NEWS: Hearing on RedTube Suit Set for Tomorrow - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

PastorSinAlot · 07-23-2009, 03:27 PM

i guess known of you guys been sued, i get sued 3 to 5 times a year, The judge always ask can things be workout before going into a trial. then if this cant be work out, then it might go to trail. which might take another 3 to 6 months

camgirlshide · 07-23-2009, 04:24 PM

Nice, I still say - some of us may be too small to file lawsuits, but we can help the tube situation by just refusing to do business with anyone who allows their ads to be shown on an illegal tube site.

Drake · 07-23-2009, 08:07 PM

I wonder how far the rabbit hole goes for Bright Imperial - exactly how many shell companies and peripheral parties exist, shielding the true owner(s).

fatfoo · 07-23-2009, 08:39 PM

$40 million. That's a lot of money.
The lawsuit, which was filed earlier this year, claims that RedTube has unlawfully offered free movies as loss leaders in an attempt to crush its competition and seeks to have RedTube shut down.

Best-In-BC · 07-23-2009, 10:37 PM

1. This will fail, garentie
2. Host and sponsors are far from being liable
3. Most importantly, its a us class action suit or w./e means shit to everyone out side of the us

Elixir · 07-23-2009, 11:22 PM

Interesting news

mmcfadden · 07-23-2009, 11:30 PM

who won? who lost?

one thing is for certain many more tubes will pop up in it's place....

wtfent · 07-23-2009, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Best-In-BC

1. This will fail, garentie
2. Host and sponsors are far from being liable
3. Most importantly, its a us class action suit or w./e means shit to everyone out side of the us

Who or what is garentie? I guarantee I have never heard that word before.

Dirty Dane · 07-24-2009, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camgirlshide

but we can help the tube situation by just refusing to do business with anyone who allows their ads to be shown on an illegal tube site.

We need a complete list

Pseudonymous · 07-24-2009, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfent

Who or what is garentie? I guarantee I have never heard that word before.

Stop playing the english teacher and try responding to the actual points he made.

DWB · 07-24-2009, 02:08 AM

So what was the result of this? Moving forward or not?

Pseudonymous · 07-24-2009, 02:11 AM

Like somebody said before, I doubt anything was settled in the first hearing. It's a 40 million dollar case apparently, this thing could take time.

RadicalSights · 07-24-2009, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wtfent

Who or what is garentie?

Paul Markham · 07-24-2009, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

suing for loss of revenue by loss leader I don't think will work.

honestly i don't see anything wrong with redtube giving away free porn, so long as they have the right to USE that porn that is on their site.

For the small amount of videos posted daily, it's not unreasonable or unrealistic to require them to have the rights to use everything on their servers, esp in adult. They don't have that if it's user uploaded.

If giving away free video becomes a crime we're all in for a different industry.

Quote:

I wonder if requiring 2257 for adult material on your server would be a better route to take?

redtube has stolen adult material. I don't think any for one second believes it was user uploaded. It was done by staff there. And even if it was, FREE ADULT MATERIAL should require 2257 documentation.

if it was truly user uploaded then there would be c p on the site, if it's checked for that, it should be also checked for 2257 on ALL adult material or the assumption is it's all underage models. They SHOULD be required to prove it in each and every video on their servers.

I also think the host SHOULD be liable as well if they become aware of a client posting adult material without 2257 documents.

The authorities are not really interested in 2257, if they were they would of been checking sites that obviously don't have documents and not checking companies who are likely to have documents.

st0ned · 07-24-2009, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustDaveXxx

This hearing is to see if this lawsuit has merit. This argument is really solid and i think will move forward.

If you do links or push traffic, you need to show your support and push Teen Revenue. This law suit is very important to our industry.

Teen Revenue is the one who filed suit? NICE! They have always been my #1 and now I have even more reason to send them additional sales.

Dirty Dane · 07-24-2009, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The authorities are not really interested in 2257, if they were they would of been checking sites that obviously don't have documents and not checking companies who are likely to have documents.

So F true!
The irony of it all, is that the adult industry- at least some of it - is fighting against unfair regulations, censorship, .xxx ... u name it... and the real criminals benefit under these shelters. By screwing those who fight "for" them.
At some point there will be a tipping point. Not only for adult industry, but on the internet in general. The politicians, especially the right/conservative ones, can just lean back and wait for the excuse. The ones crying most, when it happens, will be those who can't run a legal and fully open business.

Paul Markham · 07-24-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

So F true!
The irony of it all, is that the adult industry- at least some of it - is fighting against unfair regulations, censorship, .xxx ... u name it... and the real criminals benefit under these shelters. By screwing those who fight "for" them.
At some point there will be a tipping point. Not only for adult industry, but on the internet in general. The politicians, especially the right/conservative ones, can just lean back and wait for the excuse. The ones crying most, when it happens, will be those who can't run a legal and fully open business.

Very true. Unless Governments do something drastic a great opportunity will be missed.

Idigmygirls · 07-26-2009, 05:07 PM

Quoting from the below article: "If the case ever had legs, those legs appear to have suffered the equivalent of a tibia-fibula compound fracture. Yesterday, the Honorable Maureen Duffy-Lewis dismissed the case under California?s Anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 425.16."

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2009/0...ound-fracture/

Mutt · 07-26-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idigmygirls

Quoting from the below article: "If the case ever had legs, those legs appear to have suffered the equivalent of a tibia-fibula compound fracture. Yesterday, the Honorable Maureen Duffy-Lewis dismissed the case under California?s Anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 425.16."

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2009/0...ound-fracture/

judge laughed them out of court - not sure why they chose go that route when i'm sure that Pornhub and all the big tube sites have Teen Revenue videos on them -proving that Pornhub and other tube sites in no way meet the criteria for safe harbor protection under the DMCA is far easier than the anti-trust argument.

gideongallery · 07-26-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

judge laughed them out of court - not sure why they chose go that route when i'm sure that Pornhub and all the big tube sites have Teen Revenue videos on them -proving that Pornhub and other tube sites in no way meet the criteria for safe harbor protection under the DMCA is far easier than the anti-trust argument.

again one more of my predictions came true.

brassmonkey · 07-26-2009, 07:14 PM

hard battle 2 fight

Drake · 07-26-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

again one more of my predictions came true.

Shap · 07-26-2009, 09:06 PM

It was a retarded case to begin with LOL. We've been talking about it in the office and I can't believe that teenrevenue guy was stupid enough to waste his time and money on this case. Oh well. I give him points for trying but it was a huge waste of a try.

I imagine nobody knew how it would turn out because the american legal system is so screwed up. The only hope was getting a brain dead judge. Unfortunately for him he didn't.

bbobby86 · 07-27-2009, 02:35 AM

some interesting staff to read...

xxxjay · 07-27-2009, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shap

I give him points for trying but it was a huge waste of a try..

Me too.

gideongallery · 07-28-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shap

It was a retarded case to begin with LOL. We've been talking about it in the office and I can't believe that teenrevenue guy was stupid enough to waste his time and money on this case. Oh well. I give him points for trying but it was a huge waste of a try.

I imagine nobody knew how it would turn out because the american legal system is so screwed up. The only hope was getting a brain dead judge. Unfortunately for him he didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Me too.

you respect him wasting money on a dog of case which had a snowballs chance in hell of winning why ?

Shap · 07-28-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you respect him wasting money on a dog of case which had a snowballs chance in hell of winning why ?

I respect him having the balls to try something unfortunately it wasn't well thought out or researched. I'm guessing he was given bad advice.

On a personal note I'm not very well educated in the legal arena. I do my homework and get as much information as possible but for the most part when it comes to legal situations I rely on my lawyers for guidance. I'm not sure if this was Kevin's idea that he shoved down his lawyer's throat or their idea that they shoved down his.

gideongallery · 07-28-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shap

I respect him having the balls to try something unfortunately it wasn't well thought out or researched. I'm guessing he was given bad advice.

On a personal note I'm not very well educated in the legal arena. I do my homework and get as much information as possible but for the most part when it comes to legal situations I rely on my lawyers for guidance. I'm not sure if this was Kevin's idea that he shoved down his lawyer's throat or their idea that they shoved down his.

my opinion is the exact opposite when you go after a dog of a case and lose you create a legal precedent that your opponents can use against you to further extend their rights.

not researching this case before, blindly going in with this dog has now absolutely established the law on the side of the tube sites. IT means arguements that could have won are going to have overcome this ruling to get by, making it way worse for everyone.

this cheerleader mentality has to stop, cheering a guy on waste money on dog of a case like this is actually the worst thing you can do for your industry.

Shap · 07-28-2009, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

my opinion is the exact opposite when you go after a dog of a case and lose you create a legal precedent that your opponents can use against you to further extend their rights.

not researching this case before, blindly going in with this dog has now absolutely established the law on the side of the tube sites. IT means arguements that could have won are going to have overcome this ruling to get by, making it way worse for everyone.

this cheerleader mentality has to stop, cheering a guy on waste money on dog of a case like this is actually the worst thing you can do for your industry.

Actually that's a good point. I hadn't thought of it that way.

I proved my other point I don't know shit about the legal system lol

just a punk · 07-28-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idigmygirls

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2009/0...ound-fracture/

So RedTube won?

gideongallery · 07-28-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

So RedTube won?

not only did they win but the case was ruled to be such a dog that teenrevenue had to pay all of red tubes legal bills.

really bad precedent set for everyone else.

Sausage · 07-28-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

not only did they win but the case was ruled to be such a dog that teenrevenue had to pay all of red tubes legal bills.

really bad precedent set for everyone else.

No actually thank god they lost.

The implications had they won would have been quite worrying. Would have opened up a can of worms, not just for tubes.

SmokenCess · 07-28-2009, 08:22 PM

HAHA redtube is the shit!

brassmonkey · 07-28-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

not only did they win but the case was ruled to be such a dog that teenrevenue had to pay all of red tubes legal bills.

really bad precedent set for everyone else.

damn fucked twice

gideongallery · 07-28-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sausage

No actually thank god they lost.

The implications had they won would have been quite worrying. Would have opened up a can of worms, not just for tubes.

not the point i was making it was a snowballs chance in hell of winning

it would have been better if they never filed the case at all, the precedent set now and doubles if not triple the cost of legitimate arguements (like when you fully provide for the fair use rights of your customers).

brassmonkey · 07-28-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

GAMEFINEST · 07-28-2009, 09:14 PM

bunch of porn sites in court..

mynameisjim · 07-28-2009, 09:19 PM

Was the entire case thrown out or just the part that claims the advertisers are "aiders and abettors"?

96ukssob · 07-28-2009, 09:28 PM

wow that fucking sucks.

honestly, i think they are hear to stay until ISPs start to block them or some CP ends up on the site and they are shut down by the DOJ... neither of which i can see happening

gideongallery · 07-29-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

Was the entire case thrown out or just the part that claims the advertisers are "aiders and abettors"?

the entire case was booted. anti-slapp doesn't kick in until the case is over.

Paul Markham · 07-29-2009, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shap

I respect him having the balls to try something unfortunately it wasn't well thought out or researched. I'm guessing he was given bad advice.

On a personal note I'm not very well educated in the legal arena. I do my homework and get as much information as possible but for the most part when it comes to legal situations I rely on my lawyers for guidance. I'm not sure if this was Kevin's idea that he shoved down his lawyer's throat or their idea that they shoved down his.

For once I agree with Gideon. This was a stupid case and should never of been even thought of. Shows how much serious thought Kevin Cammarata put into it. He got terrible advice and never went anywhere else to get another opinion. His lawyer ripped him a new ass hole, maybe.

The legal route is not the route to go to beat Tubes, it will likely cost fortunes and achieve little. Might even set precedents that will make it harder and more expensive in the future.

Marshal · 07-29-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i'm quite sure that's just one company in a chain of companies that exist ONLY on paper. i seriously doubt there is a "RedTube - We produce and distribute porn" office in Hong Kong. You don't form a Hong Kong company because you intend to be found ;)

someone should definitely inform the officials there... i'd love to see what's going on then...

Mutt · 07-29-2009, 09:37 AM

the legal tide is turning against piracy but it's gonna be years - gideon can run around the room in circles making airplane noises but slowly judges are figuring out what's going on.
piracy is piracy, it's not such a gray area. we all know what Pornhub et all are doing - not so hard to convince a judge or jury.

i think that Viacom vs Google/YouTube lawsuit is gonna be landmark.

crockett · 07-29-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idigmygirls

Quoting from the below article: "If the case ever had legs, those legs appear to have suffered the equivalent of a tibia-fibula compound fracture. Yesterday, the Honorable Maureen Duffy-Lewis dismissed the case under California?s Anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 425.16."

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2009/0...ound-fracture/

That is the most idiotic write up I've ever seen. The guy doesn't have a clue about what the case was about.

crockett · 07-29-2009, 09:52 AM

btw being it's Brazers whom owns many of these illegal tubes. Why doesn't someone sue them for unfair business practices? I'm sure it could be argued that they are trying to dilute their competitions content by giving it away for free on tube sites, causing their competition harm.

gideongallery · 07-29-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

the legal tide is turning against piracy but it's gonna be years - gideon can run around the room in circles making airplane noises but slowly judges are figuring out what's going on.
piracy is piracy, it's not such a gray area. we all know what Pornhub et all are doing - not so hard to convince a judge or jury.

i think that Viacom vs Google/YouTube lawsuit is gonna be landmark.

says the guy who praising teenrevenue for going forward with this dog of a case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

That is the most idiotic write up I've ever seen. The guy doesn't have a clue about what the case was about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

btw being it's Brazers whom owns many of these illegal tubes. Why doesn't someone sue them for unfair business practices? I'm sure it could be argued that they are trying to dilute their competitions content by giving it away for free on tube sites, causing their competition harm.

unfair trade practices don't apply as long as the safe harbor makes their actions legal. you are trying to make the arguement that an action ruled by law to be perfectly legal is unfair.

it not going to win especially since the only reason the law protect them is because the copyright holder chooses not to fulfil the fair use rights of their customers.

brassmonkey · 07-29-2009, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

says the guy who praising teenrevenue for going forward with this dog of a case.

unfair trade practices don't apply as long as the safe harbor makes their actions legal. you are trying to make the arguement that an action ruled by law to be perfectly legal is unfair.

it not going to win especially since the only reason the law protect them is because the copyright holder chooses not to fulfil the fair use rights of their customers.

crockett · 07-29-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

says the guy who praising teenrevenue for going forward with this dog of a case.

unfair trade practices don't apply as long as the safe harbor makes their actions legal. you are trying to make the arguement that an action ruled by law to be perfectly legal is unfair.

it not going to win especially since the only reason the law protect them is because the copyright holder chooses not to fulfil the fair use rights of their customers.

So curious, wtf is it you do in this industry other than tell us all how great torrent and illegal tubes are?

gideongallery · 07-29-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

So curious, wtf is it you do in this industry other than tell us all how great torrent and illegal tubes are?

i would think that pointing out that tubes and torrents are next vcr if exploited properly would be enough

bbobby86 · 07-29-2009, 11:14 AM

A hearing to strike the $40 million lawsuit brought by Internet adult entrepreneur...
40 M ... omg

07-23-2009, 04:24 PM	#52
camgirlshide Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,558	Nice, I still say - some of us may be too small to file lawsuits, but we can help the tube situation by just refusing to do business with anyone who allows their ads to be shown on an illegal tube site. __________________ Useful adult webmaster links - Alphabetical list of solo models with webcam Stats on my best converting affiliate programs - camgirlshide webmaster blog complete list of affiliate programs I use.

07-23-2009, 08:39 PM	#54
fatfoo ICQ:649699063 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 27,763	$40 million. That's a lot of money. The lawsuit, which was filed earlier this year, claims that RedTube has unlawfully offered free movies as loss leaders in an attempt to crush its competition and seeks to have RedTube shut down. __________________ Send me an email: [email protected]

07-23-2009, 10:37 PM	#55
Best-In-BC Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,506	1. This will fail, garentie 2. Host and sponsors are far from being liable 3. Most importantly, its a us class action suit or w./e means shit to everyone out side of the us __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More Unparked domains burning a hole in your pocket? 5 Simple Ways to Make Easy $$$ from Unused Domains

07-23-2009, 11:22 PM	#56
Elixir CHECK MY SIG-AMAZING SITE Join Date: May 2006 Location: ICQ: 210-874-419 Posts: 12,870	Interesting news __________________ SIG FOR SALE ICQ 210874419

07-26-2009, 05:07 PM	#68
Idigmygirls Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 498	Here's the Answer Quoting from the below article: "If the case ever had legs, those legs appear to have suffered the equivalent of a tibia-fibula compound fracture. Yesterday, the Honorable Maureen Duffy-Lewis dismissed the case under California?s Anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 425.16." http://randazza.wordpress.com/2009/0...ound-fracture/

07-23-2009, 03:27 PM	#51
PastorSinAlot So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Compton Posts: 2,837	i guess known of you guys been sued, i get sued 3 to 5 times a year, The judge always ask can things be workout before going into a trial. then if this cant be work out, then it might go to trail. which might take another 3 to 6 months

07-23-2009, 08:07 PM	#53
Drake Hello world! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12,508	I wonder how far the rabbit hole goes for Bright Imperial - exactly how many shell companies and peripheral parties exist, shielding the true owner(s).

07-23-2009, 11:30 PM	#57
mmcfadden So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: philly Posts: 5,099	who won? who lost? one thing is for certain many more tubes will pop up in it's place....

07-24-2009, 02:08 AM	#61
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	So what was the result of this? Moving forward or not?

07-24-2009, 02:11 AM	#62
Pseudonymous Photographer/Owner Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 2,661	Like somebody said before, I doubt anything was settled in the first hearing. It's a 40 million dollar case apparently, this thing could take time.

07-26-2009, 07:14 PM	#71
brassmonkey Pay It Forward Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Yo Mama House Posts: 77,228	hard battle 2 fight __________________ TRUMP 2025 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law! DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

07-26-2009, 09:06 PM	#73
Shap Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 8,313	It was a retarded case to begin with LOL. We've been talking about it in the office and I can't believe that teenrevenue guy was stupid enough to waste his time and money on this case. Oh well. I give him points for trying but it was a huge waste of a try. I imagine nobody knew how it would turn out because the american legal system is so screwed up. The only hope was getting a brain dead judge. Unfortunately for him he didn't. Last edited by Shap; 07-26-2009 at 09:07 PM..

07-27-2009, 02:35 AM	#74
bbobby86 partners.sexier.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 11,926	some interesting staff to read... __________________

07-28-2009, 08:22 PM	#83
SmokenCess Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 246	HAHA redtube is the shit!

07-28-2009, 09:14 PM	#87
GAMEFINEST Make STACK$ Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: sexy time Posts: 14,436	bunch of porn sites in court.. __________________ Compound interest.

07-28-2009, 09:19 PM	#88
mynameisjim Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,985	Was the entire case thrown out or just the part that claims the advertisers are "aiders and abettors"?

07-28-2009, 09:28 PM	#89
96ukssob So Fucking Banananananas Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: If I was in your ass you'd know it Posts: 12,991	wow that fucking sucks. honestly, i think they are hear to stay until ISPs start to block them or some CP ends up on the site and they are shut down by the DOJ... neither of which i can see happening __________________ Email: Clicky on Me

07-29-2009, 09:37 AM	#93
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	the legal tide is turning against piracy but it's gonna be years - gideon can run around the room in circles making airplane noises but slowly judges are figuring out what's going on. piracy is piracy, it's not such a gray area. we all know what Pornhub et all are doing - not so hard to convince a judge or jury. i think that Viacom vs Google/YouTube lawsuit is gonna be landmark. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

07-29-2009, 09:52 AM	#95
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	btw being it's Brazers whom owns many of these illegal tubes. Why doesn't someone sue them for unfair business practices? I'm sure it could be argued that they are trying to dilute their competitions content by giving it away for free on tube sites, causing their competition harm. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

07-29-2009, 11:14 AM	#100
bbobby86 partners.sexier.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 11,926	A hearing to strike the $40 million lawsuit brought by Internet adult entrepreneur... 40 M ... omg __________________