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.

HAHA redtube is the shit!

damn fucked twice :Oh crap

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).

:1orglaugh

bunch of porn sites in court..

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/famil...ying%20jpg.jpg

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.

:1orglaugh

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 :winkwink:

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

There is a very big difference in VCR's and tubes.. VCR's recorded shows on TV or copied movies for use in your own home. People didn't share their recorded VCR tapes with millions of people around the world and if they tried they got busted for it.

Tubes are not a storage device for private use..

and you don't happen to be maddogg now do you? The guy that was making people sign up to porn sites to get access to illegal downloads on his warez sites? Then telling them how to cancel? Wouldn't be you now would it?

really?

you haven't learned not to engage that total genius who knows everything about porn marketing but that has never marketed porn?

This case was about unfair business practice, not the specific content. So the tube site has not "won" the "right" to use stolen content...
Giving a free content to intentionally harm competitors might actually have the opposite effect. Who wants to marketing a producer or sponsors who endorse or give away all free elsewhere anyway? Redtube + sponsors might be big, but if you sum up all, they do not run the show. What we need, is a list of which producers, sponsors, trades etc. to avoid - and which not to avoid; lets start with teenrevenue which deserves the marketing :thumbsup

but they have gotten the legal precedent that establishes creating a system that allows USERS to upload videos that give away your content for free is not an "unfair business practice"

i will give you an example
it means that now if you fully fulfil your customer fair use rights to use torrents as a backup by setting up a private tracker. you would now have to prove that this precedent doesn't apply when attempting to sue for the damages

you just tripled (if not more) the cost of using this legal procedure.

you do realize that on july 6th the supreme court upheld the timeshifting in a cloud case.
the network effect doesn't invalidate backup rights when you "share" a SMS image for the os and software.

if it did microsoft could sue every competing sms server for copyright infringement for their os/office images.



nope
and you made that bogus accusation before (if i remember correctly) when i defended choker for not hiring people to verify content two levels deep like you wanted him too.

lol.. no you do not know the case, or just make your own conclusions. Copyright issues are already established, but this was a case about the business method and TR sued them for their method - not stolen content. Just like the torrent tracker is not illegal itself, does not automatically mean some specific content is legal to distribute...

I said when this suit was first filed, and I still think I'm right, that it wasn't about winning, because any lawyer worth his hourly rate KNEW that this didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

This was just a fuck you to redtube. Redtube was/is for sale, but they can't sell if they have a lawsuit pending. "IF" they could have gotten past the motions to dismiss, they could have dragged this thing out for another 6 months or more, delaying the sale even longer and causing redtube to continue piling up the red ink.

This was about a guy with a deep pocket wanting to stick his thumb in someone's eye, that's all. :2 cents:

you can't be that stupid this must be a deliberate bogus claim

don't you understand that is the exact point

before they went forward with this dog of a case there was no precedent explictly stating that giving away your competitors content for free was NOT unfair business practise

now there is

so if you were to fight based on the private tracker, fully providing fair use right that i gave you know have to prove that this ruling was only true in the case where safe harbor/fair use applied.

That cost money, tripling the cost of a trial. there are cases that backup that arguement, but until a judge explictly takes those cases into account and makes a ruling that is only a legal opinion and teen revenue gave them one more precedent to hide behind.

I don't understand why you don't see how patently stupid/bad that is.

Please... :1orglaugh
First, this was not about infringements, DMCA, "fair use" or whatever you are confused about... not the content, but the business METHOD.
Second, if you want to talk about general precedent, you need to refer to a case in court. Dismissed motions is not a "case" you can refer to. :2 cents:

so your trying to say that everyone else can keep filing the same bogus claim over and over again with no consequence

That the fact that the judge dismissed the case AND applied anti-slapp provisions doesn't set a precedent.

you are totally clueless about the law.

No, you do not understand what precedent in this context is, because the claims are related to process - not mandatory ruling as you say. Full precedent is about the principles under some local jurisdiction, or under some hiearchy of jurisdiction, referering to a case that actually have been ruled. A judge can't dismiss a case refering to a precendent which have never been set, nor can he deny peoples right to file. If someone file again, they might be dismissed if it is exactly same situation under same jurisdiction, and consequense could be paying the costs, but each claim would probably have other arguments. They know that now, but what lawyers advise you to do, is not the same as precedent as a ruled mandatory principle. In other words, I think you misunderstand everything, because a weak plaintiff is not the same as other stronger arguments can't be used.

For "LEGITIMATE" owners of that software. Not every retard on the net whom thinks he can use your BS "time shifting" excuse to steal shit.

Besides that, most software companies sell you a license to the software. Porn sites are not selling you a license to the content, they are selling you "access" to the content. When you stop paying the monthly fee you lose your right to access that content.

Just like if you lease a software or a car, you lose the right to use it once the lease runs out.

and what do you think the 99.5% of the US population who have a tv and there for have been granted access to "lost"(one of the series sued for) are.

each person in that majority group are doing nothing but using the swarm(cloud) as a vcr.
Each person has the same right to timeshift as a person who recorded it with a vcr.
The network effect doesn't take away that right.

i suggest you reread the betamax case
universal made that exact arguement
they argueed that they licienced it for access "on a specific day at a specific time"
the courts ruled that the viewer granted such a licience had a right to move that viewing time to another day and another time and right of timeshifting was born.

So your trying to claim that you should have a right to use the exact same arguement that has already been ruled to be invalid because your a porn site.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

except now that the dismissal is on record the defendent can point to it and claim that a new case is the same old thing and should be dismissed as quickly.

before you can ever get any of your "other arguments" heard you would have to disprove this claim.
Fail to do so and the case goes away. It is one more road block in the away of getting a ruling in your favor.

brazzers could point to the ruling and say see that is the exact same arguement (Which it is BTW) and it would fold like house of cards.

OK let me explain it to you.

If you record a show off TV, you are paying for cable or satellite, so you have the right to record a show or movie and watch it later. You are "paying" for access to the TV programing. If you stop paying they turn it off, yet you can still watch the videos you may have recorded.

You however "can't" share them on a mass scale. Even DVD's and VCR tapes have warnings at the start that tell you it's violation of Federal law. That means if you buy a DVD at a store you do not have the right to show it to others for commercial gain.

Illegal tube uses have not paid for the right to view those videos and the owners of the site do not have the legal right to share them with others.

and again your talking about going after the vcr sellers for what could be an illegal action by vcr users.

That the point, you could make bootleg copies of movies with daisy chains of vcrs.
That doesn't make VCR illegal,
that doesn't make walmart guilty of contributory infringement

the swarm is a collection of people some who have a right to download the content (timeshifting, backup etc) and some that don't.

Only those that don't are committing a crime, and should be punished.
the tube sites and torrent sites are acting like walmart providing a technology implementation that can be abused and not abused.

Why are you guys debating VCRs? It's pretty silly.

There is a big difference between recording a program you watch in your house and rebroadcasting it to millions each day.

He has no real argument, so he always brings up BS like this. He is just trying to justify the fact that he supports stealing content.