What Happened to Levi Poulter???

[iSlut]

His website, Twitter, etc. are all dead. Anyone know what became of him?

 

[btcollect]

Several adult entertainment performers I follow are suddenly gone also. Is it possible that Twitter (like blogger etc) is now censoring pornstars?

 

[JonnyFantastico]

No... after the whole HIV debacle that threw the gay porn world into a tizzy last year, many performers just stopped performing. Phillip Ashton is another big twink star that has recently done this (although his Facebook page and Twitter are still active).

As for Levi, I think he's attempting to be a full time model now, which explains his disappearance.

 

[absalom]

"Many performers" seems to me a bit of an exageration. There are serious doubts whether the performer that contracted HIV did so on a set. He had an account on a rentboy website that he quickly deleted when rumours started spreading last year. Furthermore he made contradictory explanations about when and how he contracted HIV.

In the present age of internet porn we see that the shelf life of a porn actor is very short. There are of course some exceptions but the golden age of Mega Porn Stars such as Jeff Stryker et. al are over. And don't forget that the payment for a gay porn performer has gone down considerably in the last 5 years. Because of all the free downloading companies are making less money and have problems adjusting to the new business environment. You only have to look at Falcon to get a clear view of the situation: supreme in the '80s and '90s and taken over by AEBN at the start of this year.

I never thought I would say this but there is just too much gay porn being made. I don't want to go into the aspect of the quality of the gay porn. You can have an endless discussion about it without reaching a conclusion. There are many tastes in gay porn and for most tastes something will be produced.
But there is, in my opinion, too much gay porn being made. I am curious about the balance sheets of gay porn companies. How many DVDs does a company as Titan or Hot House really sell? How many people do subscribe to Lucas Entertainment or Dominic Ford? How much money is there really made in the gay porn industry?

What this all has to do with Levi Poulter I don't know. I read somewhere that he was overwhelmed with all the attention from fans who wanted to know everything from him (for free of course!). And being in porn and wanting to be a model has almost never been a good combination so that may explain why he left the building.

 

[iryhousen]

I think Levi Poulter is incredibly hot, and I enjoyed the work that he did. He's supposed to be from Utah. Maybe he'll be in a sequel to Latter Days. Sometimes a guy like that can make a lot of money as an escort, and doesn't have to do anything else, or some rich guy could be keeping him.

 

[iSlut]

Because of all the free downloading companies are making less money and have problems adjusting to the new business environment.

That's a fairy tale the big porn producers are happy for everyone to believe. The reality is far different. The big porn companies are making more money than ever. Falcon isn't in financial straits because of porn sharing; it's in trouble because it kited itself with too much leverage thinking easy money would last forever.

 

[diklik]

That's a fairy tale the big porn producers are happy for everyone to believe. The reality is far different. The big porn companies are making more money than ever. Falcon isn't in financial straits because of porn sharing; it's in trouble because it kited itself with too much leverage thinking easy money would last forever.

Not quite the fairy tale you suggest, iSlut. Many of the large porn houses are selling their productions to multiple brokers as short clips. They're grabbing as much cash out of their models' performances as possible, and producing less quality and more quantity. When a manufacturer of electronics does that, the industry notes that he is in serious trouble. We should accord the porn industry with a similar view.

The abundance of download sites has touched everyone in the industry, since it's harder to support sales of a given video after two weeks of release (about the maximum time delay it takes for someone to post it as a free download). We all view those freebies, but in the end we are not doing anyone a great service.

 

[iSlut]

So I guess the huge house that Michael Lucas just bought for close to $20 million was paid for with boxtops. Same for that new Bentley Zagato that Jake Cruise drives around.

 

[diklik]

So I guess the huge house that Michael Lucas just bought for close to $20 million was paid for with boxtops. Same for that new Bentley Zagato that Jake Cruise drives around.

Didn't say that they were broke and homeless. Just that profits are way down and everyone is scrambling to pull as much cash as they can out of every scene shot. Profits WERE big for several years, up until the beginning of 2010.

Anyone can have title to a fancy home and an expensive car. And, unless you've personally seen their names on original notarized doents proving ownership, both home and car can be leased for short term use. I've personally watched as repo guys have taken some of that away from supposedly very rich individuals. Possessions are not proof of financial stability.

Try avoiding the drama queen responses :no:- you'd come off way more credible.

 

[Spartacus_x]

The abundance of download sites has touched everyone in the industry, since it's harder to support sales of a given video after two weeks of release (about the maximum time delay it takes for someone to post it as a free download). We all view those freebies, but in the end we are not doing anyone a great service.

Well, the same goes for pretty much every possible branch of the entertainment industry, doesn't it? And besides, piracy is not a new concept by any means, although Internet did take it to a new level.

It's just that porn is...porn. Basically it's all the same. And as the time goes by, you get to have way too many models and way too many producers trying to do the same thing. Of course the profit will not be as big as before.

 

[explrrrs]

...porn is...porn. Basically it's all the same. And as the time goes by, you get to have way too many models and way too many producers trying to do the same thing. Of course the profit will not be as big as before.

I don't suppose ur and economist, u definitely sound like one. I must agree with u, porn is one of the least regulate industries around, and entering and exiting is pretty easy, compared to opening a huge movie studio.

 

[absalom]

So I guess the huge house that Michael Lucas just bought for close to $20 million was paid for with boxtops. Same for that new Bentley Zagato that Jake Cruise drives around.

Michael Lucas has a very rich boyfriend/husband who undoubtedly paid the house. If rumors are true his money also keeps the books of Lucas Entertainment in the black and not the red.

And that Bentley of Jake Cruise is probably leased ....

 

[iSlut]

Michael Lucas bought the house for cash. Not his boyfriend. Him. He also bought his massive apartment for cash, too.

The Bentley might be leased, then again it might not be leased. There's no evidence one way or the other. It still takes significant cash flow to lease a vehicle in that price range.

The porn industry is fast to claim that online file sharing is hurting their business. Yet they never offer proof, statistics, or financial figures.

 

[diklik]

Michael Lucas bought the house for cash. Not his boyfriend. Him. He also bought his massive apartment for cash, too.

And you are confident of this info by what means? Not dissing you in the least, but such an assertion must come with proof, since other statements directly contradict it. If you are certain of Lucas having purchased his expensive home for cash, then you should offer some realistic validation of that certainty; as you've asserted it as fact several times.

The porn industry is fast to claim that online file sharing is hurting their business. Yet they never offer proof, statistics, or financial figures.

I wouldn't expect any privately-held corporation to divulge any numbers. Since the major video and music providers DO claim the same (or similar) distress and they provide some sort of loss figures, it would stand to reason that private porn sites are hit by the amount of free copying and downloading that is rampant among the public. Just about everyone who is a member here has used free downloads of porn. Even with the few thousand members that comprises, the amount of potential revenue lost from online sales or shipped DVDs, would be quite significant.

 

[iSlut]

Michael Lucas's spending on real estate have been reported in both the gay and New York press. I have seen the house in question. As for other "statements" here, they were nothing but unsubstantiated assumptions, i.e. that Jake Cruise's Bentley "is probably leased."

If a company makes a claim with no proof, then it could be true as much as it could be a lie. "It stands to reason" is nothing but unsubstantiated proof. One could also say "it stands to reason" that piracy increases their sales because customers can see before they buy.

As for the major Hollywood studios, they cry about piracy at the same time they record record profits. Fox/Newscorp, for example, just reported a 23.9 percent increase in profits over last year, thus setting a new record.

One has to wonder why people on this forum, of all places, are so quick to believe anything porn producers say and jump to their defense about their alleged financial woes. One has to wonder why they even bother coming here.

 

[Houghton]

'Just about everyone who is a member here has used free downloads of porn. Even with the few thousand members that comprises, the amount of potential revenue lost from online sales or shipped DVDs, would be quite significant.'

Your conclusion is based on an illogical statement. You assume everyone would buy pornography if they did not get it for free. I never buy porn. If it was not free I would not buy it still. I know many people like me who never buy porn. We do not cost pornography studios anything by downloading files because we never would buy their product.

 

[diklik]

Your conclusion is based on an illogical statement. You assume everyone would buy pornography if they did not get it for free. I never buy porn. If it was not free I would not buy it still. I know many people like me who never buy porn. We do not cost pornography studios anything by downloading files because we never would buy their product.

Actually it is YOUR statement that is without logic. If you take a free download, which could be considered illegal under some statutes, then you didn't have to pay for it. End of story. No amount of twisting and turning and circular logic will allow you to say that you never would have bought it - and thus no loss. It was a great big loss to the producer, since you chose to view it in a form not sanctioned by the copyright owner (probably the producer). Please do not delude yourself into thinking that you were right in so doing and that it cost nothing.

If you are so adamant about not caring to view porn when asked to pay for it, your high-mindedness should prohibit you from taking unauthorized free downloads. So yes indeed, the producer(s) lost money on your action. Anytime a free download is accessed, the potential revenue stream is interrupted. Try using that logic the next time you attempt to shoplift a can of goods at a grocery store. Tell the judge that you had no intention of every buying that product, but since someone told you that it was easy to grab for free without paying the merchant, you decided to try it. Watch the judge gavel you guilty of theft, regardless of your intent to purchase or not purchase, otherwise.:no:

If there were no such thing as freely available downloads, most people here wouldn't view any porn. The lesser number who would pay the required price would easily support the industry. Your own illogical conclusion denied that any profit would be lost. Re-examine what you said and hopefully you'll find the upside-down thinking that you asserted. If there was no way to view it but to pay, few would pay but those few would enable sufficient profit to keep the industry healthy, financially for all producers.

 

[iSlut]

If it was not free I would not buy it still. I know many people like me who never buy porn. We do not cost pornography studios anything by downloading files because we never would buy their product.

That's what makes the porn producers' extortion disguised as predatory lawsuits against file sharers particularly reprehensible. They've gleefully admitted in the tech and gay press that they know people are quietly settling and paying their extortionist "amnesty" fees out of fear of being outed. In a TechDirt article, one producer mentioned that those who settled included married and closeted men prominent in their communities who fear they'll be outed and who would never otherwise buy their material.

When Qweerty and Unicornbooty raised the issue that some gay teenagers might commit suicide because the porn producers' predatory lawsuits would out them, one producer's representative showed no remorse and dismissed them as "thieving little shits."

Of course, this might all blow up in the porn companies' faces. Paul Little aka Max Hardcore was the pioneer in predatory litigation against file sharing but then he got too aggressive. When people complained they were being sued even though they had never seen his material, the Justice Department started taking a hard look at Little. He ended up being prosecuted himself and is now in federal prison.

 

[iSlut]

Watch the judge gavel you guilty of theft

Once again, you repeat the fiction that copyright infringement equals theft. This is a fallacy repeated endlessly by porn producers as well. It is not theft, as a matter of well established law, per Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) where the Supreme Court specifically said that copyright infringement is not theft.

For quite a while, because of your previous posts, I suspected you might actually work for or be a porn producer and quietly mentioned that to others here, some of whom also suspected as much. Your most recent foot-stamping j'accuse post above repeats the same tired arguments and legal fallacies that porn producers use and certainly seems to tip your hand more as to who you really might be. I also note that, in more than a year and a half here, you've never shared any material yourself.

If you're not a porn producer or employed by one, and pardon my bluntness here, but what exactly the fuck is your problem? You come into a file sharing forum and lecture people against file sharing? You come here and beat your breast about how the poor porn industry is suffering because of naughty file sharers.

If you think it's so wrong, then what exactly are you doing here?

 

[iSlut]

Is it possible that Twitter (like blogger etc) is now censoring pornstars?

I suspect most if not all of the "disappeared" sites on Blogger are a result of prohibited coding for pop-ups, etc., and not because of content. Some may also have been pulled because of repeated DMCA complaints. I don't think any censoring was involved because all sorts of sites were pulled regardless of their content.

As for Twitter, many pornstars bigger than he still use it and their posts are quite ribald. Levi clearly pulled the plug on his, because it disappeared concurrent to his own personal website.