ThePointyEnd That just means there's LESS of a reason to change it.
0.01% of accounts download hundreds of times more than the other 99.99% together.
Even with the new limit in place, this is true.
someoneX ThePointyEnd
Anyway, you're assuming to know the reasons for the change.
I just want to say if you need to download 150 videos a month you probably have a porn addiction (not a laughing matter at all) and this might be in your best interest.
.02
Users on here wouldn't appreciate a lecture on this topic. Language matters. You don't want users creating mash-ups with large extracts of your footage. I'd find clearer language given the context.
Note: 'Fair Use' not 'Fair Dealing'
100+ GB files is an insane luxury for a very limited number of users (right? stats?) given the present state of technology/
If bandwidth is the issue, it would be smarter to limit those large files than implement universal policy.
Count them as 10 files... The ones above, say, 75 GB.
Rakly3 0.01% of accounts download hundreds of times more than the other 99.99% together.
Even with the new limit in place, this is true.
So you wanna tell, 0,01% users load 150 videos per month, because well they can not load more.
And this is 100x more then the rest 99,99%, so the 99,99% load in SUM 15 videos.
Or let´s put this in more concrete numbers.
Let´s assume you have 10000 users.
1 user loads 150 videos.
9999 users load 15 videos in sum or in other words 0,0015 videos per user.
Sounds really believable. 
ibins
Most users don't download full scenes, yes.
But I didn't say 99.99% of users. I said accounts.
What I should have clarified though, is that I wasn't counting in # of scenes, but in data volume. The majority of users use less than one full average-length scene a month. Downloads usually also go for the highest quality, or the even larger studio files. Not everyone streams at the highest quality, especially users who stream through their browser. Surprisingly many users stream with the oculus browser instead of app.
The point is mute anyway. Most changes happen for completely different reasons than what users think.
BTW the idea of fair use is not to have any hard limit at all.
Fair use means that you are expected to be under a certain limit in the long term. If you occasionally exceed the limit nothing happens at all.
If you regularly exceed the limit, you get a warning.
Depending on the exact policy you might get a second or third warning, and finally if you ignore them you get the access to the service you used more then you should suspended.
A hard limit is just the opposite of fair use. It is a part of a contract that says you pay X amount and for this you get the service for Y amount. Of course there is nothing generally wrong with that, as long as you do not suddenly change already sealed contracts.
[deleted] What country are you from? You sure seem to think you know a lot about America for not living here. I'm going to guess eastern Europe or a right wing Australian with a statement like this "and has already spent 65 billion stoking war against Russia and rejecting a viable peace deal".
When am I getting my 50% refund?
rerun119 stoking war against Russia
You know your society is fucked when a love for peace is likened to right-wing nuttery. The peace deal stalled when U.S. politicians insisted that Ukraine keep the right to join NATO. I'm certainly not right-wing. It's just that I read and don't like war and death. Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand, other than the reality that with billions going to finance a state-sponsored expansionist agenda companies -- all companies including porn makers -- can't offer as much. This is not to excuse the unexpected, possibly illegal change in terms here, just to observe the underlying causes.
TemporaryName When am I getting my 50% refund?
If you complain immediately to EPOCH and provide a screen capture of the changed terms, they will cancel your payment and account within a few days. They will calculate a proportionate refund based on when that happens.
But I'd recommend staying on here. The content is exclusive and the site remains better than the competitor POVR.
RockyMtHigh Respectfully, it is really none of your business how other people use their subscriptions. If they paid for a certain deal and the company changes it, they have every right to complain and they certainly don't need to justify their porn habits or usage to you. You kind of have a lot of nerve even offerring your judgements here. Best to let them duke it out with the company while you keep your comments to yourself.
Rakly3 So basically, you are annoyed that some users are taking full advantage of the terms of their subscription price, instead of acting like the majority who only use a small percentage of what they paid for.
Essentially, your business model is grounded in betting that most of your users don't get their money's worth - since people make decisions about what to spend depending on the terms, which you count on them never fully using their side of.
(see: loan sharks, insurance companies, etc. Nice company you're keeping there)
Sounds legit.
Rakly3 There's a reason those files are available.
And what's that reason? How many users download the 100GB + files relative to full usage of the previous 30 films per 72 hour period. Just curious.
Personally, the change from 144 to 72h is driving me crazy. I have no idea when the counter refreshes; there needs to be a counter instead of this "every 144h". It's not hard to code a little clock.
[deleted] hes being deliberately vague... i dont think youll get an question to that question
Rakly3 Why make the distinction between accounts and users?
You know what makes this more frustrating? I remember pretty distinctly saying year ago that instead of only offering inflated 7 & 8K videos that you should offer 5K or 6K versions for those videos for those of us who do not want to waste data or bandwidth and you yourself liked the comment so I know you read it. It seems the best solution for the end user who actually uses the site is to severely limit the number of original source videos or super high resolution SLR encodes further, which has been portrayed as the problem with data usage, but offer 5K or 6K without limits so that if you want the videos, you can still download the videos but if you want the pristine versions eating all the bandwidth, you have to be far more selective. You want to block multiple simultaneous downloads? Go for it. Limit it to one at a time. Don't want people downloading full videos? By all means, offer partial downloads of just the segments they want.
It seems an awful lot like meeting the consumer halfway on a fair compromise to getting what they paid for is not the goal here.
Rakly3 The point is mute anyway. Most changes happen for completely different reasons than what users think.
If not 'fair use of network,' exploiting monthly subscriptions, or data volume, then what are the reasons? If those points are moot, then what is it? Because the number of downloads available has been consistently shrinking, so without a convincing reason, it seems more like this is just another push to eliminate downloads altogether and force streaming. Why would a business want to force streaming if exploiting monthly subs isn't a reason to block downloads? Maybe once everyone is forced to stream and stream from the app then also charge a subscription for the video player app itself as well? Maybe because when streaming it harvests more data from the user to then sell that data?
It was good to go through the reasonable discussion in this thread.
It doesn't look like there are any arguments left and it will be good to wrap it up.
We will add a clock when the limit drops.
Thx for staying with us. Many new features and performance boosts are coming to the SLR app.
