Know who loves free porn sites like RedTube, XTube, GayTube, and XVideos? YOU DO! Know who hates them? “Traditional” porn outlets, who’ve seen their monthly paid membership numbers slide as more people realize they can get a quick X-rated hit by streaming some Flash video. Which had one proprietor of a paid site filing suit against RedTube, claiming, “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.” What’s the big deal?
It is illegal to give away a product at such a deep discount with the goal of purposefully undercutting your competitors so their business tanks. Citing California law, the lawsuit said RedTube did exactly that.
Now on appeal, the argument was tossed out once again, with a California Appeals Court saying the suit actually qualified as a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” or a lawsuit brought to infringe on another person’s First Amendment rights by limiting speech. Moreover, just because RedTube offers free porn (along with lots of links to sign up for paid sites) doesn’t mean it violates the state’s Unfair Practices regulations.
“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,” the justices say in their decision to dismiss the case. “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. 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.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
See? Free porn has costs, too.
That Bitch Téa Delgado
Did the judge actually write “broadcasted” or is that a Queerty typo?
Either way, oh, dear.
Simon
Doh! I thought it will about another Sean Cody’s idea to make money without serving good quality porn.
B
No. 1 · That Bitch Téa Delgado wrote, “Did the judge actually write “broadcasted” or is that a Queerty typo?”
The links QUEERTY cited quoted the judge(s) as using “broadcasted” in reference to radio stations that would play records the stations obtained for free in return for telling customers where those records could be purchased (a common practice in the early 1900s).
The claim is that the business model is the same – you show some advertiser-supplied “content” for free in the hope that people will buy something from that advertiser. While the case involved porn, the legal arguments do not (i.e., QUEERTY’s headline is misleading, but the quote was correct).
Basically, the porn companies are finding their sales dropping as customers decide that free videos (including amateur ones) are good enough. So, one sued Redtube instead of (a) dropping its prices or (b) increasing the quality of its products.
The judges dismissed the suit as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), a term usually used for cases of a business suing individuals who make statements in a public hearing that the business does not like in order to get the individuals to shut up – a way of using court costs to limit free speech. In this case, a porn company did not like what Redtube was “saying” and sued on bogus grounds (the court’s judgment, apparently) in order to get Redtube to shut up.
ctnnt9
Free Porn Video Movie Download