Slashdot Mirror


Free Internet Porn Is Legal, Says California Appeals Court

wdef writes with the lead from a story that may bring you a big sigh of relief: "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." Interestingly, this case was brought not by anyone objecting to pornography on moral grounds, but rather by a competitor who reasons that "free" is a hard price to compete with, unless it's against the law.

60 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Win!! by mace9984 · · Score: 5, Funny

    a million nerds rejoice!

    1. Re:Win!! by hellkyng · · Score: 4, Funny

      Finally! Slashdot found some news for nerds, that should shut up all those complainers...

    2. Re:Win!! by lennier1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just imagine all the "research" that went into this case...

    3. Re:Win!! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Funny

      a million nerds rejoice!

      Check your decimal placement...
      You might want to move it to the right a couple more places when you get a free hand.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    4. Re:Win!! by sortius_nod · · Score: 2

      too busy... redtube is now legal, must use as much as possible!

    5. Re:Win!! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just imagine all the "research" that went into this case...

      "Your honor, I'm afraid I need to, um, 'file more briefs'. I'll be back in a little while."

    6. Re:Win!! by fishexe · · Score: 2

      Just imagine all the "research" that went into this case...

      I don't think it's nearly enough. I'm willing to donate my time to conduct more research into this matter, free of charge.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  2. The Land of the free! I'd salute the flag but.... by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 5, Funny

    My right hand might be busy

  3. Striesand Effect by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And suing and losing is great Streisand effect publicity. Nicely done

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Striesand Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Better yet, he's going to have to pay for all parties' attorney fees, AND costs on appeal.

      (By the way: here's the actual opinion.)

    2. Re:Striesand Effect by stoborrobots · · Score: 2

      Yup. The guy who filed the suit is Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles, California. I couldn't see whether he owns any sites (to avoid), though... a quick Google search only turned up various articles about this lawsuit.

      From the case details

      Plaintiff Kevin Cammarata alleges that he is the former owner of several subscription-based adult entertainment websites who, "under pressure from and as a result of the unlawful practices of the [d]efendants . . . sold his business at an unfavorable price."

      So, possibly he doesn't own any sites anymore...

  4. Why is there no link to redtube, eh? by Snaller · · Score: 3, Funny

    In your story, you link to everything else - are you prudes? ;-)

    Anyway, where do they get their stuff from? Its free and its not pirated? Hm...

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to TFA, some of the porn studios (evidently the ones who do understand this here intarweb thing) provide free content as a promotional tool for their paid sites.

    2. Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why link? We all have it bookmarked anyway.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? by wdef · · Score: 4, Interesting
      TFA from Arstechnica says redtube is driven by advertising:

      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

    4. Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      That's not a URL, it's a host name.

    5. Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who needs redtube? Go check out imagefap.com and moviefap.com for tons of free pics and videos. Just about any kink covered, including some quite disgusting ones!

  5. Re:The Land of the free! I'd salute the flag but.. by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    But hey, you got your own flagpole now.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  6. Retarded logic by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They basically argued that for something to be "free as in speech", it has to NOT be "free, as in beer".

    There are plenty of other people who feel this way, like the **AAs, the BSA, the AAP etc.

    It's time for big business to realize that capitalism does not require anyone to give you money for your offerings.

    1. Re:Retarded logic by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Porn wants to be free.

    2. Re:Retarded logic by muindaur · · Score: 2

      Abney Park(steampunk band) doesn't have free music all the time(ocasionally they give a song away), but they do have their own steampunk fashion line(stuff made by their stage costume designer.) So that idea isn't really far from where it could be. T-Shirt sales too as they are cheap to make, and can go for more than a CD.

    3. Re:Retarded logic by c0lo · · Score: 2

      They basically argued that for something to be "free as in speech", it has to NOT be "free, as in beer".

      Long live open-source porn.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:Retarded logic by eeyoredragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except BDSM porn.

  7. Re:All Pirated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the article they say that those are teasers that are put there by the companies themselves as a form of promotion.

    RedTube get a cut of all the people that sign up in this method too.

  8. It's all about the quality. by enter+to+exit · · Score: 2

    professional porn producers put in extra effort with things like lighting, camera quality/angles, timing and the physical attributes of the 'models'

    sites like xvideo and the like largely consist of amateurs filming themselves in a darkened room with the camera shaking all over the pace.
    The professional porn producers should utilise those kind of free sites and offer "teasers". Some of the indie one are doing just that.....

    1. Re:It's all about the quality. by fishexe · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah but amateurs are going at it for real, not faking it.. and some of them are really good at it!

      It only looks like that penis went in that vagina, but trust me, it didn't. They're professional actors with a full special-effects crew and everything!

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  9. Well, NO SHIT by Chaonici · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first time I heard of this lawsuit was yesterday, and I was absolutely appalled at the audacity of the plaintiff to assert that someone providing free porn was illegally undercutting professional porn studios.

    Jesus Christ, I'm glad this lawsuit decided turned out the way it did. Think of the precedent it would have set had the plaintiff won. The recording industry could sue indies who release their music under a Creative Commons license, claiming unfair competition. Same with the movie studios and sites like Vodo. Or companies that sell encyclopedias versus Wikipedia. Or hell, Microsoft and Linux.

    From the complaint:

    "The ubiquitous distribution of free adult videos through redtube.com has had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors,. Now that consumers have the ability to watch high quality adult videos for free on redtube.com, fewer are making the choice to pay other adult website proprietors for the same content."

    If you have a difficult time competing with free, that's your problem. You have no business whatsoever trying to get the government to interfere on your behalf.

    1. Re:Well, NO SHIT by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      Exactly. This is by far the silliest lawsuit I think I've heard of. You don't (and shouldn't) have the right to make money. You should have every opportunity to make money so long as you aren't harming others, but if you can't compete with what others are offering, you have no right to complain. Just because you have been making carriages all your life doesn't give you an excuse to ban the cars for losing your job.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Well, NO SHIT by xero314 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Prostitutes could sue people who have sex not for money...

      To bad there is no such thing.

    3. Re:Well, NO SHIT by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The short summary is that they're the SCO of porn producers. Hell, SCO claimed the GPL was unenforceable, unconstitutional and void because Linux was pummeling it, Their PR campaign made the Iraqi information minister look honest.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Well, NO SHIT by fishexe · · Score: 2

      Exactly. This is by far the silliest lawsuit I think I've heard of.

      Even sillier than the one Slashdot covered 3 months ago wherein a civil defense attorney was sued for selling kits that made defending against junk lawsuits too easy?

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    5. Re:Well, NO SHIT by mog007 · · Score: 2

      I'd say that if you can't compete with others, you have a right to complain. You just don't have a right to have the government attempt to buttress your failing business model.

  10. What about copyright? by Hatta · · Score: 2

    From the judge in TFA:

    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

    I was under the impression that rights holders were either paid for the use of their song on the radio, or they paid for it to be played on the radio. In either case, you can't play something on the radio without a license. If this guy holds the copyright to something RedTube streams, he can file a DMCA complaint. If not, he can FOAD.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  11. I think I can speak for the collective internet... by canada_dry · · Score: 2

    *PHEW*

  12. ...capitalism does not require... by jeko · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's time for big business to realize that capitalism does not require anyone to give you money for your offerings.

    No, but it works so much better when you can arrange it that way.

    Corporations have money, but no political power. Politicians have political power, but no money. It's a "no-brainer win-win" for both sides.

    Don't like it? Well, looks like you should have picked your parents with a little more care, doesn't it? Personal Responsibility, FTW!

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:...capitalism does not require... by celle · · Score: 2

      "...you should have picked your parents..."

      Since when did I pick my parents? If so, I want a refund.

  13. Re:The Land of the free! I'd salute the flag but.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Funny

    >>>right hand might be busy

    Really? I use my right hand for my mouse. Gotta navigate somehow through those Google Images.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  14. Re:I think I can speak for the collective internet by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 2

    I speak for the collective internet.....2 minutes later.

    *FAP*

  15. Clarification by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Funny

    Porn wants to be sticky, information wants to be free...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  16. Taken to a logical conclusion by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    anybody who offers ANYTHING below MY PRICE must be declared illegal.

    You see, it doesn't have to be free, it just has to be less expensive than my offering, and presto, it would be illegal.

    By the way, from now on I am selling EVERYTHING and ANYTHING costs at least a 1,000,000 dollars a piece or a pound.

    1. Re:Taken to a logical conclusion by GryMor · · Score: 2

      I'll take a gram of anti-matter please. Don't forget to package it securely.

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
  17. Re:Aren't free sites mostly stuff ripped from DVD? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

    But it doesn't matter. There wasn't even a DMCA takedown notice or anything with copyright infringement. This was a guy who tried to say that something was illegal simply because he couldn't compete with it.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  18. This is great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    because now my girlfriend won't get sued by a prostitute for doing it for free.

    (I'm an AC, because everyone knows that people with accounts here don't have girlfriends)

    1. Re:This is great... by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Believe me, no girlfriend does it "for free".

      She only objects to you putting the cash on the nightstand for her to take in the morning.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:This is great... by mind.the.oranges · · Score: 3, Funny

      She only objects to you putting the cash on the nightstand for her to take in the morning.

      Where-as a wife will kick your ass if it's not there for her to take.

    3. Re:This is great... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you ever had consensual sex for exactly $0 and without any commitment?
      You usually want to spend some time with the lady first, which means icecream/restaurant/bar/theater/whatever.

    4. Re:This is great... by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      If you think she's doing it for "free" you have a very narrow definition of free.

      It's NEVER "free".

      A prostitute simply allows you to complete the transaction immediately and walk away. That's why women resent them.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:This is great... by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2

      Kyle: Butters, can't you see this is wrong? You've got little boys all over school spending all their lunch money on kisses. Boys shouldn't be paying for kisses. It's wrong.

      Butters: Kyle, every boy pays for kisses. Do you know what I am saying? If you've got a girl, and she kisses you, sooner or later you're paying for it. You've gotta take her out to lunch, take her to a movie, and then spend time listenin' to all her stupid problems. Look, look at Stan right there. Why he's gotta sit there and listenin' to her stupid motherfuckin' problems 'cause she kisses him. If you ask me, that's a lot more than the five dollars my company charges.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
  19. consequence of bad law by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's worth noting here that this lawsuit happened only because of the California Unfair Practices Act, which is a remarkably bad piece of law. The "free porn" provided by Redtube was dumping of product below cost, an act which is considered illegal, not just "unfair" by the law. Not everyone will be able to count on free speech to defend their industry from the stagnating impositions of this law.

    1. Re:consequence of bad law by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The "free porn" provided by Redtube was dumping of product below cost

      If I read the decision correctly, the judge has found "below cost" part is simply not true - RedTube is payed by advertisers and paid sites which get subscriptions (from demo videos they put up on RedTube).

    2. Re:consequence of bad law by MarkvW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a bad law.

      Imagine that you sell oil to people. You sell at a price that people are glad to pay and you have fantastic customer loyalty. Next, imagine that RIAA Oil Company decides to move into your market. They GIVE oil away for a full year. They can afford this because they are RICH. You can't compete with free. You try, but after a year, you are forced to go out of business. After you go out of business, RIAA Oil Company jacks up their prices. In a few years they recoup their losses. Prices are now much higher and consumer satisfaction sucks.

      You are unemployed. Nobody cares about you because you believed in the imaginary thing called a free market. But people are worried for the consumers who ultimately are the ones victimized by the RIAA Oil Company's predatory policies.

      The free market does not exist. What we CALL a free market is really a bunch of people who fight like mad to try to dominate the marketplace by forming cartels and monopolies. If we don't regulate them, they will regulate us--far more than any government can.

      The California law wasn't enacted because liberal freakazoids had a theory that they needed to put into law (like the Tea Partiers and their theories). This law was the product of historical experience. Read about Standard Oil and what they did!!!!! Read about the Railroad companies at the turn of the 20th Century. Those businesses were absolutely ruthless and screwd consumers got these kinds of laws passed.

    3. Re:consequence of bad law by Sentrion · · Score: 2

      The OP's analogy was extreme for simplicity's sake, but you wouldn't need to GIVE the oil away, just sell it cheaper than your competitors can sell profitably. If your competitors make no profit long enough they will chose to exit the market. And there is no problem constantly raising and lowering the price of oil to maintain the status quo. There are enough established players in the global oil market today that have no desire to see the world turn to alternatives such as renewable energy, or to build infrastructure, such as refineries and storage facilities, or to invest in more difficult oil exploration, such as deep-sea or oil sands.

      To work you don't even need a monopoly, just an oligopoly, like OPEC, where you can expect the big players to wink and nod and understand what will work for each other's mutual benefit. Only the biggest players need to lead the price changes, because lesser players will have no choice but to march in tune to the market. If you can fluctuate prices from $1.50 a gallon to $3 or $4 a gallon (temporarily of course) you can reap huge profits, and by dropping the price sharply (call it a "market crash") you make sure that refineries, storage facilities, and alternative fuel suppliers won't commit to capital investments, because by the time that a new refinery was completed or oil sands were productive, the price would be far below the cost of production.

      The leaders of such cartels can act as free-market "Vikings", plundering and looting the wealth of nations with quick and frequent raids, but not pose enough of a threat to warrant full scale war, as war itself would cost the nations more than what they lose during the raids.

  20. SLAPP damages by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every claim but one got hammered with attorney fees.

    The one that got dismissed, but not hit with attorney fees was a claim based on a California statute that bars a vendor from selling or giving a product away for less than the vendor paid for it. Again, the plaintiff lost that one, but the defendant didn't get SLAPP sanctions for that.

    SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. Anti-SLAPP laws are enacted to keep people from using crap lawsuits (or fear of them from) stifling free speech.

    Reflect back on McDonalds' legal attack on the people who criticized its food. Anti-SLAPP laws are enacted to punish that kind of crap.

  21. Free may be tough to compete with, but... by gstrickler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...prostitution has been competing against free for thousands of years, and it show no signs of a slowdown.

    ...radio and broadcast TV are free. Cable, Satellite, and PPV are alive and well.

    ...there is that whole FOSS thing. Microsoft and Apple just announced they earned how many Billions?

    You just need a business model that allows you offer more value than "free".

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    1. Re:Free may be tough to compete with, but... by nut · · Score: 2

      ...prostitution has been competing against free for thousands of years, and it show no signs of a slowdown.

      Parent poster doesn't have a girlfriend or he would know there is no such thing as free sex.

      --
      Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
    2. Re:Free may be tough to compete with, but... by istartedi · · Score: 2

      Last poster isn't pricing risk.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  22. Re:The Land of the free! I'd salute the flag but.. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    A pay site with only images, huh? That makes me feel nostalgic.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  23. As if a million nerds suddenly screamed in joy by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 3, Funny

    Then grabbed a sock.

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
  24. Re:Anti-dumping laws by _0xd0ad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anti-dumping laws are designed to prevent someone (who has the ability to make a high initial investment) from gaining a monopoly by selling product at a loss in order to drive competitors out of business. The intent of this, obviously, would be to gain a monopoly, then raise prices exorbitantly high and make back their original loss quickly. Then with their monopoly they would be fairly immune to up-coming competitors, since a high initial investment would then be required to enter the market, and the company dominating the market could simply drop their prices again to force small competitors to go bankrupt.

    If you're profiting from it all along, you're not "dumping"... and if you do drive the higher-priced competition out of business and happen to gain a dominant position in the market, you still can't price-gouge anyway because if giving it away is a viable business option then there's no barrier to entry into the market. If you tried to gouge prices someone could just undercut you similarly.

  25. um... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    The sites only free because it's covered in advertising. If that were illegal, wouldn't that make the entire internet illegal?