To me it?s fairly obvious that The Porn Critics ripped of The Best Porn. They clearly changed just enough to make it not a 100% rip-off. What made it clear for me was when I started to look at all the details:
? URL strategy is the exact same format-
http://tugjobs.thebestporn.com/ vs.
http://tug-jobs.theporncritics.com/
? Header is the exact same format- Tug Job Site Review (tugjobs) at The Porn Critics vs. Tug Job Site Review (tugjobs) at The Best Porn
? Site Facts wording is exact-?The details about Tug Jobs and members area?
? Listing/ updating format- ?First Listed: 06/28/05, Facts Update: 06/28/05?
? Site Facts Format
? Official review text-?A complete 2(4)-editor review for Tug Jobs?
? Avatars with the Pros/Cons format, even down the (+) and (-).
? The way that text is bolded to emphasize points.
? The scoring system, especially the notion of a curve. ho the hell else would think of applying a curve to a freaking porn site review. That?s something so ridiculously anal that it could have only come from Rick.
The ones above are just a few examples. There are so many ridiculously tiny details that are the _exact_ same that it?s clear that The Porn Critics was (euphemistically speaking) modeled after The Best Porn.
Unfortunately, though, it would be hard to sue because you can?t really prove damages. The Best Porn will probably just have to settle for knowing that they were the ones who raised the bar in the review space and continue to innovate because there are always sites that will rip you off. I guess when you?re on top, people are always gunning for you?
As a side note, about the only idea that they didn?t take was reviewing my site, VideoBox. What?s up with that? It?s clearly the best video site on the web:-)