I think OP doesn’t even know what their point is.

They keep saying people will continue to perform sex work if there’s no economic gain, but at that point it’s not work. Then the counter argument to that is “there’s many different kinds of sex work”, but the point still stands that having sex voluntarily, being an exhibitionist, or having a hobby of filming sexual encounters are all things that people do for personal gratification and are not considered a career now, or in this hypothetical post-scarcity civilisation.

Like someone else said, it sounds like they are just fantasising about sex slaves. To me it also sounds like OP is overcompensating on the whole “I respect sex workers” virtue signalling.

“many moons ago, when the sun was low in the sky…”

We call eastern coast time AEST

Then I assume you’ve done the rounds on Stargate and Farscape?

I’m not trying to imply anything. I’ve just never had a feeling about my gender so I don’t really understand the concept. I was born a man, I present as a man, but I can’t say that I feel like a man, I just feel like me.

I’m afraid I don’t understand what violating the binary means, and it still seems to me that presenting female with a beard does not fit what I thought the binary of gender was supposed to mean.

So being non binary is more of a feeling than a state?

Isn’t the idea of binary having two socially defined entities: man, woman. Having someone who defies either definition is non binary. Opposing the idea that you can only be one or the other.

Conchita dresses half way between man and woman. Dresses, skirts, long hair, make up, beard. Even the name Conchita Wurst is a wordplay for “vagina penis”.

The example of a male presenting as female or somewhere between those two seems within the exact definition of non binary.

Maybe I’m ignorant, but by definition that seems non binary to me. Unless “non binary” no longer means non binary, and now it has some new trendy definition.

Does Conchita not count as non binary?

It was poor form for a media group to air an interview of someone in a current and high profile court case. The affect of the media attention prevented a fair trial and was completely unprofessional from Wilkinson.

Last time I checked, you can still make one without an email, but you have to click on a very small ambiguous hyperlink during creation. It’s possible this is no longer the case.

Being able to make throwaway accounts has been the back bone of Reddit for a long time. People want a right to privacy.

I did the whole Stargate franchise, including Infinity.

My advice is to do what I did. Rip the discs to your hard drive to remove the cd rom as a speed bottleneck. Then start doing tests at different bit rates until you are happy with the quality:size ratio. From season 4 onwards there’s audio commentaries that are worth keeping, so don’t forget to include that audio track as well as any language and subtitles you’d like to keep.

Good luck, have fun. It took me ages to work through it in my free time, but I’m glad I did. Also, from season 8 onwards, there are HD versions of SG-1 that were never released on home video that you may as well find a download of.

No. You’re doing the math wrong.

You make 2 movies that cost $80m each, you have spent $160m. One of them gets shelved and makes no money, one of them makes $120m. You are still at a $40m loss. You haven’t made any money to pay tax on at all. You have only lost money.

You are approaching this with the preconceived notion that is some kind of scam, which it’s not.

The only benefit to shelving the first movie is if you think it’ll cost more money to finish, market, and release it than money it will bring in. They are cutting their losses, not magically generating money out of thin air.

Depends on how you watched it. The DVDs that were being released were in 16:9. Depending on what country you were in, the DVDs sometimes came out before the later seasons were aired on a channel you could access, if at all.

The fact that other series can be re-released in HD is due the fact they are filmed on actual film, which was the point I was making clear.

SG-1 was meant to be seen in 16:9

SG1 was shot in film and mastered in 16:9. 16mm in the first 3 seasons, 35mm 3-7, and then they moved to digital HD cameras season 8 onwards.

Many shows from the 90s were [edit: shot on film]. That’s why you can get a widescreen HD release of Seinfeld, among others.

You are suggesting that piracy eventually leads to profit. That’s not a definition of piracy.

I am saying piracy is obtaining a digital product in an unauthorised manner to avoid paying for the product.

I am ambivalent to piracy. I think it’s a common factor and it is up to content producers to combat it. I am familiar with the studies you’ve linked, but that’s not the topic I’m discussing.

This has been the way for decades now.

What should be happening is people avoid the culprits and/or use an ad blocker. I do believe this is actually what’s happening, which is why content platforms like YouTube are looking for ways to control their audience.

Ad blockers aren’t illegal, but neither is a website blocking ad blockers. It’s an arms race that the content platforms will lose. So I wonder what will be the next step if the ad space depreciates too much to drive the content.

You haven’t disputed my description in any way.

In fact, it seems like you agree but you’re just spending a lot of effort defending the act of piracy.