Jimmy and Dustin worked for Uncle Larry in his porn-pire for ten hard years until Larry fired them a year ago both for being unproductive. He gave them $100,000 severance packages despite them never having really worked at much, which they used to start their own porno company and produce a number of films including such obvious porn gems as Positive Exposure and Sex at Your Service. Larry, the producer of such opuses as Nailin' Paylin, has seen his nephews pornoriffic artistry and has declared it embarrassing to the Flynt family name and his preexisting porn empire that his nephews are trying to use to sell their inferior porn products.

Flynt's suing to prevent damage to the good Flynt name in the porn business, even though he is pretty sure that his nephews will fuck up their new business and he'll end up supporting them anyway. Dustin, the class one, had some thoughts to share with the press.

Dustin Flynt accused his uncle of filing the lawsuit out of "inferiority issues," and said trademark lawsuits were "a way for big business and rich people to put a muzzle on the little guy."

He said he worked his way up in the business over the years, and said his new film "surpasses anything Hustler's ever done."

"I spent a lot of blood, flesh and tears working directly for my family, and it wasn't easy," he said.

No, obviously, it was hard.

Porn Mogul Larry Flynt Sues Nephews Over Use Of Family Name [LA Times]

Because if this is the end of the magazine era and of the DVD era — both fairly well-regulated businesses in terms of performer conditions — and, as Bob Guccione himself notes, the traditional media outlets are having difficulty figuring out how to compete with the Internet (no one said that an old guy can't catch up with the times eventually, it's just many of them die trying), is unregulated amateur the real future of porn? How can that be monetized in order to compensate performers — or can it be? Are women still exploited if they're doing in in exploration of their kinks (like, say, exhibitionism) and not for the financial profit of anyone at all? If there are no business records or even businesses, it'll get more and more difficult to track down those in "charge" of making the pornography or the women (or men) appearing in it to make sure that STI testing is done or that the performers are of age.

Lots has been written — some of it by former performers like Linda Lovelace and Tracy Lords— about the days of porn before which is was a semi-legitimate business enterprise. Say what you will about pornography, objectification and exploitation, the growing legitimization of the pornography industry — which led to much more government- and self-regulation — also led to a significant decrease in the kind of exploitation described by those performers as well as increased opportunities for women to participate in the higher-earning aspects of the production. If the era of professional production is leaving us and the performers, it's fair to ask what we can do to make sure the porn we choose to watch is made with the consent and pleasure of the participants.

Rise And Fall Of The Pornography Barons [Financial Times]
The Future of Media: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying That the Internet Will Consume Print [Huffington Post]

Plot synopsis from the press release:

Mike Horner, who bears a striking resemblance to the former governor, eagerly places his order with the Pimperor's Club. As "Client 69," he agrees to fork over thousands for an all-expense-paid trip so that his mistress, Kristen, can meet him in Washington, D.C. Kristen, played by Cassandra Cruz, arrives at the governor's hotel to find him eagerly awaiting her arrival. Watch as the governor reveals his overzealous sex drive and gets sucked and fucked by his sexy mistress. "Client 69" is under the impression that he is going to get away with his sexcapade, but little does he know there are FBI agents on a stakeout in the next room. The agents, played by Van Damage and Veronica Jett, are so incredibly turned on by what they are overhearing in the governor's room that they decide to have some fun of their own.

Related: Porn Of The Opportunistic Moment: Hustler's "Gov Love: The Eliot Splitz-Her Story"

"On the one hand, I'm almost relieved that Beckham is owning the fact that she's selling herself as a product," Martin explains. "It's what so many of today's vacuous celebrities are doing anyway." But:

On the other hand, it all makes me sick. We've moved beyond 'the male gaze" and objectification; now girls can grow up worshiping Victoria in her painfully tall stilettos and aspiring to be seen as a "living doll," an inhuman product. Beyond the classic advertising trope of cutting women into pieces, this ad campaign also seems to suck the real life right out of them. Please, please, please boycott Marc Jacobs.

When Is a Fashion Ad Not a Fashion Ad? [NY Times]
Beyond Objectification: Woman as Product [Feministing]