Appeals Court: free Internet porn isn't unfair competition to pay sites

LD · 2011-02-04, 02:25 PM

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

By Matthew Lasar | Last updated 2 days ago

One day in March of 2009, the proprietors of Redtube.com were minding their own business, streaming free pornographic videos to the public, when they received notice of a lawsuit against them in the mail.

"The ubiquitous distribution of free adult videos through redtube.com has had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors," charged the complaint against Redtube owner Bright Imperial Limited of Hong Kong. "Now that consumers have the ability to watch high quality adult videos for free on redtube.com, fewer are making the choice to pay other adult website proprietors for the same content."

Thus, Redtube.com has caused "many millions of dollars of damages to proprietors of adult entertainment websites," including those of the plaintiff in this instance, one Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles, California. This, he charged, was a violation of California's Unfair Practices Act.

Whatever you think about Internet porn, if you have any sympathy for online commerce you will be glad to know that this lawsuit failed. A California Appeals court has dismissed the case as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit—an action designed to censor free speech.

"The publication of a video on the Internet, whether it depicts teenagers playing football or adult entertainment qualifies as 'conduct in furtherance of... free speech," the court ruled last week. "...All of Cammarata's causes of action arise from Bright's conduct of placing speech on the Internet where it can be viewed for free by the public. This is the 'predatory pricing' that Cammarata complains of."

The judges also took a look at the Redtube business model, and after a fascinating review of the history of broadcasting and the Internet, rejected the plaintiffs unfair competition claims.

Loss leader?
Welcome to the "tube" industry, a genus of raunchy online content sites that includes... well, just type "sex" and "tube" in a search engine and you'll be on your way.

Like any of these venues, Redtube doesn't post free nookie flicks as a philanthropic gesture. Many of the short films on the site are owned and distributed by pay portals like Brazzers and Bangbros, which advertise and convert Redtube watchers into buyers of the longer versions. Also involved in the venture are live chat services like Fling.com and Friendfinder, which banner heavily on Redtube's pages.

So although Redtube's videos are "free," the venue functions as a search engine and preview for these pay sites. They send Redtube a commission fee every time someone forks over credit card money for their services—or, consumers can access some of this content via paid premium subscriptions available on Redtube itself.

Cammarata both admitted and denied this reality in his lawsuit. "Initially redtube.com featured only adult entertainment videos for free," the filing acknowledged. "Now, Bright still displays streaming videos for free on redtube.com, however, it advertises a 'premium' subscription that permits additional capabilities, such as downloading the videos."

But the complaint still insisted that the real motive behind this business model was anti-competitive. Redtube's videos function as "loss leader" bait, he charged—super low price items designed primarily to take away business from other pay sites, a violation of the Unfair Practices law.

"These defendants are selling and giving articles or products, namely adult entertainment videos, at less than the cost of such videos to such defendants, for the purpose of injuring competitors and destroying competition," including Cammarata. This entitled him to "injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys' fees," he thought.

Brought to their knees?
The Appeals Court's ruling showed some initial sympathy for the plaintiff. Cammarata's grievance is common among porn producers, the three-judge panel noted. "According to one adult entertainment executive, the formerly profitable subscription-based websites 'have been brought to their knees' by the tube-based sites," they observed without a wink.

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.

Thus were Cammarata's charges dismissed not only against Redtube proper, but against Bangbros, Brazzers, Friendfinder, and other Redtube partners whom he also sued.

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.

Maj. Stress · 2011-02-04, 04:54 PM

Interesting, especially when you read this article. http://torrentfreak.com/us-resume-fi...izures-110201/
wtf?

plateman · 2011-02-04, 11:19 PM

it just goes to show you how fucked everything is...

the wrong people got into porn and fucked up the pay site model for thousands of people like me and you, then on the flip side. the very same people that started the tube model are still being promoted by the very same people that hate the tubes and people that have them......

AND I hate to say this but...a year and a half, I started a thread that started "building free sites in the future will be a waste of time"

anybody that really knows me know I am a smooth talker, except when I am high, thats what my guy that I help in the tranny biz told me the other day, we were talking about selling skills to customers that come in....

any way that was a smoke screen to get the people who read this board but aren't members or known webmasters or people from certain places to quit and give up cause the "number of people selling porn was way way to many and people like greenie and DD ramster told me that in talk years and years ago and i thought the same

And look how things were before tube sites, you had way to many LL and tgps and hubs and the list goes on... the LL model I love and some kinds of tgps, free sites and galleries hubs

but if the tube didnt come the ratios would slowly erode to what you got now, it just would take a lot longer, from to many webmaters and sites and all the miss use with peoples credit cards and pre checked cross sales, plus then all the skum that was in the biz and the list goes on....oh plus the large number of buyers are now 10 to 12 years older and they may have stopped buying either because they stopped being as horny as they were or the know were all the free is, or they found some pussy and it stayed lol

then youtube and fuckface I first called it when my wife started using it, took away alot of our buyers and traffic, it was the perfect storm as steve light said in one thread I read at the zoo

todays webmaster has to use many tools to make money today and if your not into mainstream, you may be missing out on a gold mine

LL will still be around as long as we hang with it we could have a good thing being in a small number that we are...

anyway it looks like i made a bad choice way back when the tubes first came around, I was gonna start a network of them in niche and I asked one of my friends in private to go wth me and got a reply of giving away to much for free and afraid of BW so I gave up because I was also afraid of loosing all my trades and the LL people hate me, plus I bought the wrong script and didnt want to pay the high price at the time for zorgs script, but I would of, plus I had bw backing if it produced sales and took off, and I can tell you early on G really loved the tubes, I never had faster traffic coming from G then any other site I built, so I am sure I could have made bank with a niche tube network back then...but I had todo something so I picked my friends over greed that I networked with and some I seen in Chicago and all the other LL owners and submitters

if it wasnt ramster and greenie early on and a few others that helped me with seo and I studied It also I prolly wouldnt be left today and with a little luck and a seo plan to still be in the serps,

anyway I am "sorry" if I disrespected anyone back then in that thread way back, that includes all the LL owners and free site submitters, and that was about the time I started having personal problems that are over...

infact I swear its time to start pumping them out along with other stuff...cause i can feel it in my bones that this year will be better for sales and the ones that are left....and sales has picked up with me a bit...

ArtWilliams · 2011-02-05, 08:17 AM

I am not surprised this failed as it is just an attempt to rule on the business model. The real issue at stake here is intellectual property and copyright which the court could not address.

tickler · 2011-02-05, 09:56 AM

Wrong tree!!!

Like the YouTube suit was for not removing copyright materials right away, and the suit was dismissed.

In the meantime during disclosure that found emails(hard proof) that the owners knew, and were uploading copyright materials illegally!

So expect a new case to be filed against the owners!

2011-02-04, 02:25 PM	#1
LD wtfwjd? Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,103	Appeals Court: free Internet porn isn't unfair competition to pay sites http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-pay-sites.ars By Matthew Lasar \| Last updated 2 days ago One day in March of 2009, the proprietors of Redtube.com were minding their own business, streaming free pornographic videos to the public, when they received notice of a lawsuit against them in the mail. "The ubiquitous distribution of free adult videos through redtube.com has had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors," charged the complaint against Redtube owner Bright Imperial Limited of Hong Kong. "Now that consumers have the ability to watch high quality adult videos for free on redtube.com, fewer are making the choice to pay other adult website proprietors for the same content." Thus, Redtube.com has caused "many millions of dollars of damages to proprietors of adult entertainment websites," including those of the plaintiff in this instance, one Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles, California. This, he charged, was a violation of California's Unfair Practices Act. Whatever you think about Internet porn, if you have any sympathy for online commerce you will be glad to know that this lawsuit failed. A California Appeals court has dismissed the case as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit—an action designed to censor free speech. "The publication of a video on the Internet, whether it depicts teenagers playing football or adult entertainment qualifies as 'conduct in furtherance of... free speech," the court ruled last week. "...All of Cammarata's causes of action arise from Bright's conduct of placing speech on the Internet where it can be viewed for free by the public. This is the 'predatory pricing' that Cammarata complains of." The judges also took a look at the Redtube business model, and after a fascinating review of the history of broadcasting and the Internet, rejected the plaintiffs unfair competition claims. Loss leader? Welcome to the "tube" industry, a genus of raunchy online content sites that includes... well, just type "sex" and "tube" in a search engine and you'll be on your way. Like any of these venues, Redtube doesn't post free nookie flicks as a philanthropic gesture. Many of the short films on the site are owned and distributed by pay portals like Brazzers and Bangbros, which advertise and convert Redtube watchers into buyers of the longer versions. Also involved in the venture are live chat services like Fling.com and Friendfinder, which banner heavily on Redtube's pages. So although Redtube's videos are "free," the venue functions as a search engine and preview for these pay sites. They send Redtube a commission fee every time someone forks over credit card money for their services—or, consumers can access some of this content via paid premium subscriptions available on Redtube itself. Cammarata both admitted and denied this reality in his lawsuit. "Initially redtube.com featured only adult entertainment videos for free," the filing acknowledged. "Now, Bright still displays streaming videos for free on redtube.com, however, it advertises a 'premium' subscription that permits additional capabilities, such as downloading the videos." But the complaint still insisted that the real motive behind this business model was anti-competitive. Redtube's videos function as "loss leader" bait, he charged—super low price items designed primarily to take away business from other pay sites, a violation of the Unfair Practices law. "These defendants are selling and giving articles or products, namely adult entertainment videos, at less than the cost of such videos to such defendants, for the purpose of injuring competitors and destroying competition," including Cammarata. This entitled him to "injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys' fees," he thought. Brought to their knees? The Appeals Court's ruling showed some initial sympathy for the plaintiff. Cammarata's grievance is common among porn producers, the three-judge panel noted. "According to one adult entertainment executive, the formerly profitable subscription-based websites 'have been brought to their knees' by the tube-based sites," they observed without a wink. 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. Thus were Cammarata's charges dismissed not only against Redtube proper, but against Bangbros, Brazzers, Friendfinder, and other Redtube partners whom he also sued. 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. __________________ Artisteer Wordpress Theme Generator Create Custom Themes! My Little Network

2011-02-04, 11:19 PM	#3
plateman What can I do - I was born this way LOL Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: ohio Posts: 3,086	it just goes to show you how fucked everything is... the wrong people got into porn and fucked up the pay site model for thousands of people like me and you, then on the flip side. the very same people that started the tube model are still being promoted by the very same people that hate the tubes and people that have them...... AND I hate to say this but...a year and a half, I started a thread that started "building free sites in the future will be a waste of time" anybody that really knows me know I am a smooth talker, except when I am high, thats what my guy that I help in the tranny biz told me the other day, we were talking about selling skills to customers that come in.... any way that was a smoke screen to get the people who read this board but aren't members or known webmasters or people from certain places to quit and give up cause the "number of people selling porn was way way to many and people like greenie and DD ramster told me that in talk years and years ago and i thought the same And look how things were before tube sites, you had way to many LL and tgps and hubs and the list goes on... the LL model I love and some kinds of tgps, free sites and galleries hubs but if the tube didnt come the ratios would slowly erode to what you got now, it just would take a lot longer, from to many webmaters and sites and all the miss use with peoples credit cards and pre checked cross sales, plus then all the skum that was in the biz and the list goes on....oh plus the large number of buyers are now 10 to 12 years older and they may have stopped buying either because they stopped being as horny as they were or the know were all the free is, or they found some pussy and it stayed lol then youtube and fuckface I first called it when my wife started using it, took away alot of our buyers and traffic, it was the perfect storm as steve light said in one thread I read at the zoo todays webmaster has to use many tools to make money today and if your not into mainstream, you may be missing out on a gold mine LL will still be around as long as we hang with it we could have a good thing being in a small number that we are... anyway it looks like i made a bad choice way back when the tubes first came around, I was gonna start a network of them in niche and I asked one of my friends in private to go wth me and got a reply of giving away to much for free and afraid of BW so I gave up because I was also afraid of loosing all my trades and the LL people hate me, plus I bought the wrong script and didnt want to pay the high price at the time for zorgs script, but I would of, plus I had bw backing if it produced sales and took off, and I can tell you early on G really loved the tubes, I never had faster traffic coming from G then any other site I built, so I am sure I could have made bank with a niche tube network back then...but I had todo something so I picked my friends over greed that I networked with and some I seen in Chicago and all the other LL owners and submitters if it wasnt ramster and greenie early on and a few others that helped me with seo and I studied It also I prolly wouldnt be left today and with a little luck and a seo plan to still be in the serps, anyway I am "sorry" if I disrespected anyone back then in that thread way back, that includes all the LL owners and free site submitters, and that was about the time I started having personal problems that are over... infact I swear its time to start pumping them out along with other stuff...cause i can feel it in my bones that this year will be better for sales and the ones that are left....and sales has picked up with me a bit... __________________ Submit to: Porn O Plenty XXX Links Reality Here Last edited by plateman; 2011-02-04 at 11:55 PM..

2011-02-05, 09:56 AM	#5
tickler If there is nobody out there, that's a lot of real estate going to waste! Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,177	Wrong tree!!! Like the YouTube suit was for not removing copyright materials right away, and the suit was dismissed. In the meantime during disclosure that found emails(hard proof) that the owners knew, and were uploading copyright materials illegally! So expect a new case to be filed against the owners! __________________ Latina Twins, Solo, NN, Hardcore Latin Teen Cash

2011-02-04, 04:54 PM	#2
Maj. Stress Progress rarely comes in buckets, it normally comes in teaspoons Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dark Side Of Naboo Posts: 1,289	Interesting, especially when you read this article. http://torrentfreak.com/us-resume-fi...izures-110201/ wtf?

2011-02-05, 08:17 AM	#4
ArtWilliams You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 6,244	I am not surprised this failed as it is just an attempt to rule on the business model. The real issue at stake here is intellectual property and copyright which the court could not address.