Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Courts The Internet Entertainment News Your Rights Online

Porn Maker Sues 7,000+ For Copyright Infringement 374

Posted by Soulskill
from the enjoy-explaining-that-letter dept.
This summer, we discussed news that the producers of The Hurt Locker had sued 5,000 people for sharing the movie over BitTorrent. Reader suraj.sun writes with word that a porn company is now following suit, filing a complaint targeting 7,098 people for illegally sharing one of their films. Quoting: "Axel Braun Productions filed the complaint Friday in US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, alleging that the defendants illegally shared the adult film Batman XXX: A Porn Parody. The film was written and directed by Axel Braun and distributed by Vivid Entertainment, one of the country's best known porn studios. ... '**** 'em all,' Braun told Xbiz. 'People don't realize that when you pirate a movie it hurts all of the people who work very hard to get it produced — from the cast to the production assistants to the makeup artists. So we are going after every one of them who pirates our content.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Porn Maker Sues 7,000+ For Copyright Infringement

Comments Filter:
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:21AM (#34152312)

    I havent seen this "film". I'll have to download it and check it out now. Thanks.

    I wonder why its so popular? I never thought to myself, "gee, I'd really like to fuck that girl... AS BATMAN!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gustgr (695173)

      The interesting thing about this flick is that it actually has a history -- weak as it may be, I've seen worse in regular movies. The DVD even includes a 30 minutes long non-porn version of the movie in which all the porn scenes have been cut off.

      This non-porn version is probably just a reordering of the DVD chapters by excluding the porn chapters, but nonetheless it's pretty interesting, it really captures the spirits of the original series.

      • by rtb61 (674572) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:23AM (#34152538) Homepage

        Now technically as the movie can not demonstrate the ability to "promote the useful arts and sciences" under law it is not entitled to copyright protection. So for those who can stand the embarrassment of public admitting sharing that film, there is always a US constitutional challenge, bonus if you win you will strip the movie of it's copyright protection and challenge the whole MPA*/RIA* industry. What makes it interesting is that it will all be from a definitively conservative basis, it would be interesting to watch Republicans publicly attempt to defend copyright protections for pornography.

        • by fishexe (168879)

          Now technically as the movie can not demonstrate the ability to "promote the useful arts and sciences" under law it is not entitled to copyright protection. So for those who can stand the embarrassment of public admitting sharing that film, there is always a US constitutional challenge...

          Unfortunately, the copyright clause of the US constitution has been ignored by all courts for decades. Especially the whole "for limited times" bit.

        • by kimvette (919543)

          Now technically as the movie can not demonstrate the ability to "promote the useful arts and sciences" under law it is not entitled to copyright protection.

          The pr0n makers would them make the claim that it is useful for helping men "get it up" so they can service their wives. It's a weak argument but would likely be seen as legitimate. IMHO porn could be considered more "useful" than the latest remakes coming out of mainstream Hollywood.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by KDR_11k (778916)

            The reason porn cannot be sold to minors is that it is considered worthless and thus not protected by the first amendment. Saying that it does have merit would mean it would need first amendment protections as well and the government would no longer be allowed to prevent stores from selling porn to minors.

            • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @08:03AM (#34153376) Homepage

              "The reason porn cannot be sold to minors is that it is considered worthless and thus not protected by the first amendment."

              The reason porn can be sold at all is be cause it is protected by the First Amendment. If it was not protected, then it couldn't be sold to anyone. The fact that it cannot be sold to minors is due to a specific exception to said free speech statutes. In fact, a recent case even suggests that the mere appearance of depicting minors, when they are in fact adults, may be protected as well: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California [wikipedia.org])

              "In the recent Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case, however, the Court held that sexually explicit material that appears to depict minors might be constitutionally protected."

        • by gnasher719 (869701) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @06:06AM (#34152978)

          Now technically as the movie can not demonstrate the ability to "promote the useful arts and sciences" under law it is not entitled to copyright protection.

          Non sequitur. You are talking about the motivation for copyright law. A work can be protected by copyright law without promoting the goals of copyright law.

        • It's interesting that you assume that it would be Republicans and conservatives trying to enforce copyrights. I'll grant that most Republicans and conservatives dislike the spread of immorality, but I tend to think of the copyright crowd as the Democrats. Republicans are more pro business (many are free market, though), so I can see your confusion. Democrats are about big government and want congress to control everything from what we eat to what we believe. Also, at least here in th U.S., the big media com

          • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @07:41AM (#34153286)
            You're both right. Republicans, Democrats... they fight each other viciously on many issues, but this isn't one of them. When it comes to copyright, their policies are essentially identical: Do what the lobbyists ask.
            If confronted with the issue of porn copyrights, politicians of either side would just clam up and change the subject. They don't want to offend the social conservatives by appearing to support porn (Espicially the republicans, who are very dependant on that group), but they also don't want to raise the profile of copyright as an issue or risk upsetting the campaign contributors. So they'll just dodge the issue.
        • by vlad30 (44644)

          it would be interesting to watch Republicans publicly attempt to defend copyright protections for pornography.

          I see the following being said in a dark alley to republicans and democrats alike Hmm senator I'm sure you will support this copyright on porn or this clip of you and Mrs DDelicious might get onto the internet.

          I think they will get lots of support from washington and anywhere else they need it

    • by fishexe (168879) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:37AM (#34152578) Homepage

      I wonder why its so popular? I never thought to myself, "gee, I'd really like to fuck that girl... AS BATMAN!"

      What the fuck are you doing on Slashdot? Clearly you don't belong here.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This whole suit smells like a viral marketing stunt to me.

  • Careful... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:22AM (#34152316)
    they're cuming after you.
  • I agree (Score:5, Funny)

    by should_be_linear (779431) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:23AM (#34152318)
    'People don't realize that when you pirate a movie it hurts all of the people who work very hard to get it produced'
    • Re:I agree (Score:5, Funny)

      by SpeedyDX (1014595) <[speedyphoenix] [at] [gmail.com]> on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:38AM (#34152368)

      Yeah! Those pirates are going down! They better look for legal protection and make sure their defence doesn't have any holes. Simply arguing that someone took advantage and had backdoor access to your wifi won't cut it. Braun is acting as a missionary for the rest of the porn industry to spread the seeds of change and finally rid it of piracy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by EdIII (1114411)

        You think you are funny don't you?

        This is serious . Those poor fluffers [urbandictionary.com] working on the set did not get paid because of these acts of pornographic piracy.....

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Arancaytar (966377)

        So what you're saying is that those pirates are totally fucked.

  • by Phroggy (441) <slashdot3@nOSPam.phroggy.com> on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:23AM (#34152322) Homepage

    Is DC Comics getting royalties from this film?

  • Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dontPanik (1296779) <ndeselms@@@gmail...com> on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:32AM (#34152346)
    You know what? Good for the porn company.
    It's messed up that the EFF thinks that it's not okay to sue thousands of people at once. In my eyes, it seems like that's the best way to deal with it.
    I mean, piracy is messed up. I pirate things, but I know that pirating things doesn't help the people that create it. Music, movies, books, porn, no matter what you are pirating it. The only way to sensibly deal with this in court is to deal with everyone who's committing the "crime" (I say crime in quotations because I'm not going to say if piracy is really a crime).
    So I say good job porn makers. You guys are getting shafted, and it is messed up.
    • Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:41AM (#34152380)

      These porn guys are suing people for infringing "their" copyright. (I say their in quotations because the porn company is infringing on DC Comics copyright.)

      Ironic?

      • by Spad (470073)

        No they're not, parody is one of the clearly defined exceptions in copyright law.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDbj1X2V7eM

    From the trailer, the costumes and the acting, may actually be above the 1960s TV Batman which it is clearly patterned after.

  • by Soulfarmer (607565) * on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:37AM (#34152360) Homepage Journal
    "'People don't realize that when you pirate a movie it hurts all of the people who work very hard to get it produced &mdash; from the cast to the production assistants to the makeup artists. So we are going after every one of them who pirates our content."

    No, it doesn't hurt you. Either I "preview" said film via torrent, maybe, or I don't see it at all. Now, please tell me where is the loss of sale? Oh, hurts.. well maybe that.
    • by rolfwind (528248) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @02:53AM (#34152422)

      Can we say that not every download is a loss of sale, but some losses of sale can be attributed to downloading?

      Just because the RIAA/MPAA presents cases in black and white, doesn't mean we have to. It's harder to make them look ridiculous with their huge fines if we're not grounded in reality either and pretend d/l music/movies is so good that it helps children in Africa heal from AIDS and prolongs unicorn marriages.

      Maybe then it would help get saner copyright laws that isn't tilted towards corporate insanity.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by broken_chaos (1188549)

        Can we say that not every download is a loss of sale, but some losses of sale can be attributed to downloading?

        With porn, it is almost entirely a 'black and white' situation -- far more so than even mainstream media, where a huge portion would be, at best, lost rentals. If an average person decides to not download a specific porn title, would they proceed to: a) walk to their local porn shop and purchase that movie, or b) download a different pornographic movie/image (such as a non-studio 'production')? I'd almost be willing to stake my life on 'b' being true the vast majority of the time.

        Speaking of corporate insan

        • by rolfwind (528248) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:40AM (#34152588)

          With porn, it is almost entirely a 'black and white' situation -- far more so than even mainstream media, where a huge portion would be, at best, lost rentals. If an average person decides to not download a specific porn title, would they proceed to: a) walk to their local porn shop and purchase that movie, or b) download a different pornographic movie/image (such as a non-studio 'production')? I'd almost be willing to stake my life on 'b' being true the vast majority of the time.

          Okay, let's take a different situation. Let's say you are an electrical customer and you decide to shower twice a day and so have that many changes of clothing - meaning twice as many loads in both the washer and the dryer as before. Will your single lifestlye choice result in a new power plant being built? Likely not. But what is 10 million people follow suit in similiar energy sucking choices? Maybe so, then.

          It's not an analogy, I'm just trying to illustrate cumulative effects.

          It's unlikely that most people are searching for any specific porn title. It's not the nature of this beast, like most movie genres. But the free sharing/uploading/downloading of porn probably has a very real effect on consumers.

          Maybe they wouldn't have gone into the store to buy it, but perhaps if they couldn't find the quantity they wanted freely online, they would have to take out a subscription to a site that licensed the works. And in the end, every producer is hit, because subscriptions are down, and the value in licensing every work out there goes down cumulatively as well. I'm sure Hotel PPV is suffering the same way among the younger, computer savvy crowd.

          • I'd have thought Porn was closer to news. Some people might be willing to pay for the times online but most will just find a free alternative.

             

          • but perhaps if they couldn't find the quantity they wanted freely online

            Are you ignoring the immense amounts of copyright free and legal porn online or have you just never been outside Google safe-search?

            If, all of a sudden, it were absolutely impossible to get copyrighted porn without paying for it, then there would be absolutely zero impact on the amount of porn sold. Anyone who isn't already paying for porn would simply move on to the next free offering, this time noncopyrighted.

      • by fishexe (168879)

        It's harder to make them look ridiculous with their huge fines if we're not grounded in reality either and pretend d/l music/movies is so good that it helps children in Africa heal from AIDS and prolongs unicorn marriages.

        Wait...you mean it doesn't? Shit, what was I torrenting 20,000 gigs of unicorn hentai for then?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jugalator (259273)

        Can we say that not every download is a loss of sale, but some losses of sale can be attributed to downloading?

        Yes, and some gains in sales from the added recognition and exposure from downloads being available.

        How these two weigh up each other or not is matter of the current debate.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SuricouRaven (1897204)
        The most profitable film ever, by just about any metric (disc sales, box office, forign or domestic markets), is Avatar. It was released recently, during the time when internet movie piracy may be at it's greatest peak. Further, it's aimed squarely at the optimum pirate demographic: Geeks. It's a sci-fi film with interesting technology and an alien world. If any film could be seriously hurt by piracy, it would be Avatar. Yet it went on to achieve huge financial success.

        I imagine the losses due to piracy
    • by rudy_wayne (414635) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:33AM (#34152564)

      Either I "preview" said film via torrent, maybe, or I don't see it at all. Now, please tell me where is the loss of sale?

      Which cuts directly to the real bullshit of the RIAA/MPAA's arguments. They are convinced that if they could just get tougher laws, more DRM and punishments straight out of the middle ages, then all their troubles would go away and they would make even more money than they do now.

      Unfortunately:

      1. There is no content so amazingly wonderful that I absolutely have to have it.
      2. There is a significant number of people who will never buy your product, at any price. If they can't get it for free, or really really cheap, then they will simply do without it (see point 1)
      3. Someone "pirates" your movie -- you get no money. People are afraid of getting sued for downloading it so they say "fuck it" and move on to something else (see point 2) in which case -- you get no money.

      • by jamesh (87723)

        more DRM and punishments straight out of the middle ages

        There should be a reasonableness test for some of the punishments they hand out. Nobody on earth (aside from lawyers and RIAA execs) would think that a million dollar fine for a single mum distributing movies only with no profit for herself is reasonable, regardless of what the copyright 'per incident' fines might be.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by thegarbz (1787294)

        1. There is no content so amazingly wonderful that I absolutely have to have it.

        Clearly you have not yet seen this film :-)

      • by hitmark (640295)

        For some reason, i had a thought that one could replace the media corporations with any other economic entity in a monopoly position.

        In the end it all seems to boil down to something out of robin hood, except in this case the merry men use computer rather then bow and quarterstaff.

    • by mark-t (151149)

      There is no loss of sale. There is loss of exclusivity on the right to copy, since by definition, exclusive means that nobody else is supposed to be doing it. Everybody else is supposed to need permission.

      Whether or not the loss of something intangible like "exclusivity" amounts to any hurt is wholly subjective, but we know where people who feel similarly about it to this filmmaker sit on that issue.

  • Justifying piracy. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Fellow pirates,

    I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am o

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      2/10, tl;dr.

    • by orbweaver (1936012) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @05:37AM (#34152894)
      How many times does it have to be pointed out: Slashdot is not a single person.

      But feel free to karma whore by blatantly ignoring this point which has been raised many times before in response to posts like yours. It seems that attacking the mythical "Slashdot group think" is an easy way to get a +5 Insightful on almost any story these days.
      • by ScentCone (795499) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @10:05AM (#34153938)
        It seems that attacking the mythical "Slashdot group think" is an easy way to get a +5 Insightful on almost any story these days.

        You mean kind of like karma whoring by trotting out the "The Slashdot Groupthink Meme Is False" meme? The only reason you're being so defensive is because he's actually dead on. The editorial slant at slashdot, and the large majority of the comments surrounding such issues, are just as he satirically describes them. And, of course, you know that, or you wouldn't be so prickly about it.

        You are technically correct (since I'm not a leech, or piracy advocate either), but you know he's actually correct, in practical terms, when it comes to the culture that rules slashdot and its ratings system.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770)

        May I inquire how you might "karma whore" as an Anonymous Coward? It is my understanding that it generally involves appealing to the slashdot groupthink for the purpose of obtaining karma that may later be used to post various forms of unpopular posts starting at high moderation (aka "burn karma") or gain moderator points. As ACs may not gather karma, I submit that no AC may engage in this practice though they may parttake in "trolling". And by responding, you lost.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ziekheid (1427027)

      Only globally read that but I think I agree. I'm tired of the hypocrites trying to justify piracy.
      I'm a pirate, have been for many years, and if I get a fine, fine. I'll deal with it. I knew I was doing something wrong when I started and I don't go around acting like I have the RIGHT to download copyrighted content.
      It's not a right, it's a privilege. Without trying to sound too elitist; the oldskool sceners know what I'm talking about.

    • by DiamondGeezer (872237) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @05:48AM (#34152920) Homepage
      Slashdot isn't a groupthink collective. You absolutely hit the nail on the head and I'm sure there are many Slashdotters nodding their heads in agreement.
    • by trifish (826353)

      It's a pity you posted this as Anonymous Coward. I'm sure lots of people would have wanted to add you to their friends list. Because this was one of the most well written posts I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. Thanks for taking the time to write it and thanks to the mods who modded it up, and not down (as one would have expected).

    • This is acceptable if we weren't talking about porn. Unfortunately, we are.

      IIRC and I don't know if it's still valid, italian legislation didn't permit pornographic material to enjoy the same level of protection of normal works.

      Initially I thought it was a catholic thing, and it might well be. But think about the implications.

      Now it has likely become a normal profession but for years a porn star was a model or a pretty girl "recruited" by very glamourous guys very similar to the pimps that first make innoce

    • by Paradise Pete (33184) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @06:32AM (#34153074) Journal

      Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code.

      If you can't see the obvious difference between making an unauthorized copy of something and presenting someone else's work as your own then I can understand why copyright law is so screwed up.

    • by turing_m (1030530)
      You pick an article about... porn production to try and give slashdot readers a guilt trip over piracy? Let's me get this straight, you want me to feel sorry for those who would convince someone's impressionable young daughter into having sex for money (aka prostitution), which is bad enough in and of itself, but also involves publishing almost certainly embarrassing images of herself onto the net where it shall live forever more.

      So what is more ethical? Refusing to put money into the hands of porn produc

    • Great post. One of the best I've read. I ask your permission to link to it in my sig. It will come in handy in many future Slashdot discussions.

    • Fellow pirates,

      I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty.

      Hi there AC and Successful Troll, how's it going? This is a hell of a thread you've got here. Congraturation!

      Your (yes I know it's plagiarized) post here reminds me a lot of Jonathon Swift's Modest Proposal. Just a nit pick, it is just a touch whinier and less smooth and deadly, but you know if the original you've carped needs some spackle us Pirates won't despise you for adding a little bit of effort to make it a mashup, especially if it's more effective. Nonetheless this was plenty effective, people falli

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by petrus4 (213815)

      Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take. I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.

      Whether or not I agree with you here, depends on what you're advocating. If you want individual artists to get paid for what they do, I have no argument. If you think I should be giving the *AA themselves money, on the other hand, we're likely to have a problem. ;)

      I don't b

  • Okay, the TFA says "Axel Braun" "wrote" the porno.

    Seriously? People "write" pornos? They already have no fucking plot to begin with, so what the hell does a "porn writer" actually "write"?

    Hell, I think a more fitting term would be "choreographer" considering the kinds of physical activities that go into these productions.
    • Re:Wait... what? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by compro01 (777531) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:03AM (#34152468)

      There is a plot. Almost always a mindlessly superficial plot which people ignore and wish wasn't getting in the way, but is included to get around the Miller test [wikipedia.org], but it is a plot.

      • by Lloyd_Bryant (73136) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @05:08AM (#34152792)

        There is a plot. Almost always a mindlessly superficial plot which people ignore and wish wasn't getting in the way, but is included to get around the Miller test, but it is a plot.

        Off topic, but I ROFLed after reading that link - something called the "Three Prong Obscenity Test" sounds more like a porn quality control standard than a legal doctrine :)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Obviously, you're not a connoisseur of porn. You've been jerking off to plotless clips, but you're completely unaware of the vast universe of porn with plot. Go forth and explore this new world which has been opened unto you, like a giant pussy.

  • FTFS: "alleging that the defendants illegally shared"

    Is it just me or does the the phrase "illegal sharing" strike anyone else as odd?
  • Side note (Score:5, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:09AM (#34152484)

    '**** 'em all,' Braun told Xbiz.

    Interestingly, this statement also describes the main plot line of Batman XXX: A Porn Parody.

  • Wow... (Score:5, Funny)

    by shentino (1139071) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:13AM (#34152504)

    These guys can be real dicks.

  • by fishexe (168879) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @03:35AM (#34152568) Homepage
    When do we get to the part where Axel Braun gets sued for using the trademarked name Batman for a porn movie?
  • My confession (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I am a porn star. Well, rather, I was an extra in a porn movie. I was the slightly tubby Asian dude sitting in a club with a naked chick dancing in front of me. No pay for the part, but I did get to see some naked chick dancing in front of me. Oh yeah, then she ...umm... fornicated with some redneck looking dude. Then another. Then another. Why was I there? I was a computer consultant at the time. My job was to setup a video server so that the naked chick could be broadcast all over the world. The ow

  • by stimpleton (732392) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @04:24AM (#34152694)
    Pornography and its consumer's behaviors are changing, and traditionalists like Axel Braun and Vivid entertainment are worried. Their style of film is declining. In the 90's it was Porn star actresses and a fairly small pool it was too. There were plots, stories, romance.

    Only now in the last 5-10 years have producers realized that the market wants none of this. Guys (as consumers) want a new girl each in each scene and subsequent film. Porn Stars are now only tolerated because they have some special trick.

    And its changing still again, where people arent subscribing to the main stream "porn Pros" but to niche amateurs sites and marketers. An example is the "dogging" films (women engaging in sex at car parks etc), which originated in Britain. A guy in Ohio has picked up this phenomonon. His DVD's are selling very well thank you. And the old Skool pornographers don't like it. One bit.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Only now in the last 5-10 years have producers realized that the market wants none of this. Guys (as consumers) want a new girl each in each scene and subsequent film. Porn Stars are now only tolerated because they have some special trick.

      I don't know about that, I'm a fairly avid consumer of porn and I like my favorites. What I don't like is a bunch of obviously fake sex, which is why I like the amateur stuff. If you catch them before they are jaded you can see some really nice fucking. After they've been in the business for a few years they may still look good on the outside, but... you know the rest

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2010 @07:28AM (#34153240)

        Yeah, the true amateur is where it's at. Sure, the lighting is usually crap, there's often annoying music in the background, or the TV (seriously, who does that? Who fucks with the tv going. Muic I can understand, but trying to get it on with Saturday Night Liv in the background would distract the shit outa me!), and the "models" might not be 100% toned.

        But it's genuine. There's no crew standing around, it's not just zombie-like fucking, it's real sex, with people who often actually give a fuck about each other. 1555 times more arousing than a glorified prostitute with fake titties giving head to a ridiculously-large-penised guy with an IQ smaller than his wang-length

        / Anonymous for reasons of shame.

    • I'm nostalgic about old porn, back before it was "interview and nail". My first Porno was "Pretty Peaches 2". It had a sense of ridiculousness that made it fun to watch. I'd even tolerate "80's bush" to have porn not take itself so seriously. And no, a hundred versions of "big sausage pizza" doesn't cut it. Ah... Siobhan... You were so unconvincing as the 20 year old who hadn't been laid...
    • Oh bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @08:40AM (#34153528) Journal

      This same argument has been used for newspapers, tv, radio, opera, iPod, mafia, whatever and guess what they are all still here.

      And as for dogging being the latest craze. Sorry, but are you TOTALLY incapable of seeing the irony in your own post? You are comparing Vivid to some guy selling DVD's in Ohio (and if he is selling them, then it ain't amateur anymore)? And the move to "amateur" is hardly new either. Gonzo mean anything to you?

      What has happened over the decades is that porn, has become more mainstream. As nudity becomes acceptable in this regular movie theather, porn has had to go further to still be able to sell. And tech has allowed it, ever closer close-ups, less need for the camera to dictate the action.

      And yet at the same time, the call for retro-porn, from a time when you could NOT see a girls cervix, is greater then ever. For every Dogging fan there is a guy browsing OLD magazines.

      The internet has shown us just how great the diversity in the taste of porn is, but that doesn't stop some kid coming along claiming that the DVD's from some guy in Ohio are where it is at.

      But don't worry. The newspapers, radio, tv, theathers, the iPod, and the mafia are SURE to take your hint and finally die off. Because YOU determined what EVERYONE else wants.

      Grow up.

  • Misquote (Score:4, Funny)

    by dangitman (862676) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @04:56AM (#34152774)

    '**** 'em all,' Braun told Xbiz.

    I very much doubt that he said "Asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk 'em all." I know slashdot has incompetent editors, but you could at least get the fucking quote right.

    • Re:Misquote (Score:5, Funny)

      by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @08:11AM (#34153410) Journal

      '**** 'em all,' Braun told Xbiz.

      I very much doubt that he said "Asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk 'em all." I know slashdot has incompetent editors, but you could at least get the fucking quote right.

      Absolutely correct. From TFA, he actually said "F dash dash dash 'em all".
      Let's hope the submitter/editor can get it right, next time.

  • Costs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chaynlynk (1523701) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @05:06AM (#34152788)
    Stop charging $40 for your shitty porno and maybe people will care.
    New Hollywood movies don't even cost that much on blu-ray.
  • I didn't download this film... wonder if they'll go after fans of Kendra or Karissa? Not that I'm worried. Okay, maybe I'm... slightly concerned...
  • AIDS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Burnhard (1031106) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @08:01AM (#34153374)
    This is the same Vivid that has had to stop production due to one of their performers being diagnosed with HIV? No wonder he's having a hissy fit and throwing all of his toys out of the pram.

    If the porn industry wasn't rogering customers with stupidly expensive website fees, piracy wouldn't be a problem for it.
  • by janwedekind (778872) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @08:16AM (#34153432) Homepage

    Superman is kinda bored so he just starts flying around looking for something to do. He's flying over Wonder Woman's house and sees her bedroom window is open. He stops for a glimpse and sees her lying on her bed naked. She's lying there and squirming around looking real hot.

    Superman gets turned on looking at her so he decides what the hell, I can just fly in real quick, give her the ole' in-out and be out of there before she even knows what hit her. After all he is Superman. So, in he goes, wham-bam and he's out of there.

    Wonder Woman knew something happened and says, "What was that?" The invisible man says, "I don't know but, damn, is my ass sore."

  • by ethicalcannibal (1632871) on Sunday November 07, 2010 @11:02AM (#34154296)
    Sign me up as another voice that watched it, but would never spend money on it. My DL of it would never translate into a sale.

    Not because I don't spend money on porn. More because if I am going to put my cash into a porn film, which I have many times, it has to be more female friendly in the sex scenes. Don't get me wrong, the Batman XXX film is great in all the costuming, and details, they put in to mirror the old series. I was a happy at all details put in.

    However, being female, I really try to put my cash towards porn that acknowledges females get off, and are not just props that fake orgasms for the male actors in the film. That means, I would have never paid for this film. The movies that do achieve that get my cash. Even if I don't think they will be watched more than once because I want to support an industry that does things that way.

    This means my download would not have been a sale. This also means I would never have paid for it at all, unless I got to see another owners copy for free. It's far easier to assume a porn film will not fit my standards than to put money towards endeavors that don't.

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Working...