| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
badandy400 (0)
|
I must agree with this. I have seen this in too many other places too. A small make can actually be nice so you can tell where the pictures, or videos even go. I like to keep things sorted by site and some have no markings and a year after downloading the video I usually do not have the slightest clue where it goes. But, they should be small.
Many of the nicer sites have a very small marking that must be looked for at times. I really do not like the large ones either, they really should blend into the picture. Every one will know who's it was since it is still there, but should not take away from the picture. Too many times have we seen the best part covered by these marking!
|
05-04-08 02:56pm
Reply To Message
|
2
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #1 - badandy400 :
You quoted: "Too many time have we seen the best part covered by these markings!" Exactly!
If they just reduced the logo a bit, got rid of the yellow in the forty, and put it consistently near the bottom right ... or something ... I could live with that. But to put a huge watermark in a model's hair that's mutilation of the photographer's work. Sites like atk or Aunt Judy do it just about right.
|
05-04-08 03:19pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
badandy400 (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - messmer :
InFocus Girls, Nubiles, Zexy Teens, Xisty, Twistys, and others seem to have pretty small markings too.
I just checked out 40 somethings homepage, they dont even let you see a sample photo anywhere! From the outside of the site a person would never know that the watermarks are an issue.
|
05-04-08 04:59pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #3 - badandy400 :
I'm forewarned because I've seen whole sets of theirs posted on the Usenet on occasion but no one will ever be able to accuse me of piracy or theft because I wouldn't download their pictures if my life depended on it (small exaggeration). If they are samples seeded by them in order to draw attention to their site they are not going to attract anyone who is a fan of pictures. If they made their markings smaller I would subscribe. The models are fine.
|
05-05-08 09:05am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
badandy400 (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - messmer :
I wouldn't accuse you either way, but we will not get into my views on the laws of piracy. Most of us have used something to see pictures without paying for them. No different than going to a friend's house and looking through their collection. Can be a good way to see who you want to subscribe to. No different than flipping through a magazine at the store before deciding to buy it.
Here is one for you. If a person goes into a store that sells road maps and get directions from the clerk, did the person steal from the store?
|
05-05-08 12:14pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #5 - badandy400 :
Thanks, you made me feel better about the times I did look at a "friend's" pictures on the usenet. :-) And it is absolutely true that quite frequently the looking leads to a subscription. It has in my case, with three separate pay sites. I saw some sets and thought: I want 'em all! As to asking directions of a store owner who sells maps. That's despicable. The man loses a sale, the company who prints the maps loses. In the future I will never ask for directions again but buy a map instead. :-) It's only fair. But, come to think of it, the whole thing is theoretical: real men don't ask for directions!!!
|
05-05-08 01:09pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
badandy400 (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - messmer :
Yes how true, many men do not. On the other hand, does a map company "own" directions? Of course not because you could also go to Burger King and ask someone that is eating and get the same directions. It really comes down to would you have bought the map if the clerk could not answer you, or would you have simply ask someone else. However, the store clerk could have simply said to buy a map, but he chose not to. Cup half full or empty I guess.
If you look at a picture that you NEVER had the intention to buy than the photographer really has lost nothing if you look at it at your friends house because you were not going to buy it regardless. It does not cost the photographer money for each time a friend looks at another friends collection. Of course, a person should not copy their friend's collection, unless of course they want to pay a membership fee at least.
On that, it can be seen that password cracking sites are counterproductive to the porn community because even though a person may never had intended to pay for the pictures he is looking at, the owner still had to pay the bandwidth usage it took to download them. This means that the owner would never had mad any money off of you but he still had to pay for you to be able to look at them.
Gee, now I feel bad myself for using that password crack site while back. Kicking my own ass!
|
05-05-08 04:07pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #7 - badandy400 :
I feel naive because I never tied the binaries that are offered on the usenet to cracking passwords. It's so obvious yet I really believed it was subscribers wanting to share their favorite models with others. How dumb can you get!
|
05-06-08 08:22am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
badandy400 (0)
|
REPLY TO #8 - messmer :
Well. That could be a little of both. many people put stuff on there just to share with others and other people put stuff on their that they download. There is a good amount of content that is okay to be there, but there is also a lot of content that was bought by someone then posted for others to download for free, thus screwing the site owners and the rest of us who are paying the premium price. Usenet offers a way to steal content from websites with out ever touching the site.
I was mostly referring to websites that post hacked user names and password for everyone to use. Unlike usenet, this method still required the owners to pay for the bandwidth with out being able to collect any membership fees.
|
05-07-08 09:38pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #9 - badandy400 :
Call me naive but I didn't realize that websites like that existed. I don't move in those circles. :-) As to your remarks re. the usenet, yes, I can see how that might be hurtful to the web owners but only in cases where people massively flood the material. In my case, and I'm sure in the case of many others, the odd set published on the usenet gave me a better idea on what a site's material was all about than their "tours" and helped me to make up my mind to subscribe ... or not in the case of 40something.
|
05-08-08 07:47am
Reply To Message
|
11
|
badandy400 (0)
|
REPLY TO #10 - messmer :
Well yes certainly. That works a lot like the Thumbnail Galleries. But I have also seen a good bit of exclusive content their as well.
Yup, password sites exist! This is why there is many sites that have download limits and make you sigh in ever hour or so.
|
05-08-08 09:11am
Reply To Message
|
12
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #11 - badandy400 :
Just curious: do people actually subscribe to sites like that or are their urls sort of passed around by word of mouth by hackers?
|
05-08-08 09:21am
Reply To Message
|
13
|
badandy400 (0)
|
REPLY TO #12 - messmer :
I am sure sure there are some that must be paid for. But if you google them yo can find them. Most of the time there is not any decent sites on these listing anyway, most of the higher grade sites have ways of preventing numerous IPs from signing in under the same user name
|
05-08-08 10:11am
Reply To Message
|
