[morelisp]

The article is not exactly sympathetic to the "virtual pimps":

> Like many industries that rely on talent that is often young and naive, greedy middlemen (almost always men) who control production and channels of distribution take all the upside for themselves. A perfect example is porn mega-name Mia Khalifa, who was paid a grand total of $12,000 for only a handful of shoots - a tiny, tiny fraction of the value her content has generated for distributors like Pornhub.

Nonetheless this problem is not unique to porn. We don't criminalize Patreon, Medium, Spotify, PayPal, or Visa. We probably should, but if we're going to start dismantling exploitative business practices on moral grounds, why start with the most precarious workers and not the most entrenched and richest middlemen?

[neartheplain]

>A perfect example is porn mega-name Mia Khalifa, who was paid a grand total of $12,000 for only a handful of shoots

This specific example is used by the author to illustrate how OnlyFans is better for performers in comparison. OnlyFans performers keep 80% of their revenue and retain the copyright to their material [0]. Operating in the light of day as opposed to in a legal grey area means the copyright actually gets enforced.

[0] https://onlyfans.com/terms/intellectual-property-rights

[nailer]

Mia Khalifa seems to be a liar:

https://www.ibtimes.com/bangbros-says-mia-khalifa-lied-about...

[alisonkisk]

New artists and performers get paid less until they have a marketable reputation. That's how the art/entertainment IP industry works, from porn to music to movies to books. Khalifa is rich now.

[morelisp]

All those other industries pay royalties. If you have a break-out hit even as a new artist you will get compensated a magnitude more than $12,000.