|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » The concept of value |
| 1-10 of 10 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 09-19-15 09:39pm - 3381 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
WeeWillyWinky (0)
Active User  Posts: 243 Registered: Jun 03, '07 Location: Havasu City, AZ USA |
The concept of value When I was twenty, in 1984, and when I wanted porn, I had to go into a convenient store and slink into the back where they had the naughty magazines, the really good ones where you couldn't even see the cover photo, only the title of the mag. I'd basically go into these places at night, in the wee hours, when there was hardly anyone around, because I felt like a creep as I nervously fumbled through those deliciously tempting mags in search of Cheri, Club, or one of my faves, the British Mayfair.  When I'd selected two or three, I'd of course pick up a few other things, like a can of Coke I didn't want or a bag of chips I didn't want. If I was lucky, it was some old guy at the register. If I was unlucky, it'd be that lady that looked like Alice from the Brady Bunch, and the ordeal would be all the more embarrassing. I'd plunk down my items, you know, the things I really came in for: the Coke and the bag of chips, and then the magazines. If I remember correctly, it was anywhere from 7 to 10 dollars per magazine; or it could have been less. My memory fails me. When I got home with the magazines, I remember that exciting feeling of having new porn to look at. What a feeling! But, inevitably, after plunking down that much money, I'd be lucky if there was a dozen or so pictures in each mag that would actually do something for me. The rest would be the usual cliched poses, the same old same old. I didn't buy porn flicks until I came out West in 1989. To buy some X rated movies on video cassette I had to drive about ten miles to the edge of town to a small shop next to a tattoo parlor. The guy at the counter had a gun at his hip. This is Arizona, mind you. Usually the place would be empty, but sometimes there would be one or two gents shuffling about, and occasionally a woman. Here's where I really spent a good portion of my paycheck. These movies went for upwards of 30 dollars. OR - a better way, I'd send away for adult entertainment. I spent over a hundred clams on three of the then famous Buttman flicks. Since I'm more of a panty/tease/softcore guy, I'd send away for panty oriented videos, and these went for anywhere from 20 to 30 dollars, and they were usually pretty terrible. You were lucky to get a few good scenes out of the 30 or 60 minute videos. By and large, sending away for porn was mostly a waste of money. I always felt very guilty, and very stupid, winding up with a sub-par product and having paid far too much for it. But now, I can go to In The Crack, do a few clicks, and download a 30 minute video that is right up my alley, and is of the utmost quality, and the download takes about thirty seconds. Now that's just ONE clip, among thousands that are available there. Just a short time ago, that single 30 minute video, if sold separately as a DVD, would have gone for anywhere between 20 and 30 dollars. So, I consider ITC's monthly subscription charge of 35 clams to be a steal, quite literally! And it is! With my high speed connection and my super-duper Apevia gaming computer (which is sitting next to me and is WAY smarter than I am), I could probably download their entire catalog in a few days. Or less. I don't even know, because I can't imagine even wanting to download that much material that fast. The reason I wanted to start a thread on this is because I've seen people discussing prices of various websites, and it looks to me that the subscription prices have remained pretty much the same, even while the content on offer on these sites has increased, in quality and quantity, in remarkable fashion. I would not think it strange or wrong in any way if a lot of the premier sites started to bump up their sub prices, due to the fact that the quality of their content has increased, but I have a feeling that this would cause a lot of people to boycott those sites or simply not join them. Segue into non-porn areas - "skip a little brother"... There are many great musical artists and bands nowadays that simply cannot make a living recording and touring because people are reluctant to PAY for the products these artists create. People would rather just go to Youtube and listen to the whole album for free, or download it from some other site. It seems to me that if you like an artist's music, and that music has a definite positive value in your life, that you would want to compensate that artist by paying for the opportunity to consume what they have produced. We have no problem with the simple trader principle in daily life. If we want a loaf of bread, we pay for it; if we want new batteries for our flashlight, we pay for them; if we want a professional to cut our hair in a certain way, we have no problem paying for that service, etc, etc. But when it comes to something like music, for some reason a lot of people have qualms about paying for it, even though they consider it a good thing, a benefit to them, and a thing of value: of even greater and longer lasting value than a haircut. Just as one concrete example: There's a great Doom Metal band called Solitude Aeturnus. They have many thousands of fans around the world, and by most accounts they have achieved at least a moderate level of critical acclaim as well as popularity among fans of Doom Metal. Sad thing is, while their last full length CD, Alone, released in 2006, is arguably one of the best albums ever recorded in its genre, the band has not recorded another album since, even though, according to Wikipedia, and according to the main founders, the band is still extant. This is one of the best bands in its genre, and every member of the band has a day job, because they haven't sold enough CDs to be able to produce music for a living. My theory, with respect to SA's lack of success, is that many people have a warped sense of value. There are probably thousands of fans of Solitude Aeturnus who haven't been to a show - which is understandable since they don't tour extensively - and haven't purchased a single SA track on iTunes or Amazon, or wherever, because they think that paying for music is something only a "chump" does. That was a term used by someone I argued with at some forum, at some time in the past. "Yer a chump if ya pay fer music!" was the essence of his argument. Bottom line is this: I think, if you value something, you should WANT to pay for that value. Only a chump - without a moral compass, with no ethical standards, and with no concept of value, wants to sit back and get something for nothing. You know what I hate the most about selfish people? It's that they don't think enough about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!! Edited on Sep 20, 2015, 01:34am | |
|
||
| 09-20-15 11:41am - 3381 days | #2 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Forbes estimates that Taylor Swift had an income of $55 million 2013 and $53 million in 2012. Reports are that Taylor Swift earned around $64 million in 2014, Beyonce raked in $115 million in 2014. Justin Bieber made around $80 million in 2014. But Dr. Dre beat all of them by selling Beats headphones to Apple for $3 billion. So not all singers/bands are going broke. ====================================== What does that have to do with value? I have no idea. Value, ethical standards, something for nothing, are all concepts that might have little to do with the real world. | |
|
||
| 09-20-15 10:04pm - 3380 days | #3 | |
|
WeeWillyWinky (0)
Active User Posts: 243 Registered: Jun 03, '07 Location: Havasu City, AZ USA |
Swift, Beyonce, Bieber, all beautiful, glamorous, which no doubt has a lot to do with why they are so popular. When I talk about musical artists, I mean people with a great gift, or talent, for music who produce something of merit as art. Not to suggest that those three above are NOT talented or gifted artists, only to point out that, like Elvis Presley, just to use one example from the past, the fact that they have personal beauty and magnetism probably accounts for their fame and popularity more than the fact that they produce and perform music. This could be argued, I suppose. I realize that musical tastes are subjective, but we can observe that some artists have an advantage when it comes to their potential for achieving celebrity, and that that advantage often has very little to do with the medium they use to rise to celebrity. When you say, "Value, ethical standards, something for nothing, are all concepts that might have little to do with the real world.", you seem to be agreeing with what I'm talking about. You're right: the world is upside-down, and the concepts of value and ethical standards are disappearing. That's my point. **Edited in: alright, I shouldn't say disappearing, that's hysterical and alarmist. What I mean is they are changing in a manner that I don't think is good. They've been on the decline for a long time, but the Internet has exacerbated that decline, IMHO. You know what I hate the most about selfish people? It's that they don't think enough about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!! Edited on Sep 20, 2015, 10:43pm | |
|
||
| 09-20-15 10:36pm - 3380 days | #4 | |
|
WeeWillyWinky (0)
Active User Posts: 243 Registered: Jun 03, '07 Location: Havasu City, AZ USA |
What could be discussed is the problem of video and music being reproducible without much more initial effort, time, or resources. What I mean is: it takes a certain amount of wheat, work, processing, packaging, shipping, and marketing, to make every single loaf of bread; but once an electronic video or music file is created, it requires much less further work and/or material to reproduce that product indefinitely. Someone much smarter than me, and/or someone who knows more about economics, production, and how the market works, could 'splain this better. By the way, my new avatar is Coco Chanel, my new hero. You know what I hate the most about selfish people? It's that they don't think enough about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!! Edited on Sep 20, 2015, 10:55pm | |
|
||
| 09-21-15 07:37am - 3380 days | #5 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Which is illustrated by the prices of Kindle books (electronic books), or the prices to buy an electronic copy of a movie. As a consumer, I want to pay the lowest price possible. You can argue, in theory, that the highest price possible is better for the artist or the copyright holder. Or whatever price that will maximize the profits for the copyright holder. But as a consumer, I want the lowest price possible. And when I examine the prices charged for movies on Amazon, I often see that an electronic version of a movie costs more than the discounted price of a DVD of the same movie. The cost of production and delivery of an electronic version of a movie is far less than the cost of producing a DVD of the same movie, storing the physical copy, and then delivering it to me (through the US mail or UPS or Fedex). But the electronic version of a movie sells for a higher price than the corresponding DVD. And the price of a used paperback of a novel is usually far below the price of a Kindle version. But comparing the used paperback price to the Kindle price, there are other elements that go into the equation. So the DVD versus the electronic version is far simpler to understand or analyze. Except that it's not that simple. You have to read published accounts to try to understand the pricing mechanism. But what do I want? I want the lowest price possible, so my limited dollars will stretch as far as possible. | |
|
||
| 09-21-15 07:47am - 3380 days | #6 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I don't mean to be critical, but I thought your previous avatar was humorous, highly individualistic, and rather wonderful. This image of Coco Chanel doesn't give those impressions. | |
|
||
| 09-22-15 02:58am - 3379 days | #7 | |
|
Divinx (0)
Active User Posts: 45 Registered: Dec 29, '07 |
The same goes for software, you can make and download a copy very easily. Now, it is that very same easy and cheap reproducibility of the item at sale that made the big business of Microsoft or the artists, time ago. Consider vinyl. The material cost of the disc was very low, yet each disc was sold at a high prize, rewarding artists with millions. Then came the tapes, and the recording cassettes, that allowed you to record from the radio. The very same fact that the material on which the recording is made is very cheap, that once drew millions to artists, became the thing that allowed us, poor mortals, to enjoy their works without spending a money we did not have. Digital era has only emphasized this trend. If people have to pay for downloading, then you get very rich, because you sell thousands or millions, at a vey low production cost. But if people can get it for free... Well, artists of old earned more money than they deserved, just because vinyls were cheap to produce, artists of today are on the contrary position. But as long as this world is based on competition instead of collaboration, these things are going to remain with us, with no easy solution good for everybody. | |
|
||
| 09-22-15 06:32pm - 3379 days | #8 | |
|
WeeWillyWinky (0)
Active User Posts: 243 Registered: Jun 03, '07 Location: Havasu City, AZ USA |
You're right, lk2fireone. The other avatar was done by an artist back at the inception of the forum when the artist agreed to make a unique avatar to personal specifications. I'm less an individual now than I was, I must say - more a member of what I might call a collective consciousness. Not that I don't celebrate individuality. I do, very ardently. In fact, I think what humanity has figured out, with the development of civilization, socialization, and progress, is that the best way to coexist as social animals is to exalt the individual. It sounds contradictory, but it's the only thing that works. The concept of individual rights, and the negative of that right, is what keeps us together. IMHO.  You know what I hate the most about selfish people? It's that they don't think enough about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!! | |
|
||
| 09-22-15 07:19pm - 3378 days | #9 | |
|
WeeWillyWinky (0)
Active User Posts: 243 Registered: Jun 03, '07 Location: Havasu City, AZ USA |
If I were an owner of a company that produced electronic content, such as ITC, for example, I *might* consider bumping up the monthly sub price — which has remained pretty much the same even though what they are offering has markedly increased in quality and quantity in a relatively short period of time: I'm seeing a dramatic change even from say 2010 until now — but that would be on principle only, and not profit-motivated. Since I have only very modest means now and don't run a business, I honestly don't know what I'd do in their situation. I'm not a greedy person, in fact quite the contrary, so most likely I'd say "shove" my principles and leave the sub price at what it is. In 2001 they were shooting in modest looking locations, and the models were usually attractive but often quite plain, even unattractive, at least by my admittedly finicky standards. But now, it's almost surreal. The 2015 scenes are set in places where I'd probably not even want to enter because they look so pristine, as well as opulent and ornate. And, the models are all stunners now, from tip to toe. They look unreal sometimes as well, like some kind of alien super human life form!  It seems apparent that ITC is making tons of money, so there's really no reason to raise the sub price. So, I guess I have to retract my "*might* consider bumping up the monthly sub price" I guess I'm old fashioned, but it bothers me that talented artists should be in the situation they're in now. I don't think they should be mega millionaires, but I think they should do well, because I know how hard it is, what effort it takes, to write lyrics and music, to compose songs, to record them, and to go through the whole process. I was in a band that recorded our own music for several years, and I've recorded much of my own music. It's NOT easy. In fact, making music is a great deal more difficult than the joe-job I currently do. It takes weeks, if not months, of work, to produce 40 minutes of music. And that goes double and triple - and so on - for artists that create complex music, played on real instruments. What I mean is that "intellectual property" is something that should be taken seriously, and I think there's a trend towards poo-pooing that whole concept which is unfair and just plain wrong for the artists among us - and it's especially wrong for those artists who are head and shoulders above the rest. You know what I hate the most about selfish people? It's that they don't think enough about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!! Edited on Sep 22, 2015, 07:24pm | |
|
||
| 09-22-15 07:35pm - 3378 days | #10 | |
|
WeeWillyWinky (0)
Active User Posts: 243 Registered: Jun 03, '07 Location: Havasu City, AZ USA |
Good post, good points.   You know what I hate the most about selfish people? It's that they don't think enough about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!! | |
|
||
| 1-10 of 10 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
