Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Fri 26/04/24 22:57:22 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 19532.6.1.1.1.1.1.1

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the last I'm gonna say on it...

Date: Sun 27/11/05 18:55:15 GMT

Name: leonmoomin

Email: leon@mostwet.com

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

Pay Per View!

From my perspective, the terminology is correct, people pay as per what they want, the other way to interpret it is a payment for every viewing. I think both are correct.

I have pay per view on my cable system, I can select to watch a movie of my choice from the list of available movies. I get 24 hours to watch the movie.

However, this is the cable company's method of doing it. It is a terminology that is open to interpretation.

It is the decision of the person offering the service as to which interpretation they chose to take.

The way i see it, Jim has worked hard to get his system up, we all know it takes effort to do this, believe me i know, our's still has its glitches. It took us 5 months from deciding the method to implementing it on the sites. messmaster had lots of very complex coding to bang out and in the case of MostWet, i have a lot of clips to create, not so hard with the other sites as the material is already there.

Anyways, Jim is doing what works best for him, his material is as ever great and it is up to him how he distributes it.

His takings will tell him if he is right or wrong, if in a few months he finds the returns from this to be low, I'm sure he will either change it or abandon it.

I am sticking with my use of the wording "Pay Per View" and my take on it is that people pay as per what they want to view, but, they can view it and they can keep it. If I see my material on some file sharing site somewhere, I'll chop their fingers off, lol. Just the risk you take.

If I'm wrong in my stratagy, the site's takings will show this and I'll have to re-think. But after all the work we've done on it, there is no way anyone here could tell me to drop it now, I'm sure Jim feels exactly the same way.

leonmoomin

In reply to Message (19532.6.1.1.1.1.1)

Re: Re: Re: This is the last I'm gonna say on it...

By WETINRED - stekz@cableone.net Sun 27/11/05 16:03:20 GMT

Website: http://www.liquidladies.org

Ok! Since what I offer on my 2 sites are really not PPV, I have changed the terminology to read "downloadable clips" And after discussing it with a mutal friend of ours, I realised that u are right.

In reply to Message (19532.6.1.1.1.1)

Re: Re: This is the last I'm gonna say on it...

By Jim - jim121272@aol.com Sun 27/11/05 15:20:18 GMT

Website:

With all due respect WIR, you don't have a clue of what PPV really means. Use some common sense -- the definition is right there!

Jim

In reply to Message (19532.6.1.1.1)

Re: This is the last I'm gonna say on it...

By WETINRED - stekz@cableone.net Sun 27/11/05 13:57:54 GMT

Website: http://www.wetinred.com

Jim, having 72 hours to watch as many times as u want???? What if someone can't watch it in that time? What if that person can't view it for a week? Then they have to re-rent it again? That is pure crap

There is not 1 wetlook or non-wetlook that has this sorta set-up. This is not PPV. PPV is to be able to download a video(any kind of video whether it's a 5 minute long or a 30 minute log, or whatever)to one's hard drive to be able to view anytime one wants to. There's not a problem with the Microsoft licensing deal, but it should never have to expire. I'm not telling u how to run ur business, as that's up to u, my friend. U do great stuff

wir

In reply to Message (19532.6.1.1)

Re: Re: To Clarify....

By Ikarus Studio - okmkm@wp.pl Sun 27/11/05 13:21:25 GMT

Website:

Come on Jim. What you are doing is a business. If a store, restaurant etc reacted to critisizm in such a way it would just lose customers. You have to traet customers, even ex-customers and thoes complaining with respect, not cinical laughts.

In reply to Message (19532.6.1)

Re: To Clarify....

By Jim - jim121272@aol.com Sun 27/11/05 11:52:19 GMT

Website:

Sir, you have no business "urging" anyone else to do ANYTHING. You are sticking your nose in other people's business, where it most decidedly doesn't belong.

Jim

In reply to Message (19532.6)

To Clarify....

By Wetjeans - Sun 27/11/05 11:07:59 GMT

Website:

Please Understand that I was not then nor am I now saying that there is anything dishonest with the way your site is run. The 72 hour limit is posted and up front. I think it is a bad deal and while I will buy the video's again, I will not down load. I suspect that as people realize that they are spending a lot of money for so little return your number of rentals will go down. If they don't than well your pricing policy will have worked. I am just not going to be one of them and I urge others to do the same.

In reply to Message (19532)

A Word About PPV Videos

By Jim - jim121272@aol.com Sat 26/11/05 17:42:44 GMT

Website: http://www.wetlookunlimited.com

There has been considerable debate recently about the concept of pay-per-view by wetlook producers. Although I wasn't the first to do it, and others have made similar services available after me and have been lavishly praised for it, I've somehow become the prime target of the PPV-detractors. But that's fine, I don't mind addressing the concerns all.

First, let's all establish the fact that PPV is not new, nor is it restricted to wetlook -- it is all around us. If you go out with your wife or girlfriend to see a movie, that, by definition, is pay-per-view. I've never heard anyone come out of a movie grumbling that they only got to see it once. You pay what it costs, and you know you're getting exactly one viewing. If you want to watch a recently-released movie on your TV, or the next heavyweight boxing match, guess what? That is PPV too.

Second, the term "renting" has come up to describe viewing my videos. That is exactly correct. News Flash: We pay "rent" on our apartments, car leases, storage facilities, wedding tuxedos, and -- yes -- movies too. I'm sure most of us have walked into Blockbuster or visited netflix.com to rent (there's that dirty word again) a movie that we want to see. We do so with the full knowledge that the movie must be returned within a limited time frame, and cannot be legally copied. Again, nobody purchases these videos and gives the store clerk a dirty look when it's time to return them. That is the contract, and it is understood by the consumer at the time of purchase.

Third, Wetlook Unlimited offers other alternatives besides pay-per-view. You can purchase a production DVD that you'll have for a long time, or you can purchase a custom DVD. Naturally, the custom DVD is more expensive because it takes more work to create, but you do get exactly the scenes you want. And the consumer has the reasonable expectation that the current DVD format will be supported for many years into the future.

For many reasons, mainly related to business and technology, it is not feasible or even possible for me to guarantee a permanent license. If I close up shop, or my PPV hosting service changes, or Microsoft chooses to stop supporting the PPV capabilities of their Media Player, then all of my customers are screwed. I refuse to lie to my customers and sell a license that is purported to be "permanent" when in reality it is not. At the current state of the technology, there are just too many factors beyond my control to guarantee perpetual licenses. My sense of business ethics prohibits me from claiming otherwise.

So the "usual suspects" of detractors that take every opportunity to bash me (Attention: Icarus Studios -- haven't I already CLEARLY explained this matter to you in another forum several weeks ago?) can complain all they want, to no avail. I am not forcing anyone to use this service, nor are the majority of consumers opposed to the concept of PPV or rentals. The success of other video rental services has proven that. Everyone has the option to purchase a PPV, a DVD, or nothing from me at all. I fully respect the opinion of those who feel that PPV is not the correct solution for them. But to purchase a license that is known to be temporary, and then complain about it -- or to smear my service because they are simply "morally opposed" to pay-per-view -- is the pinnacle of ignorance.

Ultimately, the consumer will decide what services are right. And so far, the popularity of this service has spoken far more loudly than the mere handful who oppose it. I'm sure that other wetlook producers who offer simiar products would agree.

Jim

http://www.wetlookunlimited.com

http://www.legsunlimited.com

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)