The Uber-ization of porn | Hacker News Reader

The Uber-ization of porn

washingtonpost.com

16 pointsImmortalin17 comments

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...

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.

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.

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.

    > 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...

(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.

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.

With porn you get to choose/approve your partner based on attractiveness and compatibility. Whereas prostitution involves total strangers... and they are not really in a position where they get to say "no" (even though "technically" they can).

Is Chloe Sevingy a prostitute because she had REAL sex in the movie, The Brown Bunny? I'd say no.

Not everyone gets to choose their partners in porn. It is true that females do have some say in terms of the male stars, but this is work. Reject too many people and you will be considered difficult to work with and won't be called back.

"Sex worker" != prostitute

But either way, you could certainly make that argument. I think there are two problems with the analogy, one specific and one general.

1. I think the purpose of the medium defines the description of the job. Narrative art that includes sex could be construed as a different "job" than participating in sex for erotica.

2. Sevigny and Gallo were dating at the time, which complicates the notion of prostitution but not at all "sex work."

I guess its the same as theater and a motion picture. In theater you are paid for each presentation. In a motion picture you are paid to do it once and then paid royalties (if in contract) for each showing. Meaning that a porn actor is trying to leverage that one act into more money and a prostitute must increase the amount of acts to increase the cashflow.

People in porn get paid for having sex. Why shouldn't that be considered sex work?

Because much "porn" doesn't involve any actual sex. See Playboy. Many of these amateur webcam girls aren't even in the same room as anyone else.

And much does. Does that also not constitute sex work in your eyes?

Pornography is sex work. The different remuneration model doesn't change that fact.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com