************ vs Lithium Picnic Lawsuit Settles

[Bikerpunk]

Are we astroturfing for LP or the S***********?

[Buster Friendly]

Originally Posted by SI_commentator

However, I tend to think better of those who are honestly savage in protecting their turf compared with those who smile while attempting to sink a blade in one's back.

You can trust a self-proclaimed dictatorship more than sham democracy...

SI.

Then I herby proclaim myself Emperor Dictator For Life, and Beyond the Grave His Busterness Lord Friendly, now GTFO with your pathetic attempts at rhetoric.

...except, that's not the kind of site Amelia runs. Oh well.

[Syrran]

Originally Posted by SI_commentator

Here's the executive summary of why Amelia sides with SG on this topic: the number of artists who have what it takes to produce regular, dependable content in any genre (including "alt") is limited. If you remove one of those artists, the commercial market for the products of the rest is enhanced. Thus it is in Blue Blood's interest to see that anyone who produces content that might be seen as similar to Blue Blood's should fail. Philip is personable, produces content that people like, and has a good reputation amongst the modelling community. Thus, even if Philip is not a direct competitor of Blue Blood, he provides material to competitors, therefore his departure from the marketplace is in Amelia's best interest.
I.

I am NOT taking sides here I just want to mention that that statement was completely ludicrous. When SG fails, Apneatic fails, when ANY alt porn site fails and brings this much negative attention to it EVERYONE involved in alt porn suffers. Numbers drop from ALL the sites. Squashing early competition yes, that works but an all out war is bad business...I'm 19 and I know that. For chrissakes...

[OrganizedKhaos]

Originally Posted by SyntheticShock

LP is one of my favorite photographers, and its a sad situation to be in in the first place to see someone getting sued for "vindictive" reasons. I'm glad for him that it's done and over with now. I however, will not be a supporter of SG, knowing their practices, just because LP settled on an agreement.

I agree.

[OrganizedKhaos]

Originally Posted by Syrran

I am NOT taking sides here I just want to mention that that statement was completely ludicrous. When SG fails, Apneatic fails, when ANY alt porn site fails and brings this much negative attention to it EVERYONE involved in alt porn suffers. Numbers drop from ALL the sites. Squashing early competition yes, that works but an all out war is bad business...I'm 19 and I know that. For chrissakes...

That really sucks.

[Amelia G]

Originally Posted by Syrran

I am NOT taking sides here I just want to mention that that statement was completely ludicrous. When SG fails, Apneatic fails, when ANY alt porn site fails and brings this much negative attention to it EVERYONE involved in alt porn suffers. Numbers drop from ALL the sites. Squashing early competition yes, that works but an all out war is bad business...I'm 19 and I know that. For chrissakes...

Yay! Syrran is sensible.

I remember back when I started doing Blue Blood in print, one of the most difficult things about distribution was that stores were confused about where to stock the magazine. Some newsstands put it with the rock mags, some with the adult ones, and some in a generalized independent zines section. And some didn't stock it, not because they thought they could not sell it, but because they did not have a rack for things like Blue Blood. If there are not enough publications in a genre for it to count as a genre, it makes everything that much more difficult for those who are in it. Having a site or two with bad practices weeded out of the alt gene pool might be good or bad, hard to tell, but decreasing the numbers overall could only be bad.

And, as I said way back in my article, the biggest tragedy of this particular whole debacle is what it has done and is doing to the people who enjoyed this type of work and now have lost faith. Of course not all alty sites are the same, but it is hard to trust again after being burned.

[Bikerpunk]

NO.

Not all alt.porn suffers.

A company that treats its models like chattel and its paying subscribers like people privileged to be there is a douchey company. Its spleeny death doesn't mean its market is.

[Syrran]

I am not saying all alt.porn will suffer, simply that it COULD and its not something that would be smart to mess around with.

[Mindgames]

Originally Posted by Amelia G

...I remember back when I started doing Blue Blood in print, one of the most difficult things about distribution was that stores were confused about where to stock the magazine...

And, as I said way back in my article, the biggest tragedy of this particular whole debacle is what it has done and is doing to the people who enjoyed this type of work and now have lost faith. Of course not all alty sites are the same, but it is hard to trust again after being burned.

Doesn't work like that - we're talking about websites, not print. Nobody has to 'stock' it, so there's no need for anyone to define a shelf for it. SG, and BlueBlood/GodsGirls/CrazyTattooedSheep.com don't rely on sales through Bowkers - they market direct to the customer and via affiliation. Customers either look for you, or find you by accident. They don't find you hidden behind the latest copy of Hustler.

If the alt.porn industry shows it has a bad apple, and excises it publicly, then it may impact on a few new models getting into the game, but I'm sure it has a positive impact on far more people - they see the sector has morals and is prepared to stand for them when "one of their own" acts badly, and that imparts greater confidence in those businesses who are left. It's a basic fact of commerce that regulation increases public confidence - an industry which claims everyone in it is angelic while their customers complain to each other about bad practice is going to sink far faster than one which is seen to evict its miscreants.

The fact there may end up being only 5 websites instead of 6 is completely irrelevant to anyone except the operators and customers of that site, and as they'll probably still want their fix of the genre, the remaining sites will pick up their trade. If there ends up a genuine gap in the market, someone will fill it as soon as they can buy bandwidth - they don't need to calm the nerves of a retailer.

If you walk into enough stores, you can pretty much work out how many magazines on tattooing there are, and which ones are sold in the most outlets. Nobody - not even those in the industry, has any idea how many tattooing websites there are, or what total business they may turn over. Without a shelf, the 'product' continually expands to fill the demand, and there will always be a steady demand for alt.porn as the deviants who like it keep having babies.

[One Eyed Cat]

If this genre was going to hoist itself on its own petard, we'd all have already spent years looking up at a number of people hanging from flag posts. Demand will dictate supply. The audience will just become more fickle.

OEC

[SyntheticShock]

Originally Posted by SI_commentator

For example, by your position, a rap artist signed to a record label may find that, once the contract expires, that rapper may not write rap songs for a period of time. Is that reasonable? Is it fair? Is it lawful?

If a person signs a contract stating that they can not do certain things within a specific time period even after the contract expires, then yes, it is lawful. Dumb, but the person who signs the contract should have an understanding of it, hence why they would sign.

Its all about knowing what your getting into and understanding there can be consequences for your actions if a person should break the contract.

[Bikerpunk]

Alright, here's how it should terminate.

Amelia G has every right to give people a forum to vent, but that shouldn't be carte blanche for them to criticise her. She's got valid points.

BlueBlood.com GOOD, S*********** MONEY GRUBBING, CORPORATE BASTARDS.

Going back on a contract is teh suck. Asking people to chip in to your defence fund is acceptable - strongarming people and not being transparent about where the money went is teh suck.

$40,000 in legal bills over a couple of pictures is teh suck.

But making a bunch of sock puppet accounts to snipe from the sidelines because you've got a bruised bergina and haven't got anyone to rub it for you is a HUGE suck.

Problem solved? Of course. Pick who you do business with carefully.

[Morning Glory]

Also what's so great about objectivity? Do we really want someone that is just a flapping jaw and a one way ear?

and why shouldn't we take people's feelings into consideration? I'm not saying that we should go steel magnolias all over the place all the time, but if people did what they really felt, then the world would probably be a better place.

We need people to stand for something, not just to idly go along with whatever happens to come by.

Aint nothing wrong with having an opinion. The problem is when someone tries to make it seem like their biased opinion is an indisputable fact and that it's not even coming from them but they are just "being objective."

Bullshit. No one is objective, let's all face up to it. That would be the healthy thing to do.

[evilstonermonkey]

gosh. im glad ive been away for a few days. otherwise i might have said something nasty. and isnt altcult all about being different?

[Nanachan]

"#1 Yes, I do know what $40k could have bought with a professional PR firm -- about half a year and the coverage might not be sympathetic. Philip got three times that and he got other people to chip in for the tab."


Source please?

[helcyon]

Originally Posted by Nanachan

"#1 Yes, I do know what $40k could have bought with a professional PR firm -- about half a year and the coverage might not be sympathetic. Philip got three times that and he got other people to chip in for the tab."


Source please?

erm woteva but if you really want to start suddenly demanding a straight answer to your query then it might be polite to give a bit of context around who you are and why you give a fuck... not that I do.

[Amelia G]

Originally Posted by Nanachan

"#1 Yes, I do know what $40k could have bought with a professional PR firm -- about half a year and the coverage might not be sympathetic. Philip got three times that and he got other people to chip in for the tab."


Source please?

What helcyon said.

Also, this is common entertainment industry knowledge. Ask anyone in a band a major label is pushing what the PR recoup on their royalty statement is. Ask anyone with a high profile book the same question. Ask any major movie studio marketing executive. Ask anyone who has produced an indie movie who wanted to take it to the next level. Ask anyone who has ever had to hire a professional PR firm or most anyone who has ever even tried to hire a professional PR firm.

Publicity can be free or come about via something like a particularly gruesome murder or a noted legal case or just doing something well. But I'm right on the money in terms of the costs associated with working with a professional PR firm.

I realize I have more access and visibility than average to the sorts of folks who would shell out the dough for a professional PR firm, but asking for a source for this price estimate is like asking for a source for the assertion that, if you have a $10 bill, you and a friend can probably go get store-bought frou-frou coffee drinks, although it might be ideal to have one or two more dollars for the perfect tip some places. Still, no, I am not going to give Mr. Anonymous a whole lot more free consulting or a list of firms I would take a press release from seriously.

[Bikerpunk]

Originally Posted by Nanachan

"#1 Yes, I do know what $40k could have bought with a professional PR firm -- about half a year and the coverage might not be sympathetic. Philip got three times that and he got other people to chip in for the tab."


Source please?

Sockpuppets don't deserve an answer.

[Nanachan]

Originally Posted by Amelia G

What helcyon said.

Also, this is common entertainment industry knowledge. Ask anyone in a band a major label is pushing what the PR recoup on their royalty statement is. Ask anyone with a high profile book the same question. Ask any major movie studio marketing executive. Ask anyone who has produced an indie movie who wanted to take it to the next level. Ask anyone who has ever had to hire a professional PR firm or most anyone who has ever even tried to hire a professional PR firm.

Publicity can be free or come about via something like a particularly gruesome murder or a noted legal case or just doing something well. But I'm right on the money in terms of the costs associated with working with a professional PR firm.

I realize I have more access and visibility than average to the sorts of folks who would shell out the dough for a professional PR firm, but asking for a source for this price estimate is like asking for a source for the assertion that, if you have a $10 bill, you and a friend can probably go get store-bought frou-frou coffee drinks, although it might be ideal to have one or two more dollars for the perfect tip some places. Still, no, I am not going to give Mr. Anonymous a whole lot more free consulting or a list of firms I would take a press release from seriously.

No no no, I meant your source of proof that LP made three times that amount. Where did you find out how much money he made?

[Mindgames]

Originally Posted by Nanachan

No no no, I meant your source of proof that LP made three times that amount. Where did you find out how much money he made?

Three times the time - not three times the money.

[Amelia G]

I was not going to bump this thread, but so long as it is still going, I'm going to add this odd turn of events. I just re-read everything I wrote in "************ vs Lithium Picnic Lawsuit Settled" and I'm honestly kind of baffled as to why Philip Warner came over here name-calling and declined my invitation to clarify anything he wanted to, if there was anything where he felt I needed more information to come to the right conclusion, or if there was anything inaccurate which people reading my article might conclude. Basically, I gave him a forum where, unlike SG, I would let him have a voice, even if it was a dissenting voice.

In my article, I broke down what the legal argument was about and reported how people were reacting to its settlement. I just don't think I said anything particularly awful about Philip Warner, but he seems to be taking it sooooooooo personally where he is telling me I should dislike him and all. I said that I thought Philip Warner should not have agreed to work for SG in the first place because, with his mature business experience, he should have known how it would turn out. Secondly, I said that he didn't support other people's prior struggles against SG, not even Apnea's, and then he asked the community, many of whose members are less fortunate than he, for support for his own struggle. And I said that, having made his legal struggle everybody's business, I thought Philip should tell people how much money he got and how it was dispersed in the combat supporters thought they were donating to. So I get why he might want to argue with some of those points or why he might be a little bummed that I reported on the settlement, but I couldn't figure out what had him freaking out and taking it so weirdly personally.

Following a link from AltPorn.net, which I read fairly often, to Lithium Picnic's LJ, which I normally do not read, I saw a post which explained Philip's bizarre overly personal reaction to my article. Apparently, Philip Warner was reading a fantasy article in his head. I'm going to re-post what he wrote here, along with my response, which he has censored, refusing to unscreen. He has, however, had the time to make new posts and unscreen comments which are both false and libelous regarding yours truly. After what a big deal was made of pro-LP posts being censored from SG's dA blog, I think it is ironic that LP is censoring posts on both his own dA blog and LiveJournal. If anyone can explain WTF he is talking about, I would be grateful.

Originally Posted by Lithium Picnic

Amelia G from Blueblood has accused me (among other things) of ripping off "Anonymous" with my recent Masonic Legion image...

The text read "My name is Legion... for we are many."

You would think a Bible reading gal like herself would recognize the source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_(novel)

I used to have it as a sample in a song when I toured with Thrill Kill Kult and Front Line Assembly back in the day, I sampled it from one of the Exorcist movies - it was George C Scott's voice. I wasn't aware of anonymous until I posted it and the comments started pouring in, I've also been told it was used in Red Dwarf but I've never seen it.

Had she read the comments in the posting on here and DeviantArt she would have seen the explanation but she doesn't seem to be one for fact checking when there's a sensational headline and web traffic to be had.

My reply was:

Originally Posted by Amelia G

Came across this via AltPorn.net.

Nobody could possibly consider the dry and factual "************ vs Lithium Picnic Lawsuit Settled" to be sensational.

I did some journalistic coverage of a number of legal cases last week. None of them included calling you out for "ripping off" anything, much less Masonic symbols. What would that have had to do with anything? I'm not even sure what image you are referring to, so I assure you I have neither mentioned nor researched the origins of whatever it is.

I tried to look at the Wiki you linked, but all it read was:

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Legion (novel in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

* Start the Legion (novel article or add a request for it.
* Search for "Legion (novel" in existing articles.
* Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title."

[Amelia G]

Originally Posted by Mindgames

Three times the time - not three times the money.

Check out the sexy reading comprehension on Mindgames

Yes, what Mindgames wrote is accurate.

In terms of actual money Philip Warner pulled in from SG, court documents, which I read, placed the total at $10,000 over his entire tenure with that corporation. The money he made from SG is about one fourth what Philip says his legal bills came to or one tenth what the figure named in SG's lawsuit against him, not that someone like Sean Suhl is looking to get $100,000 out of someone who worked for him.

In terms of actual donations Philip received, I have seen the amount variously placed at just over $3,000 to well over the $100,000 SG claimed in damages in their suit. I have not, however, seen a final figure which I find credibly complete. This is why I did not name a final figure for donations in my article and why I have said that I think Philip Warner should supply a final accounting of where the money from supporters for the trial came from and where it went.

Fun with fractions.

[Nanachan]

Originally Posted by Amelia G

Check out the sexy reading comprehension on Mindgames

Yes, what Mindgames wrote is accurate.

In terms of actual money Philip Warner pulled in from SG, court documents, which I read, placed the total at $10,000 over his entire tenure with that corporation. The money he made from SG is about one fourth what Philip says his legal bills came to or one tenth what the figure named in SG's lawsuit against him, not that someone like Sean Suhl is looking to get $100,000 out of someone who worked for him.

In terms of actual donations Philip received, I have seen the amount variously placed at just over $3,000 to well over the $100,000 SG claimed in damages in their suit. I have not, however, seen a final figure which I find credibly complete. This is why I did not name a final figure for donations in my article and why I have said that I think Philip Warner should supply a final accounting of where the money from supporters for the trial came from and where it went.

Fun with fractions.

How much did you donate?

[Bikerpunk]

Hello, sockpuppet!

[Amelia G]

Originally Posted by Nanachan

How much did you donate?

Dear person with no profile who bumped this thread:

Do you fail to understand that I have no dog in a fight between SG and LP? I am in no way a part of that story. I am a writer here, not a litigant. What I wrote is journalism about a legal settlement between two parties and the community response to it.

If I look deep into my heart, my personal bias against SG means that I would probably have very mildly preferred it if Philip had won, even though he appears to have been legally in the wrong. Unfortunately, Philip has really changed a lot of people's opinions of him with how he has handled ending the suit with SG:

(1) First he tells everyone that SG are really good people and everyone should support the folks he was just saying were the evil enemy,

(2) then he refuses to give a proper accounting of what was donated by who and where all the money went, then he tries to pretend that any journalistic coverage of the settlement is the result of some kind of personal relationship although he refuses to elaborate on why I would have a personal issue with someone I have never met and I'm certainly not the only person who covered the settlement and the community's outrage,

(3) then he censors tons of people on dA who are upset about the settlement,

(4) then he censors tons of people on LJ who are upset about the settlement,

(5) then he just starts making stuff up to excuse his bad behavior i.e. he just can't discuss the case but he can call someone he knows on the telephone and tell them what to post or that there is something in my article about Philip ripping off lots of things including some Masonic image,

(6) then he starts unscreening libelous and false accusations about me personally in his LJ but censors me personally from responding when I personally allowed him to have his say here,

(7) in fact, although offered a platform here where, unlike on SG, the whole thing would not be censored and he could present his view of things versus anything I might have been mistaken about, he instead ran away without answering anyone's questions, and is crying about a little bit of impartial journalism more than anyone else I have ever written about, in any venue, professional or personal.

Telling people he solicited donations from that they should donate more to support SG, refusing any transparency on how much money he got or what he spent it on, and then bullying censorship of people, just like those who supported him were upset that SG did -- well, that is going to change some people's opinions of him.

[One Eyed Cat]

The upcoming trademark suit should be of greater entertainment. It's funny watching those people tear each other apart. This case is as stale as a 12 year old donut now.