Clares website.....

View · by **Phantom** » 25 Oct 2006, 06:58

Agreed DD - free WAM will ultimately be very harmful to producers.

Apart from a few lucky WAM producers who make decent money from it, I think the majority barely make enough cash to cover their costs ... they do it for the love of messy fun.

Once people start to distribute it and download it for free (using anonymous accounts) the likelihood is that some producers will say 'stuff this ... I'm not even making enough to cover my own costs!' and pack it in.

However, it really is inevitable. It's only a matter of time before you start to see films from Splosh, WAMF, Lenny S etc on youtube, flurl and bit torrent. Initially it'll be possible to contact these (and similar sites) and demand they remove the films ... but eventually it'll be like one of those gopher-and -mallet games where they're popping up all over the place faster than they can be removed.

Phantom

View · by **DecadentDoll** » 25 Oct 2006, 08:01

I'm not sure, maybe in terms of other pornography and fetish stuff.. Splosh/WAM may have a large fanbase but it is still considerably small. It would be hard, but still easier to keep deleting it over say, your general lesbian porno.

I know i'd be in the crusade to stop it, and not cos i want to make money. If I wanted to make money I'd do a sub site, or sell pic sets for more than £10. As it is i do the majority of my stuff for free.

So it won't affect my bank balance, just my faith in people.

I'm sure you're right, i just don't want it to be so. I, for one would not download my messy videos off a torrent site, i would remain loyal to those who provided it. Not biting the hand that feeds, so to speak. I'm not just speaking of this site in particular.

By making this stand, i know i'm not part of it... maybe other people should think the same way, or am i asking too much of you all?

"You may say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one.".. a bit bleh it is to quote Lennon, but it speaks for me.

View · by **Phantom** » 25 Oct 2006, 08:22

There are some who'll refuse to download free WAM on principle.

But we're also talking about a very tempting combo:

1. sexy wam material

2. for free!

3. with the ability to download it anonymously so that nobody ever knows you got it for free

I reckon there'll be one or two takers!

We already see on the UMD chat room, people offering to swap site passwords and trade movies. There's also someone in Russia selling DVD compilations of just about every major WAM producers work.

How many people nowadays can say that they've never bought a pirated CD, DVD or Computer game/software? Or downloaded TV shows, songs or movies from the internet, knowing they were violating copyright law?

I think you're right about one thing - WAM will be safer for longer, because it's a relatively small niche fetish.

Phantom

View · by **Clare Rose** » 25 Oct 2006, 15:45

Interesting discussion you're having and I for one hope that people don't start selling my stuff for free (it's copyrighted in case anyone is interested!) as then my site will probably fold!

I really enjoy producing the pictures and films (they should be up within the next 2 weeks on my site - I haven't got a clue how to do them so I leave it up to my technical bod!) and contrary to popular belief I have no where near covered the costs for setting up my site!

I hope that I will carry on as I love it and think that most people enjoy what I have shown so far!

Keep WAM forever!!!!!

Clare Rose xxx

View · by **DecadentDoll** » 25 Oct 2006, 16:34

Clare Rose wrote: I for one hope that people don't start selling my stuff for free (it's copyrighted in case anyone is interested!)

The copyright thing doesn't seem to bother people... loads have sold stuff on eBay, copies of copyrighted work. I know Bill, Hayley and the Kowalskis have been victims of the pirates on occasion.

Password traders, no way of stopping that really, i'd have thought people would hold access they paid for as sacred!

it's really annoying and quite tragic in some cases. but people who have put their life and soul into the work get ripped off.

it'd be nice to think they'd read your post and think "i like her, i wont rip her off" but to them it won't matter.

ahhh, i hope they learn. i mean im hypocritical as i've had music for free (most of us have)...

Lets crusade to stop them!

View · by **Hayley** » 25 Oct 2006, 17:43

Another problem is, unlike the music industry which has loads of millionaire rock and pop artists prepared to fight to protect their copyright, niche porn has a few individuals barely scraping a living to fight their corner.

If all the people out there are only interested in free material (or when they do buy something then selling it second hand depriving the producer of yet another sale) then the free stuff will soon dry up cos there won't be anyone able to afford to generate new material. So in the long run you are killing the goose that lays the free golden eggs (or some contrived metaphor like that).

People so short sighted they only get the free stuff make me sick.

Hayley

View · by **wamman73** » 25 Oct 2006, 18:39

couldn't agree more hayley

View · by **Phantom** » 25 Oct 2006, 19:33

Bill

I sold my Splosh mags secondhand because they were a product I'd paid for. I'm all for supporting the growth of WAM, but not to the point that I'd put myself out of pocket. If I've honestly paid full price for something, then I also have the right to resell it.

As for Golden Geese dying of starvation, I hardly think Splosh! is the most endangered animal in the farmyard!! I bet most smalltime produceers would LOVE to have your market share.

However, big fish or small fish... the end result is the same. Anyone who has put a lot of time and effort into producing something deserves to get as much reward as possible. People grabbing freebies are stealing. They may not physically break into your home and hold a gun to your head, but they're stealing all the same.

I don't know what the answer is. It seems there is no obvious answer. Anonymous grabbing of freebies is pretty much the norm now. It'll be interesting to see how much it affects the WAM world and in what way and how quickly.

Phantom

View · by **muckypup** » 25 Oct 2006, 19:46

Hayley wrote:I have not altered the size of Clare's pics. They are exactly as supplied except they have been optimized for the web by Photoshop.

They look exactly as they arrived on our computer here, and we have no problem with other pics on this site either (except Merc's where the file size is so big I sometimes can't see all of them).

Does anyone else have problems with poor quality pics?

Hayley

The picture quality of the pics on here isnt as good as some other ones of Claire that she has posted on UMD. I'm not sure why but the pictures on umd are 500 x 800 size and the ones on here seem to be about 300 x 500. I guess because the pics are half as big again they look better. Also the "optimising" for the web might make the pics look worse as they generally just make the file size smaller by getting rid of some of the detail. Don't get me wrong I like seeing Claire (or anyone else) covered in gunge on Splosh! but the pics generally arent as good as on UMD...

View · by **DecadentDoll** » 25 Oct 2006, 20:24

Phantom wrote:Bill

It was Hayley who responded, not Bill.

Sorry, felt the need to correct!

View · by **DecadentDoll** » 25 Oct 2006, 20:25

muckypup wrote:The picture quality of the pics on here isnt as good as some other ones of Claire that she has posted on UMD. I'm not sure why but the pictures on umd are 500 x 800 size and the ones on here seem to be about 300 x 500. I guess because the pics are half as big again they look better. Also the "optimising" for the web might make the pics look worse as they generally just make the file size smaller by getting rid of some of the detail. Don't get me wrong I like seeing Claire (or anyone else) covered in gunge on Splosh! but the pics generally arent as good as on UMD...

I thought it was because Clare was sending different pics to Splosh than to the ones she put on umd?

View · by **Phantom** » 25 Oct 2006, 21:19

Yeah that would be right - she's making special low-quality ones to send to Splosh! :roll:

View · by **DecadentDoll** » 25 Oct 2006, 21:26

Phantom wrote:Yeah that would be right - she's making special low-quality ones to send to Splosh!

the actual photos she puts on UMD are different to the ones that go up on splosh. I dont understand it because the pictures i posted here and on umd of the green slime are exactly the same on both forums.

grasping at straws i may be mister, no need to roll the eyes at me

View · by **Phantom** » 25 Oct 2006, 22:30

sozz - I'm drunk and sarky :wink:

View · by **DecadentDoll** » 25 Oct 2006, 22:33

Phantom wrote:sozz - I'm drunk and sarky

I'm just cheeky and sarky without the drink. I'm worse with a JD and coke in me!

Clares website.....

Who is online