ElNono
02-03-2011, 07:45 PM
Court Rules Free Internet Porn Okay (http://techland.time.com/2011/02/03/court-rules-free-internet-porn-okay/)
By Graeme McMillan on February 3, 2011
Official: Free internet porn is not illegal. Nor is it unfairly competing with porn companies who'd rather you paid for your thrills, according to a California Appeals Court, which has dismissed a case against one free site, Redtube.com, as an unfair attack on free speech.
According to plaintiff Kevin Cammarata, Redtube.com - essentially, YouTube for porn - has caused "many millions of dollars of damages to proprietors of adult entertainment websites," and "had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors." It's an argument that the court disagreed with, citing the fact that many if not most of the videos available are licensed previews intended to direct viewers to paysites to see more - and that that's not something that's restricted to the porn industry:
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.
Cammarata's problem, they conclude, is based more on a problem with the business model of pay adult sites than anything free porn sites are doing... which may be true, or could possibly mean that the judges would just like there to be more free porn on the internet.
By Graeme McMillan on February 3, 2011
Official: Free internet porn is not illegal. Nor is it unfairly competing with porn companies who'd rather you paid for your thrills, according to a California Appeals Court, which has dismissed a case against one free site, Redtube.com, as an unfair attack on free speech.
According to plaintiff Kevin Cammarata, Redtube.com - essentially, YouTube for porn - has caused "many millions of dollars of damages to proprietors of adult entertainment websites," and "had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors." It's an argument that the court disagreed with, citing the fact that many if not most of the videos available are licensed previews intended to direct viewers to paysites to see more - and that that's not something that's restricted to the porn industry:
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.
Cammarata's problem, they conclude, is based more on a problem with the business model of pay adult sites than anything free porn sites are doing... which may be true, or could possibly mean that the judges would just like there to be more free porn on the internet.