Don’t tell Aborigen that this article was written by me, SolomonG! I used gnarly hacking abilities to post this on his blog, executed a man-in-the-middle attack when he was updating. That provided an opportunity to insert extra code which granted initial access. From that point it was trivial to upgrade permissions to administrator level which allows me to post articles like this.

Fear not gentle readers, this is “white hat hacking” or hacking for good, not for evil. Rather than wreak havoc, I am going to use this opportunity to discuss one of my favorite topics, ethics.

Ethics are a fascinating subject which impacts our daily lives. Ethics are also a complex topic, to put it mildly. Thus, the hope is more so that this post will facilitate conversation as opposed to addressing every conceivable concern and answering every potential question. Ethical porn contains numerous aspects so to ensure this article is not too long let’s narrow the focus from ethical porn as a whole down to the issues of creator compensation and digital piracy.

Before we delve into those issues, first allow me to do some groundwork. A simplistic approach would be to establish strict and inviolable rules such as:

• Do not steal
• Do not lie

However, it takes little imagination to conceive of scenarios in which unyielding commandments could create negative outcomes if they do not take context into consideration. For example, if a father was poor and his 10-year-old daughter was starving, then it would be ethical or moral to steal a loaf of bread and save the child’s life. The young girl’s untimely demise would rob her of all the positive experiences a person can expect in life. The harm to the bakery, the loss of a single loaf, would be significantly less than the loss of a human being.

In a similar manner, it was ethical for people to lie in order to protect Jewish families from the Nazis. If those people told the truth that Jewish people were hidden inside their homes then those people would be killed. The resulting suffering would far outweigh any rationale for never lying.

This distinction may sound academic and not relevant to modern times. To this, I would counter that many new American laws, such as Arizona House Bill 2161, will force teachers to disclose whether or not a student is LGBTQ.

Such disclosures could result in caretakers and parents physically harming or even killing their children. Parents like Nevada (a state that borders Arizona) man Wendell Melton who, according to former foster mother Sonja Jones, killed his 14-year-old son Giovanni Melton on November 2, 2017, because Giovanni was gay. California (another state that borders Arizona) boy Gabriel Fernandez was brutally tortured and eventually killed, at the age of 8 years old, by his mother Pearl and her boyfriend Isauro Aguirre because they thought he was gay.

With those deadly consequences in mind, if a teacher believes that parents may harm their own children if disclosures are made, what is the ethical choice? The teacher could choose not to lie, follow the law, tell parents that their kid is LGBTQ, and meekly hope that the kid will not be hurt or killed. Or they could be courageous, tell a lie or at least omit the truth, and defy the law, regardless of the possibility that they could lose their job or be sued into insolvency.

Those are weighty and serious examples. My intent is not to dwell on such grim scenarios anymore than is necessary. However, these examples serve a purpose by proving that strictly following simple ethical prohibitions such as “do not steal” and “do not lie” can create horrific results: the death of children. Therefore, this article will take a more nuanced approach instead of a reductive one. Specifically, it will recommend choices which maximize overall well-being for ourselves and others.

I recommend Practical Ethics by Peter Singer to learn more about ethics in general. I do not agree with everything in his book. Some of the information cited by Singer has been shown to be questionable. For example, he claimed (on page 95) that Dr. Francine Patterson taught lowland gorilla Koko a working vocabulary of more than 500 hand signs. However, Patterson’s claims have been questioned by psychologist Dr. Herbert S. Terrace in a 1979 paper entitled “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?” and by linguist Dr. Geoffrey K. Pullum in a June 27, 2018, article entitled “Koko Is Dead, but the Myth of Her Linguistic Skills Lives On.” It’s not my contention that Singer’s arguments for the humane treatment of non-human animals are invalid. However, the ability of non-humans, like Koko, to use sign language to the high level of fluency claimed by Dr. Patterson is in doubt. Nonetheless, Practical Ethics is a good starting point.

Another thing to consider is the relative affluence or poverty of different countries. For instance, the American minimum wage, as established by the Fair Labor Standards Act, is $7.25 per hour. Cities and states may establish a higher minimum, but they cannot go lower. Additionally, minimum wage for employees who receive tips is $2.13 per hour. The tips plus $2.13 must reach $7.25 per hour or the employer must pay the difference. (NOTE: That’s according to an official U.S. government website, click here to review it.) That does not apply to illegal immigrant workers or incarcerated people, which are separate issues. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll discuss whether sites are affordable based on at least $7.25 per hour.

Shown above are the various Giantess Fan membership plans. A little less than twenty-five bucks, $24.95 to be precise, buys a monthly membership. Botcomics costs only a smidgen more, $24.99 for a single month. Twenty-five bucks is also enough to buy most individual comics from independent artists or video clips from amateur performers.

At $7.25 it takes a little less than three and a half hours to make $25 which is enough to read comics or watch videos. In my opinion, that’s affordable and argues against claims that piracy is “justified” due to unaffordable expense.

However, here’s a question for you the readers. Would excessive price ever justify piracy? Comics and videos are luxuries, unneeded to maintain life. Yet I get a sense that most people would expect piracy if a good was overpriced. For example, if monthly memberships were $50 per month would you feel differently if their comics were pirated? Legally, the companies can set whatever price they wish. What if it was $500 per month, or one grand?

Additionally, it’s important to remember that while $25 is only a few hours worth of labor in America that is not true for all countries. Ukraine has one of the lowest minimum wages in Europe at 40.46 hryvnya per hour, according to WageIndicator.org. Twenty-five bucks, per the Oanda Currency Converter, is the equivalent of 903.5 hryvnya as of October 15. 2023. Thus, it takes more than 22 hours, or almost three eight-hour days of work, for a Ukrainian making minimum wage to afford a monthly membership. I’d argue that circumstances such as this may not make piracy “acceptable,” but at the very least it’s more understandable why a Ukrainian would pirate than an American. Of course, a similar situation exists for customers elsewhere including, but by no means limited to, places such as Brazil, Nigeria, and Thailand.

Moreover, some potential customers may not even have the capability to legally buy comics and videos. For example, Japan and the United States are both wealthy countries involved in substantial international trading. Nonetheless, many Japanese stores will not accept credit cards issued in the United States (ask me how I know 😉 ). The same scenario more than likely also applies to many international customers trying to purchase from Clips4Sale or Botcomics. Doing without or resorting to piracy may be their only options.

Thus, it’s important to remember that while the goods discussed are affordable for Americans, they are perhaps not so affordable or available for others.

With a specific perspective in mind, maximizing overall well-being, let’s now examine the topic of digital piracy. Digital piracy is the unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials across the Internet. The digital, hence non-physical and easily replicable, aspect adds a wrinkle to the concept of do not steal.

If I snatch a cheeseburger from Aborigen then he has been robbed of its utility. Presumably, he was hungry and thus acquired the cheeseburger to satiate his hunger. My callous action deprived him of sustenance and negatively affected his well-being. He will have to take the cheeseburger back, by force potentially, or expend resources to buy or make another.

In contrast, if Aborigen had instead created a drawing of a cheeseburger, say using Adobe Photoshop, which I then surreptitiously copy and disseminate, he still has utility from the original cheeseburger drawing. He can view the picture on his personal computer, admire his work, disseminate copies of it via the Internet, sell copies, etc. So, digital piracy is a different thing than Petty Theft Burger.

It is easier to understand the detrimental consequences of theft of physical goods compared to digital goods. If I stole Aborigen’s car, then he couldn’t get to work. However, if I could (somehow) copy Aborigen’s car (like people copy MP3s) then he would still be able to travel to and from his place of employment using his original automobile. In this specific, albeit impossible, situation one could reasonably argue that the greater well-being would be best served by “pirating” that vehicle. It would have no ill effects on Aborigen and would increase my well-being by giving me personal transportation.

To be clear, if copying cars was indeed possible, then people such as car sellers (whether individuals selling their used cars or public dealerships), rideshare drivers, taxi drivers, etc., would potentially lose out. Although, the same effect would occur if public transportation becomes available and citizens could ride a bus or train instead of taking a car. The concerns of car sellers should be considered, but they should not automatically outweigh the concerns of all the people who could benefit by car copying.

Despite the significant differences between physical theft and digital piracy, there are still negative effects with digital piracy. The artists, authors, producers, etc., should be rewarded for their efforts. Furthermore, they need revenue to make more. They require food and shelter, have financial obligations like everyone such as having kids to put through college, medical bills to pay, etc.

It is not difficult to find examples of piracy’s negative effects in the size community. To give just a few examples, the following are several tweets sent by different artists over the last three years:

I can give personal testimony as well. I wrote a comic for Giantess Fan, “The Great Ice Cream War,” which has since been pirated. Searching for the comic on October 6, 2023, using Google yielded a pirated copy as the very first result.

I was paid a flat fee for writing that comic and will not receive royalties. Thus, I do not receive any additional money when someone reads it at Giantess Fan. However, the decision on whether to use my services as an author are partially based on how many Giantess Fan customers read my comics. Since a free pirated copy exists, there is significant chance that readers may forego reading it at Giantess Fan. Consequently, an editor may decide not to use my services again because fewer people are reading my comic at Giantess Fan.

For the sake of completeness, let’s also examine instances where the negative effects of piracy are less clear and argument could be made that certain unauthorized copying of copyrighted goods has actually contributed something of value.

Some pirates actually translated original works into less widespread languages. Are you a Ukrainian speaker who wants to read erotic comics? Several have been converted into your language, free of charge! The same was done for Thai. Those are two languages that due to their relatively small number of speakers, compared to widespread languages such as English or Spanish, will not receive official translations.

It is possible that Voystik was given permission to translate “New Rule.” I have no indications that it was done with the author’s approval, but cannot rule that out.

There is also the problem of preserving abandoned media which sometimes happens only via unauthorized copying. To illustrate a specific example, let’s look at E.L. Publications, operated and owned by Ed Lundt in Roosevelt, New York.

E.L. Publications began in 1988. At first, Ed placed ads in magazines looking for breast expansion (B.E.) and giantess fans. Additional advertising was conducted online during the 1990s with notices in the newsgroup alt.sex.breast.

Eventually, Ed launched an online web site. (NOTE: The web site, http://www.elpub.com, has been defunct for over seventeen years, but several snapshots are kept at the Wayback Machine.)

Although, the comics themselves were never officially shared online. Instead, customers could send a self-addressed envelope, along with two 32-cent stamps, to get a catalog. Throughout its existence, E.L. Publications did not allow digital purchases. The web site had a printable order form which was filled out and then buyers had to mail that form along with a check or money order (no credit cards allowed) to receive physical copies.

I would love to pay Ed for those comics. However, his web site went offline sometime in mid-September 2006.

(SIDE NOTE: Bust Artist purchased the rights to Ed’s Tremendous Tit Tales and remade them in grOw/stOries, such as “Dragon’s Eggs,” which includes the original black-and-white comic. Ed offered to sell the rights to the illustrated giantess stories in a mid-November 2007 post on the Process Forum. No one bought the rights so those comics were effectively abandoned.)

It is impossible to purchase his giantess stories and has been impossible for some time. Luckily, most of them have been preserved digitally and disseminated via the Internet. Thus, piracy is the only thing keeping E. L. Publications’ giantess comics alive.

The same can be said for Sterling Comics, a California company which began in July 1997, by Drake C. Letcher (a.k.a. D.C. Letcher), which is also out of business.

In a worse state of preservation are issues of Black Giantess, a magazine created by Ron H. which began in 1995 and featured photo collages of African American giantesses. Of interest, Katharine Gates’s book Deviant Desires: A Tour of the Erotic Edge contains several of Ron’s collages, plus an interview. However, there is no way to buy complete issues or view them online.

Extolling the benefits of pirates preserving abandoned media is not to condone people who steal the latest video from Gary Pranzo or rip off comics from Botcomics or InterWeb. There are affordable and legal means to buy those comics and videos.

However, returning to my comic “The Great Cream War,” if Giantess Fan went permanently offline then the story would disappear. In such a scenario personally I would prefer that it was pirated and kept available to be read instead of being lost and forgotten.

While considering creator compensation and the detrimental effect of piracy, it is important not to overlook the equally detrimental impact of publishers who exploit the artists and authors they employ. Let’s examine the case of DC Comics superhero Superman and his creators. Presumably, most readers are familiar with Superman, a character who first appeared in 1938, over 85 years ago.

Given how successful Superman has been, would readers be shocked to learn that the creators struggled financially? I was. It was my hope that the artist and author who made Superman and who have had such a visible impact on popular culture would be rewarded accordingly.

Instead, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster struggled financially in their later years. Laura Siegel Larson, Siegel’s daughter, reported that her parents, Jerry and Joanne, lived in “… complete poverty for many, many years.” (NOTE: That was taken from an article entitled “Joanne Siegel dies at 93; model for Superman character Lois Lane“ written by Dennis McLellan for the Los Angeles Times.)

To be clear, eventually DC Comics provided a stipend and furthermore, to their credit, continued paying a pension to Jerry Siegel’s widow Joanne even after the point (Jerry’s death) at which they could have ceased those payments. (NOTE: That’s according to Superman: The High-Flying History of America’s Most Enduring Hero by Larry Tye.) Although, to be frank, the public relations fallout they would have endured from abandoning a widow would have been non-trivial, to put it mildly.

It must also be noted that Siegel and Shuster did not create every aspect of Superman’s mythology. For example, as a young boy I bought Superman Annual #11, cover date June 1985, from a local supermarket comic book stand. I still have this comic book and enjoy it to this day. Accordingly, I am grateful to Siegel and Shuster for creating Superman.

However, I am also grateful to the many other people involved in this Superman story. This takes place in his Fortress of Solitude (a.k.a. Fort Superman), which first appeared in Action Comic #241 in June 1958 and was created by author Jerry Coleman and artist Wayne Boring. The yellow-skinned alien supervillain Mongul was also not created by Siegel and Shuster. Instead, Mongul was created by author Len Wein and artist Jim Starlin and first appeared in DC Comics Presents #27 from November 1980. The accompanying superheroes Batman, Robin, and Wonder Woman were also created by others.

Those elements of Superman’s mythology such as his super powers, the Fortress of Solitude, the other superheroes, and the supervillain Mongul were combined into an engaging story by Alan Moore and translated into hand-drawn artwork by Dave Gibbons. Everyone contributed to this story about a character created by Siegel and Shuster.

How does Superman relate to the Size Community? Parallels can be made between the creators of Superman and creators of size fetish comics such as Lorekeep, writer of numerous comics for Giantess Club (an erotic comic site operated by Botcomics).

One of the comics written by Lorekeep, PMD (Persons of Mass Destruction, a reference to WMD or Weapons of Mass Destruction), had an eight-issue run and a spin-off, PMD: War, which also ran for eight issues. (NOTE: Eight issues typically is the maximum length for Botcomics series. It is not clear why. Perhaps an Elder God will descend from the cosmos and end humanity if a human in their unrelenting hubris publishes nine issues.)

Contrast that cover above to this version of PMD taken from the Botcomics web site on September 29, 2023. Lorekeep’s name was removed and replaced with Bob Saget. The details tab on the PMD page does list both Bob Saget and Lorekeep as writers. However, Small Frye, also wrote part of PMD and there was no mention of Small Frye on the cover or under the details tab.

To be clear, Bob Saget did write some of the issues. However, Lorekeep created the PMD concept of soldiers growing to enormous sizes and demolishing cities.

What will happen if PMD becomes a runaway hit? According to an April 15, 2011, post on the Process Forum, Lorekeep signed no contracts with Giantess Club and was only paid for referrals. It is unknown if he is still paid when people click on his links, but potential customers would have to dig up decade-old posts to find those referral links.

Since no contracts were signed Lorekeep presumably would not be paid a single additional cent no matter how successful PMD may became. At this point, Lorekeep has not created every aspect of the PMD universe, just like Siegel and Shuster did not create every aspect of Superman’s universe. However, Lorekeep should still be acknowledged for creating PMD to start with.

As it stands currently, if PMD were made into an animated film or a live-action porno then no money and potentially not even creator credit would be given to Lorekeep. Such a development—PMD getting a movie—may sound unlikely. You may also counter, saying that PMD, a size fetish comic, will never be as financially successful as Superman. To which I would agree.

However, consider for a moment if you had a time machine and went back to January 1938, a few months before Superman’s debut appearance in Action Comics #1. What do you think Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster would say if you told them their superhero would live on for decades and make billions of dollars? Relate to those two twenty-something men that their character will appear in animated series, Broadway musicals, comic books, movies, newspaper comic strips, novels, phonograph records, radio programs, theme park attractions, toy aisles, TV shows, unauthorized foreign rip-offs (a la Süpermen Dönüyor a.k.a. Turkish Superman), video games (that might require explanation), and more? I am confident Siegel and Shuster would think you were crazy.

Thus, who is to say what characters or themes will be popular in the future? Are soldiers growing to enormous sizes more incredible or unacceptable than an invulnerable alien from Krypton who can move planets and travel through time on his own power?

In general, customers should refrain from pirating size works and instead financially support the artists and authors. They create the comics, stories, and videos we enjoy. Personally, I want a world in which creators can financially support themselves, meaning earn a decent living.

I want authors such as Aborigen to have enough money for life’s necessities such as buying ramen and ramune from United Noodles. Ideally, he would also have a little extra for luxury items, like techno tracks from Hong Kong.

While it’s important to combat piracy, at the same time publishers should also accurately attribute the contributions of the artists and authors they employ and ensure those creative people share in any financial success. If publishers are unwilling to do so, then the artists and authors should organize and form a union to ensure they are recognized and rewarded for their contributions.

---

That’s it for today. If Aborigen doesn’t upgrade his firewall then I may write about another topic on his blog in the future. Until then, keep enjoying and making ethical porn!