ever had before.

As far as bandwidth...I haven't had any real changes in that. For Claudia-Marie.Com I have a 15 TB a month package and I usually fall anywhere from 11 to 13 TB a month.

Most of the bandwidth is from the tour and galleries anyway. The members area isn't really even a factor in the bandwidth.

I am going to go HD sometime this next year and can't wait. Matter of fact, the first time I ever saw h264 streaming was with HD movie trailers put out by the big Hollywood studios. They are absolutely awesome looking. I've seen some HD h264's encoded at 500k that looked damn near flawless.

I can't come close to doing that...probably because I'm shooting in SD. My uneducated theory would be that if you shoot in HD you can compress it down further with better results because your original file size is so big.

I am currently encoding h264 .mp4's at 1,200k At first I was doing them at a variable rate of 2 - 6 mps But the stream puts a big load on the user side cpu. So any of my members using a weak computer and/or a computer with a shitload of background tasks were having problems with the stream "stuttering" on them.

Plus those file sizes were pretty big...but damn they looked sooo good. I re-encoded all of them to the 1,200kps and that pretty much ended any problems. Not quite as "perfect" as the bigger ones were...but nobody is having any problems now at all.

From what I have been told by others who are shooting porn in HD, that 1,200 kps encode rate should look like a million bucks with HD.

I would say this is the "future". But the reality is...for mainstream Hollywood it is the "present".

It's a scary step to make though. The thought of possibly pissing off your entire members section is enough to make someone pause.

I have a section in my members area entitled: WHY CAN'T I DOWNLOAD THE VIDEOS

Here is the copy&paste:

"WHY CAN'T I DOWNLOAD THE VIDEOS?
For many years adult sites were set up to allow their members to download the videos. No problem. But in the last 2 years people have begun downloading them and then re-uploading them to so-called "free" sites. Seemed cool. But what you didn't know was those "free" sites are making MILLIONS of dollars off of pre-paid spots from "dating" sites because they have such huge traffic numbers of surfers wanting to watch "free" porn.
But the real result is, it's putting the people who actually CREATE porn out of business. We could no longer stand by and see this happen to us. It was so bad that we would release a new update intended for YOU. And within hours it was all over the internet on every thief's site. And those motherfuckers are making money off of us! And using our own members against us to make them money at our expense.
But for months we have been at an impasse. I wanted to protect our content and the value of your membership, but I didn't want to lose any quality.
Well, in the last few months brand new mpeg streaming technology has come out which allows large files to begin to stream almost instantaneously AND allows the surfer to click anywhere on the timeline of the vid and skip right to that part.
It cost us quite a bit of money to have this brand new encrypted streaming server installed on our server. But we shelled out the money. And we have been working night and day to encode all the vids by hand...not using some bullshit script, but carefully making sure each vid is of the highest quality.
We thank you for being a member, and we are working hard to ensure that your membership is a great value to have for years to come.
The content on Claudia-Marie is unlike any other in the world. It isn't some generic porn being shot in "porn valley" by "porn stars". Claudia-Marie is a REAL milf and true sexual being. She doesn't "fake it" like those girls do in L.A. This is the real deal. And her content is a very precious commodity when compared to all the generic porn out there. And we intend on keeping it that way. We not only are using encrypted streaming...but we have hired a company that is aggressively sending legal notices and having all of the stolen vids of Claudia-Marie taken down.
Yes, it is costing us a lot of money. But we truly want your membership to be something special and unique. Our members are like family to us and we appreciate each and every one of you. We have BIG plans and are very busy shooting some of the best footage we have ever done. Just let me know if there's anything you need.
thanks,
-Robbie

INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAY VIDS:
1. You will need FLASH in order to stream the vids. Get that HERE

2. You will see a large image on the page. That is where the vid will be displayed. Push the play button.

3. The video will begin to play within a few seconds.

4. Once the vid starts to play you can grab the cursor and yank it forward or backward in the timeline of the movie and skip parts or watch your favorite parts over and over.

5. Make sure to not squirt cum all over your computer keyboard... lol"

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 01:55 PM

Oh, you also asked about resolution.
That's an important one for SD. Not so much for HD.

I shoot at 720 x 480 standard resolution.

So I was encoding the streaming vids at that resolution. But they were looking funny to me. They almost looked "squashed" like when you watch a 4:3 movie stretched out on a 16:9 screen...everybody looks short and squat.

I searched and searched...and it turns out that pixels on a monitor are square. So to stream "correctly" you have to use 640 x 480 for SD! Once I did that...it was perfect.

Now for HD, I would assume you would bring it down to a resolution that would fit most screens. I fooled around shooting in HD a few months ago and when I put the movie up onscreen it was GIGANTIC! lol

It was like one nostril filling up my entire monitor. So I obviously don't know shit about HD yet.

bronco67 · 11-01-2008, 02:12 PM

Robbie, that was great read. When I start my site, I plan on going a similar route. I'm doing ultra high quality 3D animation, so I think it'll be unique, even though there plenty of 3D on the web already. It's really something special and I've been working on it for years.

I keep thinking that the best way to keep your copyrighted materials from flooding the torrents as complete site rips is to NOT allow the customer to just sign up for 30 bucks and let them download everything. I'm going to carte blanche, and do my best to track down the stray clip that's been posted to Rapidshare and torrents. I know that I'm probably not even close to knowing what a nightmare it will be, but I think your route is the best way to keep high volumes of your stuff from being ripped off.

The internet is like a giant JC Penny with the front door wide open and no security(bad analogy, I know). It's even worse on the internet....when people know they're anonymous, it brings out the worst in them. They might not run into that JC Penney and grab a pile of stuff and run, but they'll surely steal some porn and have no problem. I've done it, and many of us have, even if they don't admit it. It makes sense to protect your hard work in the best way possible.

Mutt · 11-01-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Oh, you also asked about resolution.
That's an important one for SD. Not so much for HD.

I shoot at 720 x 480 standard resolution.

So I was encoding the streaming vids at that resolution. But they were looking funny to me. They almost looked "squashed" like when you watch a 4:3 movie stretched out on a 16:9 screen...everybody looks short and squat.

I searched and searched...and it turns out that pixels on a monitor are square. So to stream "correctly" you have to use 640 x 480 for SD! Once I did that...it was perfect.

useful information - so you're cropping videos shot at 720x480?

Anthony · 11-01-2008, 02:19 PM

I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks of Robbie, that man just taught me, an industry vet some new tricks.

Thanks Robbie!

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

useful information - so you're cropping videos shot at 720x480?

I'm not sure if "cropping" is the right word, as I don't see anything missing. What I mean is if I crop a picture I remove some of it. When I encode the 720 x 480 AVI over to a 640 X 480 .mp4 using h264 compresson it doesn't crop anything off...it just seems to change the aspect slightly, and makes it look "correct" My understanding is that is simply the change in pixel shape which accounts for the difference of 80 pixels in width for the entire movie. I hope that makes sense, because I know I'm not communicating this in the correct technical terminology.

Jim_Gunn · 11-01-2008, 02:20 PM

Robbie, great posts. Thanks for sharing the info. I am too thrifty to spend eleven grand on a new computer but yours sure sounds awesome. I have a few Dell pc's chugging away doing my video capturing, editing and encoding here in my office. The h264 & encrypted Flash streaming software sounds like a great solution. When I am ready to launch new sites with exclusive content I would definitely look into using that too. If you need any help with HD shooting, editing or encoding, hit me up anytime.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 02:23 PM

I think the correct term for this is "scaling" The pixels start out as horizontal shapes. So I scale it to 640 x 480 so it displays correctly using square pixels.

I need a drink lol

Mutt · 11-01-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm not sure if "cropping" is the right word, as I don't see anything missing. What I mean is if I crop a picture I remove some of it. When I encode the 720 x 480 AVI over to a 640 X 480 .mp4 using h264 compresson it doesn't crop anything off...it just seems to change the aspect slightly, and makes it look "correct" My understanding is that is simply the change in pixel shape which accounts for the difference of 80 pixels in width for the entire movie. I hope that makes sense, because I know I'm not communicating this in the correct technical terminology.

gotcha

Mutt · 11-01-2008, 02:30 PM

about the same 20 LA pornstars fucking the same 10 stunt cocks on every hardcore site - the only hardcore program that is different is Bangbros/NastyDollars - they spend an incredible amount of energy/resources recruiting their own talent, even with all that they still probably use LA/Florida talent everybody else uses in 75% of their scenes.

it's absolutely impossible to find that many attractive females to do hardcore porn - you can do it for one site with a lot of work and time spent - but for more than one site, impossible.

Jim_Gunn · 11-01-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm not sure if "cropping" is the right word, as I don't see anything missing. What I mean is if I crop a picture I remove some of it. When I encode the 720 x 480 AVI over to a 640 X 480 .mp4 using h264 compresson it doesn't crop anything off...it just seems to change the aspect slightly, and makes it look "correct" My understanding is that is simply the change in pixel shape which accounts for the difference of 80 pixels in width for the entire movie. I hope that makes sense, because I know I'm not communicating this in the correct technical terminology.

The pixel aspect ratio of SD digital video is .9, so when you capture SD 720 x 480 footage you should always change the pixel aspect ratio to square pixels (1.0) for display on your computer monitor, which will result in a 640 x 480 frame size which can then be encoded into 320 x 240 video clips for example. I prefer to convert to square pixels when I encode my video clips from the edited DV AVI in a video encoding app like Cleaner XL.

On the other hand, HDV cameras record footage with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.333, so when you capture footage from your camera it will appear to be 1440 x 1080, until you convert it to square pixels, which has the opposite effect of the way the conversion from SD works and makes the frame size bigger. 1920 x 1080. Then one can one can encode to computer files like WMV or Flash or Quicktime in smaller multiples, most commonly 1280 x 720 or 480 x 270. Likewise, I do this when I encode the edited movie in an encoding app.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

I am too thrifty to spend eleven grand on a new computer.

Come on Jim...quit bullshitting.

For those who have never met Jim Gunn, let me tell you the truth.

I first met him at Internext in Miami this past summer. I'm standing there at the Diplomat surrounded by big players and all of a sudden the crowd parted like Moses parted the Red Sea.

10 black guys who were HUGE walked through first. All in suits and ties with sunglasses on.

They were followed by 20 whores all dressed like a bunch of hoochie mamas.

Then finally, wearing a big fur coat and a pimp hat, Jim Gunn himself came in the room dancing. One by one I watched as everybody in the business bowed down and kissed his diamond encrusted hand.

I tried to introduce myself...but as I reached out to shake his hand, one of the bodyguards grabbed me by the throat and told me: "Don't touch Mr. Gunn"

Later that night I sent over a bottle of Cristal to his table as a way to apologize for attempting to shake his hand. Of course Jim was too busy to personally aknowledge me because he was too busy with his whores. So he had one of his bodyguards bring over a bucket of money to let me know we were cool.

That was how I "met" Jim Gunn.

He also let me stand on the roof at the heli-pad as he took off in his private copter for the airport and his private lear.

Thanks JG!

I'm gonna take you up on that offer of advice when I go HD by the way.

georgiaasphalt · 11-01-2008, 02:36 PM

Robbie - that is awesome!! I can only imagine those initial sleepless nights. And thanks for the great example and the information!!

And I totally agree with your thoughts about the people shooting the same girls all the time. I understand the girls are popular and that's what people are looking for. But, damn! Give me some fresh faces on a more regular basis.

Nautilus - seems we're pretty much on the same page when it comes the larger picture

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

...But they illustrate the biggest problem, we value the guy passing through more than the guy stopping and buying. We must value him more because we spend more time and money on him.

I agree, customer satisfaction is paramount. What people tend to forget it actually costs more money to get a new client than it does to keep one.

DAMNMAN · 11-01-2008, 02:36 PM

I want to thank Robbie for his input on this thread, THANKS. You have put me on a new path with the flash server and encryption. and I'm gonna try phantomflicks.com as well.

Many thanks

Peter Romero · 11-01-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

about the same 20 LA pornstars fucking the same 10 stunt cocks on every hardcore site - the only hardcore program that is different is Bangbros/NastyDollars - they spend an incredible amount of energy/resources recruiting their own talent, even with all that they still probably use LA/Florida talent everybody else uses in 75% of their scenes.

it's absolutely impossible to find that many attractive females to do hardcore porn - you can do it for one site with a lot of work and time spent - but for more than one site, impossible.

I concur... and use about 99% of brand new never before seen first timers and have for 8 years that www.POVPorn.com has been online. But, I can't afford to make mistakes on content.

Nautilus · 11-01-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

From what I have been told by others who are shooting porn in HD, that 1,200 kps encode rate should look like a million bucks with HD.

Dunno... I wouldn't be that optimistic. We started to shoot some HD recently (we're also backward in that regard and still shoot most of our stuff in SD), but I was not really satisfied with how it looks at full HD resolution when encoded in h264 at 3mbps. Heck even raw 100 mpbs DVCPro HD footage didn't look nowhere near those recent Hollywood HD trailers that impressed me just like you.

Sure it's still much better than SD, but not million bucks worth imo. When you downres it to about SD size it looks really gorgeous, but not at full HD. Check Vimeo for examples - when they stream HD footage through about SD size player it looks great, but click full screen and it doesn't look that good anymore.

http://www.vimeo.com/762333 (just a random video)

And so I'm lost.

FlexxAeon · 11-01-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You don't get what I'm saying. You can't stop people, probably the Tube site itself, from stealing. You can send them a DMCA and get them to take it down. So if your porn is a cut above the rest like Party Hardcore the surfer has to join if he wants that porn. If your exclusive porn is like 90% of the other exclusive porn in the niche then he just looks at another scene by another sponsor. Your content has to be different and good to make it worth protecting. And yes it will still get stolen and you will still need to get it removed. Most Tubes will in my experience. And it's not a 100% solution.

Hope I explained it well enough this time.

Robbie said how to do it in his post. Great post as well.

yes i get what you're saying but, again, quality of the content is only one in a combination of issues. whether content is worthy of being protected is in the eye of the beholder. joe blow with his average run-of-the-mill scene deems his content just as worthy of protecting as one of yours.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Dunno... I wouldn't be that optimistic. We started to shoot some HD recently (we're also backward in that regard and still shoot most of our stuff in SD), but I was not really satisfied with how it looks at full HD resolution when encoded in h264 at 3mbps. Heck even raw 100 mpbs DVCPro HD footage didn't look nowhere near those recent Hollywood HD trailers that impressed me just like you.

Sure it's still much better than SD, but not million bucks worth imo. When you downres it to about SD size it looks really gorgeous, but not at full HD. Check Vimeo for examples - when they stream HD footage through about SD size player it looks great, but click full screen and it doesn't look that good anymore.

http://www.vimeo.com/762333 (just a random video)

And so I'm lost.

That's some great looking vid there. When you say "at full HD" what do you mean? You don't mean that monster "nostril the size of my monitor" size that I talked about do you? lol I just don't know enough about HD yet to speak intelligently about it.

But I would THINK that you wouldn't want to have a huge resolution for your members area anyway would you? Or am I way offbase? I would think something that would fit most of the available screen on a "non-widescreen" monitor would be great. And it should look damn good too.

I use Adobe Premiere to encode these things. When I was using the Premiere Pro CS3 version it looked like crap until I clicked on the "de-interlace" check box in the "Output" tab. That's when I was able to take it down to 1,200 kps without it looking like a bunch of squares.

Now I have CS4 and that checkbox is no longer there...but it seems to just do it on it's own now when encoding flash and/or h264

Anyway, everyone that has helped me along has told me that you simply don't have to use a very high bit rate with h264. I worked and worked and ended up at that huge variable 2 to 6 mb bitrate to begin with. But once I got that de-interlace checked off...I was able to go down and get pretty close to the same quality (not really, but close enough for rock-n-roll)

You're gonna have to keep tweaking and get those bit rates down. I made the mistake of thinking that "Oh, everybody is on broadband so it's now big deal they can easily stream this fast" And I was right about the consumers ability to stream that fast...But I didn't take into account that the higher the bit rate, the more CPU it uses on the user side. I guarantee you, you would have half your members complaining because they have so many background tasks using up their CPU's that the vid wouldn't stream properly at 3 mb

Don't be discouraged. You just need to keep tweaking. You'll know you have it right when you are down in the 1000 to 1200 range and getting a good image that you can live with.

Sometimes I have to walk away and take a second look. Especially since I do all my own editing. I get used to it looking crystal clear and sharp because it's raw and uncompressed. So when I first see the compressed version it looks bad to me.

But when I walk away, and watch vids on other paysites and acclimate my eyes to that...my shit looks good to me afterwards. I guess our eyes get used to seeing either compressed or uncompressed video.

FlexxAeon · 11-01-2008, 03:09 PM

And, I think what Robbie is doing is brilliant. The technology that is "fucking us" is the technology protecting his content.

I started a thread not too long ago asking what happened to DRM. Amongst everything, people said they tried it and surfers complained about it so much that they had to stop. But I guess this proves that people will deal with DRM of some sort.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 03:20 PM

Not only that...but everything I read about DRM said it was cracked almost instantly

Boobiepalooza · 11-01-2008, 03:23 PM

Robbie what have you done to address the fact that their are lots of programs out there that can capture and record video to a HD from a rtmp stream. I really like the idea you have put forward but to me it seems pointless in removing the download link to the full scene if the member can easily rip the stream, I know less surfers will know how to do this but like everything your method can be beaten by those in the know and it doesn't take much for people to find out how to beat it.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boobiepalooza

Robbie what have you done to address the fact that their are lots of programs out there that can capture and record video to a HD from a rtmp stream. I really like the idea you have put forward but to me it seems pointless in removing the download link to the full scene if the member can easily rip the stream, I know less surfers will know how to do this but like everything your method can be beaten by those in the know and it doesn't take much for people to find out how to beat it.

I would say to you to give it a try. I did. Didn't work worth a shit. The vid was quirky and jumpy...like a bad animated GIF And the sound was TOTALLY distorted. The screen recording was basically unwatchable.

I'm not saying that it's "unbeatable" I'm just saying that I haven't figured out a way to do it yet.

And I got tired of watching my shit stolen everywhere and my sales starting to fall backwards. So I decided to do something about it. And when and if this no longer works...I'm gonna figure out something else.

I guess I just made up my mind to stop complaining and take action to handle things myself. If nothing else, it took away that feeling of helplessness I had for months and allowed me to sleep at night.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 03:31 PM

By the way, when I say "give it a try" I don't mean on my stuff. All my encrypted streaming is in the members area. The trailers on the tour are just .flv's streaming on Lighthttp, so it won't prove anything to try it on those.

Try it on some of the public encrypted streams and see what the results are. I'm assuming they will be the same as what happened when I tried it in my members area.

F-U-Jimmy · 11-01-2008, 03:35 PM

Wow this is a very unusual post for GFY and i might add a great one. I particularly like this thought.

"imagine if a virus hits the net that wipes peoples wmv and mpg files off their HD clearing their porn stash, I think billing servers will crash that day".

If only

Peter Romero · 11-01-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Dunno... I wouldn't be that optimistic. We started to shoot some HD recently (we're also backward in that regard and still shoot most of our stuff in SD), but I was not really satisfied with how it looks at full HD resolution when encoded in h264 at 3mbps. Heck even raw 100 mpbs DVCPro HD footage didn't look nowhere near those recent Hollywood HD trailers that impressed me just like you.

Sure it's still much better than SD, but not million bucks worth imo. When you downres it to about SD size it looks really gorgeous, but not at full HD. Check Vimeo for examples - when they stream HD footage through about SD size player it looks great, but click full screen and it doesn't look that good anymore.

http://www.vimeo.com/762333 (just a random video)

And so I'm lost.

Where is the lighting truck on a porn set? Exactly... it's not there.

Quit blaming the quality of the encoding on the computer or the editor and start blaming it on the lighting. The clip you posted was in full sun. The film granules (in this case pixels) are bigger - the less light there is - the oposite is lots of light filling out all the info on your HD tapes = High definition. But take out that light and demand the same detail, and have everyone bouncing around in the horizontal Mambo and you loose the affect that you were looking for with HD. That is why SD looks better in lower light - hence - a porno shot inside with all the windows drawn and lit with low output (miniscule compared to mainstream) lights - and lots of movement.

I've got alot to learn about editing and encoding but I do know alot about lighting and photography - the graphing of light if you speak Latin. The graphing of light... not fast moving unlit images in the dark.

I used to do lighting for mainstream movie sets - we are talking about 3-10 Semi trucks FULL of lights, ballasts, reflectors, flags, generators, and wires thick as snakes. Too bad we can't close down streets and get some 10K's out to light a set... no-one would ever complain about HD looking muddy ever again.

NaughtyRob · 11-01-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

about the same 20 LA pornstars fucking the same 10 stunt cocks on every hardcore site - the only hardcore program that is different is Bangbros/NastyDollars - they spend an incredible amount of energy/resources recruiting their own talent, even with all that they still probably use LA/Florida talent everybody else uses in 75% of their scenes.

it's absolutely impossible to find that many attractive females to do hardcore porn - you can do it for one site with a lot of work and time spent - but for more than one site, impossible.

Yeah good point. I used to find brand new girls to send to ND all the time. They loved that.

Boobiepalooza · 11-01-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I would say to you to give it a try. I did. Didn't work worth a shit. The vid was quirky and jumpy...like a bad animated GIF And the sound was TOTALLY distorted. The screen recording was basically unwatchable.

I'm not saying that it's "unbeatable" I'm just saying that I haven't figured out a way to do it yet.

And I got tired of watching my shit stolen everywhere and my sales starting to fall backwards. So I decided to do something about it. And when and if this no longer works...I'm gonna figure out something else.

I guess I just made up my mind to stop complaining and take action to handle things myself. If nothing else, it took away that feeling of helplessness I had for months and allowed me to sleep at night.

I wasn't knocking you are all, I think you are heading down the right path with your method, I also think using phantomflicks is also a very good thing to do, I also use that and it does help.

I was trying to work out if you had tested it with any programs that are around, as i am considering your method it wouldn't be too much of a change I just wouldn't want it to be a change for nothing if it can be easily ripped and saved.

Peter Romero · 11-01-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GetNaughty

Yeah good point. I used to find brand new girls to send to ND all the time. They loved that.

I made $10k-15K a month for 9 years scouting brand new talent and sending trhem to Magazine photographers for 80% softcore and 20% hardcore. One time I brought a brand new model (Justine Jolie) to Suze Randal who had only shot with 1 other photographer... Suze found out she shot with someone else already and SHE PUNCHED ME!!! She said: "Oh, she shot with Hank Londoner already... SHE'S ALL SHOT UP!!!" That is how competetive this industry is.

We need that upper 2% of the talent to drive sales - not new sites, story lines and programs. We are selling porn to people that have lots of choices and a more limited income than ever before. It's not boxes on a shelf, surfers are very picky especially if money is tight and they can only make 1 choice to buy.

No... I'll never be an agent again! But those who hire me to shoot for them get the added treat of undiscovered fruit. And 99% of the girls on www.POVPorn.com shot thier very first scene for me. No BS.

I'm not spamming your thead EB - that's just my 20 years in this biz personal opinion. It's all about the talent!!!

Jim_Gunn · 11-01-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

about the same 20 LA pornstars fucking the same 10 stunt cocks on every hardcore site - the only hardcore program that is different is Bangbros/NastyDollars - they spend an incredible amount of energy/resources recruiting their own talent, even with all that they still probably use LA/Florida talent everybody else uses in 75% of their scenes.

it's absolutely impossible to find that many attractive females to do hardcore porn - you can do it for one site with a lot of work and time spent - but for more than one site, impossible.

It is indeed a lot of work to recruit new talent, Mutt. I have connections all over North America sending me as many new girls as possible, especially teens, and it costs both time and money to separate the wheat from the chaff. Matter of fact I got a couple of my filming jobs in part because I do film a lot of girls who aren't porn stars, at least not until I get a hold of them!

Peter Romero · 11-01-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

It is indeed a lot of work to recruit new talent, Mutt. I have connections all over North America sending me as many new girls as possible, especially teens, and it costs both time and money to separate the wheat from the chaff. Matter of fact I got a couple of my filming jobs in part because I do film a lot of girls who aren't porn stars, at least not until I get a hold of them!

Ditto on that man.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boobiepalooza

I wasn't knocking you are all, I think you are heading down the right path with your method, I also think using phantomflicks is also a very good thing to do, I also use that and it does help.

I was trying to work out if you had tested it with any programs that are around, as i am considering your method it wouldn't be too much of a change I just wouldn't want it to be a change for nothing if it can be easily ripped and saved.

What I did was google up screen recorders and then downloaded a few of them and tried it. You should give it a shot too and confirm what I saw. And from what I saw: Screen Recording = Unwatchable....at least with these vids.

Nautilus · 11-01-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's some great looking vid there. When you say "at full HD" what do you mean? You don't mean that monster "nostril the size of my monitor" size that I talked about do you?

Yes I think that was what I meant

Full HD means usually either 1280x720 or 1920x1080 resolution. While it may seem excessive for those who get used to SD sized picture, HD is the trend now. Everything looks better in HD except for closeups (those monitor sized nostrils you mentioned), but I hate closeups and we never shoot then anyway so that's not a problem.

When you can get crystal clear picture in HD, it looks really good with it's big image. But as I mentioned earlier, I just cannot get same crystal clear image Hollywood trailers are showing. So when I view our or other program's HD vids (which have the same problem, not sharp enough at full HD) I usually downres my player to about 900 horizontal pixels. It looks sharp enough at that size and is still bigger and more fun to watch than SD.

Anyway, what's the point of shooting HD at all if you downres it to SD? Picture will look better than original SD footage of the same resolution, but not that much better imo to worth the hassle. The point is in providing customers with full HD resolution and let them decide what to do with it - either view as is, or downres their players and view smaller picture if that's more convenient. True HD has many advantages. But when you go streaming and cannot encode even at 3mbps which is minimum for HD to look any good at full resolution, the entire point of using HD is lost. Or maybe I'm missing something?

Quote:

I use Adobe Premiere to encode these things. When I was using the Premiere Pro CS3 version it looked like crap until I clicked on the "de-interlace" check box in the "Output" tab. That's when I was able to take it down to 1,200 kps without it looking like a bunch of squares.

We shoot progressive and thus do not need to deinterlace, so that wouldn't help. We'll tweak it of course, but it'll not help much. Because, as I've already said, even raw 100 mbps DVCPro HD footage looks considerably worse than 3mbps 1280x720 Hollywood trailers.

No wonder though, in spite of them using 4K cameras or 4K film scans (we use 1/3" semi professional camera), and then downresing their videos to 1280x720. I once got raw footage from 4K Red One camera, and when you crop any part of it at 1280x720 it doesn't look any different from what we shoot with our cam. But when you downres the whole image to 1280x720, that's the whole different story. That footage looks amazing to say at least.

Quote:

But when I walk away, and watch vids on other paysites and acclimate my eyes to that...my shit looks good to me afterwards. I guess our eyes get used to seeing either compressed or uncompressed video.

Yeah I know that effect

But still, it looks not nearly as good as I had hoped for. Maybe I'm just being overly critical though and customers will be just fine with the look of it.

What's bothering me is that giving customers downloadable full HD vids is one thing, while streaming them is very different story. With downloadable vids they can select any resolution they like from 1280x720 down, but with the streaming vid they have only two options - size of the player and full screen. Not to mention lesser bitrate, which takes away most of then fun you have with HD.

Robbie · 11-01-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

about the same 20 LA pornstars fucking the same 10 stunt cocks on every hardcore site - the only hardcore program that is different is Bangbros/NastyDollars - they spend an incredible amount of energy/resources recruiting their own talent, even with all that they still probably use LA/Florida talent everybody else uses in 75% of their scenes.

it's absolutely impossible to find that many attractive females to do hardcore porn - you can do it for one site with a lot of work and time spent - but for more than one site, impossible.

I think the problem is these girls are basically the female equivalent of "stunt cocks". They work the strip clubs at night, hook, and shoot for every site out there that will pay them.

In other words, it's not so much the same girls getting shot over and over again...it's just that they are shooting for EVERYBODY.

And then it's all over the place for free on the tubes and torrents.

If Puma Swede, Sara Jay, Deauxma, Penny Flame, etc., etc. each were only shooting exclusively for ONE site it would be different. But these girls are making a living out of shooting. So when Naughty America says they have a shoot for one of them...that's an easy $1500 for a couple of hours morning work. Then Brazzers calls the next day. Bang Bros the next.

To me, it's short sited on the part of the girls and the companies. There's a lot more money the girls could be making with their own sites if they could stop thinking like strippers for one minute and see the big picture in long term thinking.

Same with the companies shooting. There aren't enough "new" girls out there when some of these companies have 20 + websites that need updating weekly. So it all starts to look the same.

Today I ran over 300 new hosted galleries each on ShavedGoat.Com and Grampland.Com. There are thousands and thousands of galleries in the archives. Mostly just those same girls doing the same guys over and over and over.

When you combine that with the fact that EVERY ONE of the scenes is available for absolutely free on tubes and torrents...well, it doesn't work real well.

I'd take Puma Swede for instance...and create a website with "episodes" of her "adventures". And she would shoot for NOBODY except her own site. At least for a couple of years. And her site would be VERY hardcore. And the content would be protected.

That would make money. A lot of money. And you can insert Puma Swedes name for any of the other party/content/stripper girls in Porn Valley. They are all branded...hell almost "over-branded" if that's possible.

But you can't make a fucking dime on any of them the way things stand right now.

They are all hot, we love to watch them fuck, and if this was 8 years ago we would all be millionaires just running the hosted galleries on our tgp's.

The approach to this needs to change.

Nautilus · 11-01-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

What I did was google up screen recorders and then downloaded a few of them and tried it. You should give it a shot too and confirm what I saw. And from what I saw: Screen Recording = Unwatchable....at least with these vids.

Have you tried this one?
http://www.wmrecorder.com/demo.php

It popped up when I googled keywords you suggested earlier. Was linked to from a surfers board and they said it works perfectly.

11-01-2008, 01:58 AM	#101
mikeyddddd Viva la vulva! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself Posts: 16,557	hunnert predictions __________________ AdultStarProfits AmbyaCash AnilosCash AzianiGold ColdHardCash FlashTheMoney IdolBucks MediumPimpin NSCash Nubiles PussyCash ScoreCash Sextronix SpunkyCash TubeTitans Twistys Last edited by mikeyddddd; 11-01-2008 at 02:00 AM..

11-01-2008, 10:35 AM	#109
EscortBiz Fuck Checks, CASH only! Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 19,422	props to ya robbie! __________________ Spanking, Medical Fetish, Sleeping, Strap-on Anal Lesbians, Girls Fucking Guys, Handjob site REAL HOT, Shemales, Anal and Ass Licking sites 100% Real EXCLUSIVE with amazing retention, ccbill payouts, lots of content FREE FTP HOSTING Promote the largest and oldest member paid escort site, Converts 10 times better then any dating site, CCBill payouts ICQ# 158802076

11-01-2008, 11:44 AM	#111
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,842	Okay, I'm already a total asshole....but you know what I mean __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

11-01-2008, 12:08 PM	#114
Nautilus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,631	Thanks for explanations Robbie. I have couple more questions, if you don't mind. What bitrate and resolution did you use? Has it affected your bandwidth usage? I'm especially interested to know if this works OK with HD. __________________ . . FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote \| 100K+ FHGs \| Check recently added galleries New sites \| Pantyhose \| Nylon \| Shemale \| Strapon \| Lesbian \| Mature/MILF \| Anal \| Old&Young \| Gay \| Feet Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog\| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2) Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password. ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

11-01-2008, 01:19 PM	#116
DAMNMAN Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,440	I think the tube sites are one massive problem, Why pay for porn? It's crazy ass free these days. That said i'm sure somebody will have the next big idea and become the next big thing. I remember back some years ago when all the posts on the board were about how the adult Internet industry was dead, and then what happened? Bang bus and MILF Hunter came out and immediately made those guys rich and a household names. (I guess they didn't get the memo!!!!) The question is: Who will it be? And will it be you or me? Eventually someones gonna make a shit load of money on real estate because of this big ass crash too. It all goes around. __________________ email: zmaster (at) earthlink.net ICQ: 196678616 ZMASTER One less god!!! I contend that we are both an atheist. I just belive in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Last edited by DAMNMAN; 11-01-2008 at 01:22 PM..

11-01-2008, 12:05 PM	#113
Octopus Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,436	Good post. We have to adapt to these changes. Bigger hard drives and faster connection speeds? So we can sell HD movies. Tubes and torrents? We must sell exclusive content in specific niches.

11-01-2008, 01:55 PM	#118
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,842	Oh, you also asked about resolution. That's an important one for SD. Not so much for HD. I shoot at 720 x 480 standard resolution. So I was encoding the streaming vids at that resolution. But they were looking funny to me. They almost looked "squashed" like when you watch a 4:3 movie stretched out on a 16:9 screen...everybody looks short and squat. I searched and searched...and it turns out that pixels on a monitor are square. So to stream "correctly" you have to use 640 x 480 for SD! Once I did that...it was perfect. Now for HD, I would assume you would bring it down to a resolution that would fit most screens. I fooled around shooting in HD a few months ago and when I put the movie up onscreen it was GIGANTIC! lol It was like one nostril filling up my entire monitor. So I obviously don't know shit about HD yet. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

11-01-2008, 02:12 PM	#119
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,035	Robbie, that was great read. When I start my site, I plan on going a similar route. I'm doing ultra high quality 3D animation, so I think it'll be unique, even though there plenty of 3D on the web already. It's really something special and I've been working on it for years. I keep thinking that the best way to keep your copyrighted materials from flooding the torrents as complete site rips is to NOT allow the customer to just sign up for 30 bucks and let them download everything. I'm going to carte blanche, and do my best to track down the stray clip that's been posted to Rapidshare and torrents. I know that I'm probably not even close to knowing what a nightmare it will be, but I think your route is the best way to keep high volumes of your stuff from being ripped off. The internet is like a giant JC Penny with the front door wide open and no security(bad analogy, I know). It's even worse on the internet....when people know they're anonymous, it brings out the worst in them. They might not run into that JC Penney and grab a pile of stuff and run, but they'll surely steal some porn and have no problem. I've done it, and many of us have, even if they don't admit it. It makes sense to protect your hard work in the best way possible. __________________ Last edited by bronco67; 11-01-2008 at 02:13 PM..

11-01-2008, 02:19 PM	#121
Anthony Keyboard Warrior Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: One of the outer rings of Hell Posts: 9,653	I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks of Robbie, that man just taught me, an industry vet some new tricks. Thanks Robbie! __________________

11-01-2008, 02:20 PM	#123
Jim_Gunn Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Where The Teens Are Posts: 5,702	Robbie, great posts. Thanks for sharing the info. I am too thrifty to spend eleven grand on a new computer but yours sure sounds awesome. I have a few Dell pc's chugging away doing my video capturing, editing and encoding here in my office. The h264 & encrypted Flash streaming software sounds like a great solution. When I am ready to launch new sites with exclusive content I would definitely look into using that too. If you need any help with HD shooting, editing or encoding, hit me up anytime. __________________ Jim Gunn Filming Cinematic Porn Skype JimGunnProductions

11-01-2008, 02:23 PM	#124
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,842	I think the correct term for this is "scaling" The pixels start out as horizontal shapes. So I scale it to 640 x 480 so it displays correctly using square pixels. I need a drink lol __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

11-01-2008, 02:30 PM	#126
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	about the same 20 LA pornstars fucking the same 10 stunt cocks on every hardcore site - the only hardcore program that is different is Bangbros/NastyDollars - they spend an incredible amount of energy/resources recruiting their own talent, even with all that they still probably use LA/Florida talent everybody else uses in 75% of their scenes. it's absolutely impossible to find that many attractive females to do hardcore porn - you can do it for one site with a lot of work and time spent - but for more than one site, impossible. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

11-01-2008, 02:36 PM	#130
DAMNMAN Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,440	I want to thank Robbie for his input on this thread, THANKS. You have put me on a new path with the flash server and encryption. and I'm gonna try phantomflicks.com as well. Many thanks __________________ email: zmaster (at) earthlink.net ICQ: 196678616 ZMASTER One less god!!! I contend that we are both an atheist. I just belive in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

11-01-2008, 03:09 PM	#135
FlexxAeon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 3,765	And, I think what Robbie is doing is brilliant. The technology that is "fucking us" is the technology protecting his content. I started a thread not too long ago asking what happened to DRM. Amongst everything, people said they tried it and surfers complained about it so much that they had to stop. But I guess this proves that people will deal with DRM of some sort. __________________ flexx [dot] aeon [at] gmail

11-01-2008, 03:20 PM	#136
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,842	Not only that...but everything I read about DRM said it was cracked almost instantly __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

11-01-2008, 03:23 PM	#137
Boobiepalooza Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 125	Robbie what have you done to address the fact that their are lots of programs out there that can capture and record video to a HD from a rtmp stream. I really like the idea you have put forward but to me it seems pointless in removing the download link to the full scene if the member can easily rip the stream, I know less surfers will know how to do this but like everything your method can be beaten by those in the know and it doesn't take much for people to find out how to beat it. __________________ BritanniaCash.com - 400 776 191 - British Big Boob Solo Sites - HCupHolly.com - FaithExposed.com - BustyLittleOlivia.com

11-01-2008, 03:31 PM	#139
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,842	By the way, when I say "give it a try" I don't mean on my stuff. All my encrypted streaming is in the members area. The trailers on the tour are just .flv's streaming on Lighthttp, so it won't prove anything to try it on those. Try it on some of the public encrypted streams and see what the results are. I'm assuming they will be the same as what happened when I tried it in my members area. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

11-01-2008, 03:35 PM	#140
F-U-Jimmy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Visiting a city near you soon ! Posts: 6,853	Wow this is a very unusual post for GFY and i might add a great one. I particularly like this thought. "imagine if a virus hits the net that wipes peoples wmv and mpg files off their HD clearing their porn stash, I think billing servers will crash that day". If only __________________ icq. 176240424 44.years as a pornographer !!!!!!!!!!!