4 ms·

The Uber-ization of porn

16 points by Immortalin 11y ago

bliti 11y ago
I was lost trying to find the similarities of Uber and this "new" model of pornography production. IMO, for it to be the Uber of pornography, the people who want to act in the film must be able to book a "film crew" (probably someone with an iPhone or a HERO), a place to film (pick airbnb and synergize), and have the service deal with the paperwork. It would also host the film for them and provide the actors/producers with tools to promote it. Phew! So much work...
- sandworm101 11y ago
  There are a couple "sell us your sextape" websites. I was involved in a couple copyright actions against one. Free legal advice: Don't take footage of known porn star, crank down the resolution/quality, and try to pass it off as your own sextape. And if you are in the biz of buying such tapes, do some research before sending the check.
- nichtich 11y ago
  Well I think the Uber-ization should be on the consumer side, not the production side. What Uber has that taxi don't is not how Uber have so much tools for the drivers to use, taxi company can do and are doing the same thing. The difference is a new way for passenger to find a ride instead of waiting on the sidewalk. So the Uber of porn would be more like you choose from an app specifying the features of the actress/actor, scene, plot line, the "moves", and other stuff. And then the company will automatically generate a script and find the right people to shoot it for you. I'm not sure that'll work though.
- swagv 11y ago
  The word "User-ization" seems to be used most by people who don't really understand Uber.
sandworm101 11y ago
Porn /= "Sex Work" Porn stars are not prostitutes. Getting paid for sex on camera is not the same as getting paid by johns any more than acting in a romantic film constitutes being an escort. The porn industry can be horrific on young girls, but it is an industry with some experience. These amateurs going it on their own could learn a thing or two from the pros. There are standards of behavior, codes of conduct, that while not universal do exist for a reason. Top of the list: Don't sign anything without a lawyer to explain copyright and contract law. Many girls never get paid what they were told they would. At least phone the nearest lawschool and ask about any free legal clinics. Other top of list: Never go to any shoot, casting call or interview alone. Bring someone sober and with their own vehicle.
- peteretep 11y ago
  > Getting paid for sex on camera is not the same as > getting paid by johns I'm curious to know what your reasoning there is...
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    (1) The former is a business transaction protected by the legal system. The later is usually a crime. (2) A transaction for sex with a john takes place in private, alone, often at night and sometimes anonymously. A porn shoot is surrounded by people, all of whom are being paid to be there. It's their work. For below: The dangers and interests of sex workers, prostitutes, are altogether different than those of porn stars. They face very different workplace environments and legal protections. The commonality of a single act, a rather small part of the job, does not equate the two.
    - flurie 11y ago
      You haven't made the case for adult film actors not being sex workers. Location and information asymmetry have nothing to do with it. Illegal work isn't suddenly not work because it's illegal.
  - booruguru 11y ago
striking 11y ago
Why would the Washington Post post this? This is pretty awful by any sort of journalistic standard. The film described sounds interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Uber.
- Goladus 11y ago
  The film is OK. I watched it after my girlfriend told me about it. Most of the interesting parts are mentioned in the article. The article doesn't mention that Tressa's emergency room trip was almost certainly a consequence of all the sex. Also, while the article mentions Belle Knox, the way she comes up in the film is that Riley (the recuiter) and several of the girls are sitting around a table watching her interview and commenting. It's one of the more memorable scenes. The film doesn't go into any greater detail about where all the money she earned went. They allude to lingerie and birth control but there's never an explicit breakdown of expenses. The film doesn't mention illicit drugs, alcohol, or any other potential money sinks. Certainly, comparisons to Uber are ridiculous. Yes, there are similarities-- the same similarities you can draw between virtually any company using new business models enabled by new technology. I agree that the piece is terrible.

16 points by Immortalin 11y ago

bliti 11y ago

I was lost trying to find the similarities of Uber and this "new" model of pornography production. IMO, for it to be the Uber of pornography, the people who want to act in the film must be able to book a "film crew" (probably someone with an iPhone or a HERO), a place to film (pick airbnb and synergize), and have the service deal with the paperwork. It would also host the film for them and provide the actors/producers with tools to promote it. Phew! So much work...

sandworm101 11y ago
There are a couple "sell us your sextape" websites. I was involved in a couple copyright actions against one. Free legal advice: Don't take footage of known porn star, crank down the resolution/quality, and try to pass it off as your own sextape. And if you are in the biz of buying such tapes, do some research before sending the check.
nichtich 11y ago
Well I think the Uber-ization should be on the consumer side, not the production side. What Uber has that taxi don't is not how Uber have so much tools for the drivers to use, taxi company can do and are doing the same thing. The difference is a new way for passenger to find a ride instead of waiting on the sidewalk. So the Uber of porn would be more like you choose from an app specifying the features of the actress/actor, scene, plot line, the "moves", and other stuff. And then the company will automatically generate a script and find the right people to shoot it for you. I'm not sure that'll work though.
swagv 11y ago
The word "User-ization" seems to be used most by people who don't really understand Uber.

sandworm101 11y ago

Porn /= "Sex Work" Porn stars are not prostitutes. Getting paid for sex on camera is not the same as getting paid by johns any more than acting in a romantic film constitutes being an escort. The porn industry can be horrific on young girls, but it is an industry with some experience. These amateurs going it on their own could learn a thing or two from the pros. There are standards of behavior, codes of conduct, that while not universal do exist for a reason. Top of the list: Don't sign anything without a lawyer to explain copyright and contract law. Many girls never get paid what they were told they would. At least phone the nearest lawschool and ask about any free legal clinics. Other top of list: Never go to any shoot, casting call or interview alone. Bring someone sober and with their own vehicle.

peteretep 11y ago
> Getting paid for sex on camera is not the same as > getting paid by johns I'm curious to know what your reasoning there is...
- sandworm101 11y ago
  (1) The former is a business transaction protected by the legal system. The later is usually a crime. (2) A transaction for sex with a john takes place in private, alone, often at night and sometimes anonymously. A porn shoot is surrounded by people, all of whom are being paid to be there. It's their work. For below: The dangers and interests of sex workers, prostitutes, are altogether different than those of porn stars. They face very different workplace environments and legal protections. The commonality of a single act, a rather small part of the job, does not equate the two.
  - flurie 11y ago
    You haven't made the case for adult film actors not being sex workers. Location and information asymmetry have nothing to do with it. Illegal work isn't suddenly not work because it's illegal.
- booruguru 11y ago

striking 11y ago

Why would the Washington Post post this? This is pretty awful by any sort of journalistic standard. The film described sounds interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Uber.

Goladus 11y ago
The film is OK. I watched it after my girlfriend told me about it. Most of the interesting parts are mentioned in the article. The article doesn't mention that Tressa's emergency room trip was almost certainly a consequence of all the sex. Also, while the article mentions Belle Knox, the way she comes up in the film is that Riley (the recuiter) and several of the girls are sitting around a table watching her interview and commenting. It's one of the more memorable scenes. The film doesn't go into any greater detail about where all the money she earned went. They allude to lingerie and birth control but there's never an explicit breakdown of expenses. The film doesn't mention illicit drugs, alcohol, or any other potential money sinks. Certainly, comparisons to Uber are ridiculous. Yes, there are similarities-- the same similarities you can draw between virtually any company using new business models enabled by new technology. I agree that the piece is terrible.