|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Sites that feature download limits, streaming only etc. |
| 1-28 of 28 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 01-03-12 12:16pm - 4737 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Sites that feature download limits, streaming only etc. I thought this might be a good thread to allow PUs to list sites they run across that either no longer allow downloads and have become streaming only, allow downloads for a limited time only, or those who have imposed download limits. I shall start with Reality Kings whose download limit is now 10 GBs a day. Thanks rearadmiral and others for bringing this to my attention. I was about to re-subscribe. I just looked at some of my older RK HD files and they average 3 GBs. At that size it wouldn't take long to reach the limit. One of my formerly favorite sites 50plus MILFS/60plus MILFs also changed by making the downloads of their latest updates possible for a limited time only, with no chance to download anything older. Any others? Help us save money and send a message to the web owners at the same time by sharing your bad experiences. P.S. I know we have a comments section for that on each individual site's page but not everyone who got burned will leave a message so consider this an added extra for the smart consumer .. if that's okay with Khan. | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 12:26pm - 4737 days | #2 | |
|
Marcus (0)
Active User Posts: 52 Registered: Dec 31, '11 Location: London |
Kudos to Tia Ling who now allows downloads on her website. No kudos to Anna Angel who does not allow you to download videos or even photos. Photos are sliced into mosaics so if you dare right-click-save an image, you get just a 100px square of the part of the image you right-clicked on. I would rarely join a website where you can't save videos. I would never join a website where you can't download pictures. I know pirates force webmaster's to take measures against piracy, but if it puts genuine members off joining, then surely it just makes matters worse. | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 01:42pm - 4737 days | #3 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Thanks, Marcus. You did some of us a favour by not only pointing out a site's flaws but also a site's improvements (Tia Ling.) As to the rest of your post: I see your remarks and raise them to, "I would NEVER join a web site where you can't save videos. I would never join a web site where you can't download pictures." And a warm welcome to this forum! | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 01:54pm - 4737 days | #4 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster  Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
I think currently most sites are experimenting with a wide variety of ways of stopping piracy. Sadly most, if not all, methods seem to impact the experience in some way for the non-pirate users. It's a bit of a catch 22 situation. The choice seems to be adapt and lose customers or don't adapt and lose out to the pirates. Both routes can destroy a site. My experience is that most users do not download photosets because they find it too tedious. Currently I advertise the ability to download content as a feature, but I am very aware that there is a risk in that for me. Just curious, what anti-piracy methods do you approve of? Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 02:11pm - 4737 days | #5 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I can't think of any, Ed. Honestly. Except that I wish that people would get away from the idea that if it's on the Internet it should be free! I think those who have the savvy will grab whatever they want from a site no matter what steps that site might take but I might be wrong in this. I just know that I see no value in joining a site where I cannot download and watch the contents at my convenience. I see a purpose in streaming only for hand held devices, maybe web owners concerned about having their contents stolen will eventually switch to phones and pads only and leave those of us with PCs high and dry. Only the future will tell. As to pictures, I am a pictures fan and most of the sites I have subscribed to offer their sets in zipped format, so there's nothing tedious about that for me. My personal opinion is that the site owners shoot themselves in the foot by becoming too protectionist and that their bottom line will reflect it down the road unless, see above, they switch completely to hand held where downloads are neither possible nor expected. | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 02:27pm - 4737 days | #6 | |
|
Marcus (0)
Active User Posts: 52 Registered: Dec 31, '11 Location: London |
Thank you for the welcome  Yeah, I'm borderline 'never' too - I think what sways it either way is how good the rest of the content is. If it's mainly a photo website with a few videos, I can deal with it, but the other way round? Honestly, I would probably never join again. Good question Ed2009 about what anti-piracy measures. I think REASONABLE download limits are OK. Stopping members downloading more than one video at a time I think is OK. I guess those are easy for me to say because I'm not a huge downloader or collector and don't download literally every video etc. | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 02:45pm - 4737 days | #7 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Ed, I might get tarred and feathered for saying this, and it might even make matters worse, but I recall an interview with a lawyer in the U.S. who had been retained by the guy who owns the Lightspeed sites to go after pirates and was having some success. That's not my suggestion, though I wish it happened more. In the interview the lawyer said that mainstream Hollywood has pretty much given up on fighting piracy. Some people will steal, and most of us recognize that people who create a product expect to be fairly paid for that. The lawyer said that Hollywood now just builds the cost of piracy in to the pricing model. Now I realize that the economies of scale are vastly different, but is raising the price of porn a bit out of the question? As an aside, my recollection of the interview is that the interviewer (a popular national radio guy in Canada) accidentally referred to Mr. Lightspeed as "Lightyear." TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!!! | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 02:48pm - 4737 days | #8 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
At TBP they flag certain elements on sites as a warning so prospective members can make an informed decision. This includes having a limited trial, DRM and pre-checked cross-sells. Would the fine folks who run that site consider including limits as a flagged concern when it is known and verified? | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 03:01pm - 4737 days | #9 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
The problem I see with that is that users do not agree on what download limits are acceptable. See Poll: What download limit is acceptable? With that said ... When the site has known download limits (stated in terms, etc) we do list it in the site facts. Yet another reason to always check the site facts before joining. P.S. (added later) ... BTW, we're going to re-run that poll to see how current feelings are running. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson Edited on Jan 03, 2012, 06:29pm | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 05:27pm - 4737 days | #10 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Fair play, Khan. Lately I've been forcing myself to read every word written about a site both here and at TBP. It save some nasty surprises. And I agree that conceptually we can all agree that download limits may be bad, we might differ on what is acceptable. 10GB per day on a site with 3+GB HD files isn't acceptable, but 10GB a day on a picture site might be. | |
|
||
| 01-03-12 11:07pm - 4737 days | #11 | |||
|
JosiahE (0)
Active User Posts: 32 Registered: Oct 17, '11 Location: Australia |
LOL Webmasters are a bunch of idiots then, All the porn sites I've joined are because i saw and liked their content which i downloaded from torrent sites. Also, Sapphic Erotica has a 30GB daily download limit, and if you go over it, they lock you out for 24 hours.
If a site ever did that, i wouldn't join. Download limits aren't too bad as long as they're a reasonable limit like 30-50GB
I'm very different to you, if i like a site, i'll probably siterip it. My porn collection this far is like 3TB Edited on Jan 03, 2012, 11:19pm | |||
|
||||
| 01-04-12 09:47am - 4736 days | #12 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
This is exactly how I feel rearadmiral. 10GB on a picture site would be more than sufficient and I don't think anyone except a site ripper would complain. However after checking my RK HD files again and seeing all of them weigh in at 3.3 GBs each then 10GB is a joke. | |
|
||
| 01-04-12 09:50am - 4736 days | #13 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Khan, I wonder if you re-run that poll if you couldn't have two successive ones: one for videos and one for pictures. It would give everyone a clearer picture. As I just wrote to rearadmiral, 10GB a day on a picture site would be completely acceptable, on a video site with HD content .. not! | |
|
||
| 01-04-12 10:00am - 4736 days | #14 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Actually, as much as I am opposed to torrents and pirating you might have a point. I think the loss to the sites is often minimized by the advertising value of the material that is posted for free. I well remember from my usenet days how I was first led to ATK and then to Abby Winters because of the picture sets I found in newsgroups. I liked them but I wanted more, so I subscribed. I had never heard of Porn review sites at that time until AW suggested TBP and I've been happily here ever since, and now get a good look at what sites have to offer through PU. | |
|
||
| 01-04-12 10:16am - 4736 days | #15 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I think the middle ground of the compromise is the best way to get through this. Excessive anti-pirating measures are definitely counterproductive & I find steaming only sites frustrating, so seldom if ever join. Sites not providing zip files for photos will get a miss.  As a photo phreak I am not going to go back to the 1990s and click and save photos one by one!  As regards download limits, yes, I can see the point of that as it prevents years' worth of expensive material being downloaded in a matter of hours. I think indescriminate site ripping is counterproductive, both for the user who has to sift through the material later & certainly for the producers who will lose out substantially. To Webmanagers,I say take reasonable measures & look at the residual loss as a form of advertising. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 01-04-12 10:24am - 4736 days | #16 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I never did understand the desire to rip a whole site. Why would anyone want to do that? I've always ONLY downloaded material that gave me a certain erotic kick and have yet to find a site that has more than maybe 5 percent of material I really like ... if that much! I think every site I have ever subscribed to would tell you that my downloads are very modest after the first couple of days of enthusiasm when I quite naturally find a lot to like because of a large archive. | |
|
||
| 01-04-12 10:27am - 4736 days | #17 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
But honestly, are most sites exclusively one or the other? If you really think you have a better approach to the poll then by all means, make a submission (or two) and if they look like a better approach, I'll pull the original. I fear, however, that since most sites aren't one or the other, trying to divide them in a poll question would (by its nature) leave out the majority of the existing adult sites) Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 01-04-12 10:34am - 4736 days | #18 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Going a little off topic, as I have said before, IMO very few websites do both video & still photos well. Most are better at one or the other format. Time was no site had any video. As it became technically viable more sites tried it out. Now you get quite a few sites that do not feature stills at all. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 01-04-12 10:42am - 4736 days | #19 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
What if the poll was worded: "Do you object to unrealistic download limits (like 10GB a day) when it comes to mixed video/picture sites, who carry most of their new videos in HD format?"  Would that be manipulative? Never mind, I know the answer already. I guess you are right, Khan. I was going by my preferences. For some reason,on mostly pictures sites I usually ignore the majority of the videos, while on mostly video sites I usually ignore the pictures. Why I do this, I dunno! See my signature. | |
|
||
| 01-04-12 11:14am - 4736 days | #20 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Here is a reason why mainstream Hollywood may have given up fighting piracy. Here is the list of top torrented movies in 2011 and what they made at the box office. 1."Fast Five," 9.26 millions downloads. Made 626 millions at the box office 2."The Hangover II," 8.84 million. made 581 millions. 3."Thor," 8.33 million. made 449 millions. 4."Source Code," 7.91 million. 123 millions. 5."I Am Number Four," 7.67 million. 144 millions. 6."Sucker Punch," 7.2 million. 89 millions. 7."127 Hours," 6.91 million. 60 millions. 8."Rango," 6.48 million. 245 millions. 9."The King's Speech," 6.25 million. 414 millions 10."Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2," 6.03 million. 1.3 billions. Now you tell me why a studio would bother spending large amounts of money on lawyers and court time when only one movie from the above list lost money? The one I'm refering to is Sucker Punch that cost 82 millions to make and cost many millions in advertising so it never made any money at the box office and I suspect it didn't make all that much on the dvd market but it was considered a major let down by fans and critics so the pirating probably had less to do with it's failure than the fact that it was a bad movie. All the other movies made a profit at the box office and some of them made a shitload of money. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 01-04-12 06:23pm - 4736 days | #21 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Why anyone would steal -- let alone pay for -- most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood is beyond me. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 01-05-12 12:13am - 4736 days | #22 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
Ed, unfortunately I think aside from DL limits, most anti-piracy measures are easy to circumvent, so I am not sure why sites bother. If I had to choose, I would prefer DRM that is download-to-own like iTunes used to use. I know most hate it, but I never thought it was that big of a deal if handled correctly. Not DRM like most sites used to use that required a license refresh every few days (thus requiring a continuous membership). The reality is, it will likely end up pirated somehow anyway, even if you go to streaming only. I would just put a tasteful watermark on it and hope any pirating just works as advertising. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited. | |
|
||
| 01-05-12 07:46am - 4735 days | #23 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
messmer, yeah, that wording might not work so well. However, when the poll runs you'll notice it now has an "other" option which opens the door for you to add a reply addressing your pic-vs-vid issue. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 01-05-12 08:10am - 4735 days | #24 | |
|
Denner (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,217 Registered: Mar 03, '07 Location: Denmark |
This is a late input in the thread, but back to the start: I'd never join a site with streaming only or download limit of any kind - and I can normally see that at TBP - though you really have to look for it. And I normally do - and TBP has that info. Only missed one: Babespotting.tv - and made protests here/ comments. And, jeeeez, they changed it - with now downloads. I really do not seen what more TBP can do, than just state those facts. But I'm certainly with messmer - get the warnings out at comments/reviews/threads ect.... "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle" | |
|
||
| 01-05-12 01:16pm - 4735 days | #25 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Thanks, Khan. Consider one "other" added in advance. | |
|
||
| 01-06-12 03:56am - 4734 days | #26 | |
|
SimonSubAms (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 24 Registered: Mar 02, '07 Location: UK |
Some people prefer pictures, some people prefer videos. Some people prefer streaming, some prefer download. I've found the best way is to offer as many options as possible with the downloads being the best quality, bigger file sizes. I've recently had webmasters contacting me asking me to take down my downloads and go streaming only and that if everyone sticks together it will stop piracy and bring back sales. I told them in no uncertain terms that I thought it was the most stupid idea I'd heard to date. There's nothing worse for business than putting stupid restrictions on legitimate, paying users. http://www.suburbanamateurs.com/freeview/ | |
|
||
| 01-06-12 07:43am - 4734 days | #27 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Agreed. If you offer less for the money, medium term that probably means a lot less customers.  Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 01-06-12 10:12am - 4734 days | #28 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
You are right, Simon. That is the stupidest idea imaginable. People won't stick around with an "Oh, well, at least we still have streaming!" Only the small handful who might enjoy "streaming only" will do so. The rest of us are gone! In my case, guaranteed.  | |
|
||
| 1-28 of 28 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
