Did redtube win in court? - GoFuckYourself.com

iamtam · 02-02-2011, 10:11 AM

rumor has it...

Agent 488 · 02-02-2011, 10:12 AM

win what?

Agent 488 · 02-02-2011, 10:14 AM

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/02/ca...to-paid-sites/

California court: Free porn portals not unfair to paid sites

seeandsee · 02-02-2011, 10:14 AM

they win it all or not

ajrocks · 02-02-2011, 11:48 AM

OUCHHHHHHHHHH!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-pay-sites.ars

Agent 488 · 02-02-2011, 11:49 AM

CaptainHowdy · 02-02-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajrocks

OUCHHHHHHHHHH!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-pay-sites.ars

datatank · 02-02-2011, 12:01 PM

talk about reaching.
I am shocked some one who passed the bar would try that argument.

datatank · 02-02-2011, 12:02 PM

All this lawsuit did was get them more traffic and exposure.

Choker · 02-02-2011, 12:02 PM

Seems the Courts get what most webmasters still don't.

Bottom line: "If Cammarata's subscription-based website lost revenue after Redtube and other tube-based websites came on the scene it was because the tube-based business model is more efficient, not because of alleged predatory pricing by Bright," the court concluded.

KillerK · 02-02-2011, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

Seems the Courts get what most webmasters still don't.

Bottom line: "If Cammarata's subscription-based website lost revenue after Redtube and other tube-based websites came on the scene it was because the tube-based business model is more efficient, not because of alleged predatory pricing by Bright," the court concluded.

Not as many would complain if the content they gave out wasn't stolen.

woj · 02-02-2011, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by datatank

talk about reaching.
I am shocked some one who passed the bar would try that argument.

no kidding

AzteK · 02-02-2011, 12:24 PM

It sounds like their lawsuit was based on unfair business practices not copyright infringement, so their argument wasn't valid against the freedom of speech. The judges took noticed that redtube actually was promoting porn pay sites and wasn't just giving it away for free.

But the justices could find no evidence that Redtube's marketing strategy had anything to do with putting the plaintiff out of business:

If Bright's business model sounds familiar it's because it's the business model typical of broadcast radio and television stations in the United States not to mention thousands of local newspapers and, more recently, tens of thousands of Internet websites including YouTube, CNN and Yahoo.

The undisputed evidence showed that Bright obtains most of the videos it shows on Redtube free of charge from advertisers who pay Bright to display their videos containing their ads. Fundamentally, there is no difference between Redtube and a radio station in the early 1900s that broadcasted records it obtained for free from a music store and, in return, told its listeners where the records could be purchased. (See www.oldradio.com/current/bc_spots.htm; last visited Dec. 7, 2010.) In both cases the broadcaster's purpose is not to destroy competition or a competitor but to attract patrons to its broadcast site where they will, hopefully, respond to its advertisers' messages.

Read the article and leave your opinions and perception behind, then you'll understand their point.

Choker · 02-02-2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerK

Not as many would complain if the content they gave out wasn't stolen.

That's a totally different subject.

AzteK · 02-02-2011, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choker

That's a totally different subject.

thank god someone gets it

The Porn Nerd · 02-02-2011, 01:09 PM

Bringing a lawsuit stating "unfair business practices" would be a long shot under most circumstances, and with most industries not just Adult. To "prove" this you have to show criminal intent. And what, exactly, is an "unfair business practice" in today's climate and world? Way too vague an attack on a site as huge as RedTube.

Going after tubes on copyright infringement is ultimately the way to go; if ALL the content on ALL the tubes out there were submitted by programs (like PeabodyCash etc) then there's be absolutely no issues. You could choose to share in the tube's traffic or you could choose not to but there wouldn't be anything ILLEGAL about 'free".

Honestly, if I ran a tube site these days I'd just strip all the "user submitted" content and ONLY show content from Programs (or content the tube itself purchased legally). I mean, at this point the only benefit to having "user submitted" (i.e., possibly 'stolen') content on your tube site is to get the free publicity after someone sues you. LOL

habibjr · 02-02-2011, 08:33 PM

the real winners are attorneys.. i bet there bill is close to 100k

JFK · 02-03-2011, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by habibjr

the real winners are attorneys.. i bet there bill is close to 100k

they win every time

02-02-2011, 10:11 AM	#1
iamtam So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,211	Did redtube win in court? rumor has it...

02-02-2011, 10:14 AM	#4
seeandsee Check SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe (Skype: gojkoas) Posts: 50,945	they win it all or not __________________ BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year Contact here

02-02-2011, 11:48 AM	#5
ajrocks Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: On Uranus Posts: 4,526	OUCHHHHHHHHHH! http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-pay-sites.ars __________________ SEO Strategy - Digital Strategy - Cannabis Lead Generation Skype aj.durden1

02-02-2011, 12:02 PM	#10
Choker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orlando Posts: 9,024	Seems the Courts get what most webmasters still don't. Bottom line: "If Cammarata's subscription-based website lost revenue after Redtube and other tube-based websites came on the scene it was because the tube-based business model is more efficient, not because of alleged predatory pricing by Bright," the court concluded. __________________ ICQ me lets make a deal 116894466 Need dating, cam, or tube traffic? I got it.http://http://www.chokertraffic.com The Original http://www.chokertraffic.com/ Premium country pop-unders from $1.50 per k. I challenge you to compare this traffic to any other brokers. http://www.chokertraffic.com/public/tabs.php?t=o

02-02-2011, 12:24 PM	#13
AzteK Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Northern Cali, USA Posts: 3,445	It sounds like their lawsuit was based on unfair business practices not copyright infringement, so their argument wasn't valid against the freedom of speech. The judges took noticed that redtube actually was promoting porn pay sites and wasn't just giving it away for free. But the justices could find no evidence that Redtube's marketing strategy had anything to do with putting the plaintiff out of business: If Bright's business model sounds familiar it's because it's the business model typical of broadcast radio and television stations in the United States not to mention thousands of local newspapers and, more recently, tens of thousands of Internet websites including YouTube, CNN and Yahoo. The undisputed evidence showed that Bright obtains most of the videos it shows on Redtube free of charge from advertisers who pay Bright to display their videos containing their ads. Fundamentally, there is no difference between Redtube and a radio station in the early 1900s that broadcasted records it obtained for free from a music store and, in return, told its listeners where the records could be purchased. (See www.oldradio.com/current/bc_spots.htm; last visited Dec. 7, 2010.) In both cases the broadcaster's purpose is not to destroy competition or a competitor but to attract patrons to its broadcast site where they will, hopefully, respond to its advertisers' messages. Read the article and leave your opinions and perception behind, then you'll understand their point. Last edited by AzteK; 02-02-2011 at 12:27 PM..

02-02-2011, 10:12 AM	#2
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	win what?

02-02-2011, 11:49 AM	#6
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511

02-02-2011, 12:01 PM	#8
datatank Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: My dog is blacker than Tupac Posts: 5,471	talk about reaching. I am shocked some one who passed the bar would try that argument.

02-02-2011, 01:09 PM	#16
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,575	Bringing a lawsuit stating "unfair business practices" would be a long shot under most circumstances, and with most industries not just Adult. To "prove" this you have to show criminal intent. And what, exactly, is an "unfair business practice" in today's climate and world? Way too vague an attack on a site as huge as RedTube. Going after tubes on copyright infringement is ultimately the way to go; if ALL the content on ALL the tubes out there were submitted by programs (like PeabodyCash etc) then there's be absolutely no issues. You could choose to share in the tube's traffic or you could choose not to but there wouldn't be anything ILLEGAL about 'free". Honestly, if I ran a tube site these days I'd just strip all the "user submitted" content and ONLY show content from Programs (or content the tube itself purchased legally). I mean, at this point the only benefit to having "user submitted" (i.e., possibly 'stolen') content on your tube site is to get the free publicity after someone sues you. LOL __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Now on Teams: peabodymedia

02-02-2011, 08:33 PM	#17
habibjr Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 342	the real winners are attorneys.. i bet there bill is close to 100k __________________ Make Money on REAL ReAlity Ethnic Homegrown Porn The ORIGINAL BLACK SEX FINDER