NEWS: Hearing on RedTube Suit Set for Tomorrow
 

LOS ANGELES ? A hearing to strike the $40 million lawsuit brought by Internet adult entrepreneur Kevin Cammarata against operators of streaming video site RedTube will be held tomorrow at Los Angeles Superior Court.

Details: http://www.xbiz.com/news/110835

--t

Good, lets see what comes up.

hmm interesting...loss leader approach..unfair tactics

$40 million lawsuit , woah!

hmm this will be interesting

Definitely. Can't wait to see the outcome.

will be interesting ----

The suit also names Choopa LLC, which hosts RedTube from Sayreville, N.J., and RedTube advertisers — including BangBros.com; Utherverse, which owns RedLightCenter; Generation Financial, which owns Videosz.com; Fling.com; SexSearch; Lalib Limitada, which owns LiveJasmin.com; FriendFinder Networks and Brazzers — as defendants.

not chump change by any means:2 cents:

this will be one of the interesting things for sure!

This could turn nasty.

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.

This is the way to get to the bone, go after everyone, host, advertisers, billers and anyone else associated with these sites.
There will be more of these suites filled if this one has merit.
Perhaps even a class action ?

goodluck to the winners...

Too bad it won't be broadcast. I'd love to watch it.

The way our business is going maybe xbiz or avn should start Adult Court Tv might be active over the next few years lol

If by some odd ball chance they do get any sort of victory, can you imagine the steam roll of law suits that will be filed. Would be a odd time to own a illegal tube or file share site I'd imagine..

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.

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.

an advertiser can't monitor a client every second, I don't see much liability there cept if they become aware of illegial activity then they should stop using them.



the basis of suing for loss leaders is a slippery slop that could lead to no front page being legal for a porn site.


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.

any news on this?

I hope redtube whoops their ass

I wonder if RedTube will even show up. If they do, I can imagine quite a few people would like to know who owns it.
WG

that defendant list damn

their lawyers did im sure they have deep pockets

strike the tubes please

i doubt they are going to have an easy time getting definitive information. i mean, in this case, its not as simple as just filing a John Doe lawsuit in the US and forcing them to the surface.

"....has identified a Hong Kong company as the owner or operator of RedTube. That company does business as Bright Imperial Limited and is located on the 28th floor of a high-rise in the Wachai district of Hong Kong."

they get a win against a host in the us. most of the major tubes and give adult away forums are fucked.

how is it valid? and if it is, isnt any site then after this that offers free hosted content therefore any pay site set as a future defendant in unfair practices?

... and in China there is death penalty for distributing porn, right?
Now, what is the local police phone number :pimp

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 ;)

this might actually have some teeth as an idea.....

lol

So did I read that right? All motions granted. It was dismissed?

looks like the matter is thrown out

That paper above is dated 07/20. :error

Ahhh, didn't even look at that. Interesting. I guess we're still waiting then.

Not sure what is right or wrong with that paper, but that date confuse me.

who is the defendant?

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org

Case Number: BC410599
KEVIN CAMMARATA VS BRIGHT IMPERIAL LIMITED ET AL

Filing Date: 03/26/2009
Case Type: Antitrust/Trade Regulation (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

07/23/2009 at 09:30 am in department 38 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Strike (*SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE COMPL.PURSUANT TO CCP 425.16*)

07/24/2009 at 08:30 am in department 38 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Conference-Case Management

07/27/2009 at 09:30 am in department 38 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion (TO SEAL)

07/30/2009 at 09:30 am in department 38 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
DEMURRER (JOINDER IN DEMURRER)

09/14/2009 at 09:30 am in department 38 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Strike (DEMURRER)

09/24/2009 at 09:30 am in department 38 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Hearing on Demurrer

Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

Parties

BANGROS.COM INC. - Defendant/Respondent

BRAZZERS TECHNOLOGIES INC. - Defendant

BRAZZERS.COM - Defendant/Respondent

BRIGHT IMPERIAL LIMITED - Defendant/Respondent

CAMMARATA KEVIN - Plaintiff/Petitioner

CHOOPA LLC - Defendant/Respondent

DOES 1-50 - Defendant/Respondent

FLING.COM LLC - Defendant/Respondent

FRIENDFINDER CALIFORNIA INC. - Defendant/Respondent

FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS INC. - Defendant/Respondent

GENERATION FINANCIAL LTD. - Defendant/Respondent

LALIB - Defendant/Respondent

MANSEF PRODUCTIONS INC. - Defendant

MANSTER MEDIA GROUP - Defendant

ROTHKEN IRA P.. ESQ. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

SPILLANE JAY M. ESQ. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

STALLION.COM FSC LIMITED - Defendant/Respondent

UTHERVERSE DIGITAL INC. - Defendant/Respondent

VARIOUS INC. - Defendant/Respondent

WESSEX GROUP INC. - Defendant

Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information

Please make a note of the Case Number.

Click here to access document images for this case.
If this link fails, you may go to the Case Document Images site and search using the case number displayed on this page.

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
04/07/2009

07/19/2009 Notice-Settlement
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/17/2009 Notice (OF ERRATA )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

07/16/2009 Objection Document
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

07/16/2009 Notice (OF JOINDER )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

07/16/2009 Declaration
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

07/13/2009 Declaration
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

07/13/2009 Partial Dismissal (w/o Prejudice) (WITH OUT /PREJUDICE AS TO DEFT.BRAZZERS.COM WESSEX GROUP, INC. JMT SERVICES (HONG KONG) LIMITED AND MANSTER MEDIA GROUP )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/13/2009 Reply to Motion
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

07/10/2009 Memorandum - Other
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/09/2009 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/09/2009 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

07/07/2009 Declaration
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/07/2009 Memorandum - Other
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

07/07/2009 Request to Enter Default (IS REJECTED AS JAGER #5.13. DOES NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL SIGNED RETURNED RECEIPT 17.18.29. )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/25/2009 Joinder (x3 )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

06/17/2009 Order (STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER )
Filed by Plaintiff

06/02/2009 Motion
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

06/02/2009 Joinder
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/28/2009 Joinder
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/28/2009 Declaration (OF JARED R. SMITH )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/26/2009 Demurrer
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/26/2009 Request (FOR JUDICIAL NTC. )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/26/2009 Declaration
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/26/2009 Motion (*SPL.MOT.TO STRIKE* )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/14/2009 Ex-Parte Application (TO SEAL EXHIBIT TO DECLARATION )
Filed by Defendant

05/08/2009 Declaration (OF JAY M. SPILLANE )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

05/08/2009 Ex-Parte Application (FOR A TRO AND OSC )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

05/08/2009 Declaration (OF PAOLO CAMMARATA )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

05/08/2009 Declaration (OF KEVIN CAMMARATA )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

05/08/2009 Points and Authorities
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

05/07/2009 Demurrer
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/07/2009 Miscellaneous-Other (APPENDIX )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

04/30/2009 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/30/2009 Proof of Service (8 SEPERATE DOCUMENTS. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/30/2009 Proof-Service/Summons
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/27/2009 Ex-Parte Application (TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS )
Filed by Plaintiff

04/27/2009 Declaration (IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SERVICE VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS )
Filed by Plaintiff

04/21/2009 Amendment to Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/16/2009 Proof-Service/Summons (& COMPLAINT, ETC. PARTY SERVED VARIOUS INC. BECKY DEGEORGE, REGISTERD AGENT, CSC LAWYERS, INCORP., INC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/15/2009 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Clerk

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
TOP 04/07/2009

04/07/2009 Amendment to Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/03/2009 Amendment to Complaint (Mansef Productions, Inc.(doe 26) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/03/2009 Amendment to Complaint (Brazazers Technologies, Inc.; (doe 27) )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/02/2009 Amendment to Complaint ( 2 )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/02/2009 Amendment to Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

04/01/2009 Proof-Service/Summons
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

03/26/2009 Complaint

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
TOP 04/07/2009

Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed

Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

07/20/2009 at 09:30 am in Department 38, MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS, Presiding
Motion to Strike (*SPECIAL MOT.TO STRIKE COMPLAINTPURSUANT TO CCP 425.16**) - Granted

06/17/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 38, MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS, Presiding
Court Order - Court makes order

06/03/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 38, MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS, Presiding
Ex Parte Motion - Denied

05/18/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 38, MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS, Presiding
Ex Parte Motion - Denied

05/14/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 38, MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS, Presiding
Ex Parte Motion - Matter continued

05/08/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 85, James C. Chalfant, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Denied

04/28/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 38, MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS, Presiding
Ex Parte Motion - Off Calendar

04/27/2009 at 08:30 am in Department 38, MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS, Presiding
Ex Parte Motion - Matter continued

07/19/2009 Notice-Settlement
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

Settled, for likely far less than the $40 million.

06/17/2009 Order (STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER )
Filed by Plaintiff

Am i the only one who cought that? :P

That bites, because it was likely settled for chump change from redtube's perspective... can't say i wouldn't do the same thing but somebody needs to go after them and NOT settle... i particularly like the idea of going after sponsors.

thats a pretty penny

Maybe others will do the same? If they are willing to settle, they also admit something. That could be expensive.

That is more than likely to omit any sensitive info found in discovery from becoming public. Quite common.

Hmm, if they settle that quickly it looks like a cash-cow to me, threaten to sue RedTube and settle for $$$. :pimp

I wish those guys luck.

are you fucking idiots stupid. they haven't settled shit.

:1orglaugh
I wasn't gonna put it like that. However, yes, nothing has happened yet.

wtf :mad: what is your source they didnt:helpme

I think he's saying based on the above post from L.A. Superior Court