Did redtube win in court?
 

rumor has it...

win what?

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

California court: Free porn portals not unfair to paid sites

they win it all or not :)

OUCHHHHHHHHHH!

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

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

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

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.

no kidding :thumbsup

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.

That's a totally different subject.

thank god someone gets it

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

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

they win every time:winkwink: