TeenRevenue Sues RedTube for $40M

[Toby]

TeenRevenue Founder Slaps RedTube With $40M Suit
LOS ANGELES — Kevin Cammarata’s $40 million lawsuit against operators of RedTube may have legs.

The online adult entrepreneur, who is founder of numerous websites and affiliate programs, including TeenRevenue, claims in a suit filed last month that streaming video site RedTube has unlawfully offered free movies as loss leaders in an attempt to crush the competion.
full article - http://www.xbiz.com/news/106980

This part is worth special mention:
The suit, filed at Los Angeles Superior Court, also names as defendants Choopa, which hosts RedTube from Sayreville, N.J., as well as numerous blue-chip adult companies that advertise on the tube site.

Those advertisers that also are named include Bangbros.com; Utherverse, which owns RedLightCenter; Generation Financial, which owns Videosz.com; Fling.com; Stallion.com FSC Limited,which owns SexSearch; Lalib Limitada, which owns LiveJasmin.com; FriendFinder Networks and Brazzers.

An interesting legal strategy. About time someone formally called these bastards out.

[EmporerEJ]

TeenRevenue Founder Slaps RedTube With $40M Suit
LOS ANGELES — Kevin Cammarata’s $40 million lawsuit against operators of RedTube may have legs.

The online adult entrepreneur, who is founder of numerous websites and affiliate programs, including TeenRevenue, claims in a suit filed last month that streaming video site RedTube has unlawfully offered free movies as loss leaders in an attempt to crush the competion.
full article - http://www.xbiz.com/news/106980

This part is worth special mention:
The suit, filed at Los Angeles Superior Court, also names as defendants Choopa, which hosts RedTube from Sayreville, N.J., as well as numerous blue-chip adult companies that advertise on the tube site.

Those advertisers that also are named include Bangbros.com; Utherverse, which owns RedLightCenter; Generation Financial, which owns Videosz.com; Fling.com; Stallion.com FSC Limited,which owns SexSearch; Lalib Limitada, which owns LiveJasmin.com; FriendFinder Networks and Brazzers.

An interesting legal strategy. About time someone formally called these bastards out.


They'll never win.
Nice try though.

[Toby]

They'll never win.
Nice try though.

This suit was filed in California Superior Court, not US Federal Court. California has a formidable Unfair Business Practices statute. This may have a far better chance than many people think at first glance.

[pornlaw]

I think he may have problems with jurisdiction wth all the defendants. He could have filed this in US District Court with a copyright claims and perhaps could have avoided the the challenges that will be filed.

This one will be interesting to watch develop. I hope he has something there.

[TheEnforcer]

That will certainly send some shock waves through the industry. The question is whether it will have anything beyond this initial filing.

It's an interesting strategy to use though I'm not sure how successful it will be with including companies that aren't stealing their content. Not to mention that their lawyers will be taking on lawyers for about a dozen different entities which, I imagine, will be quite the workload to have to deal with as they get deluged with motions upon motions to respond to.

[RawAlex]

That will certainly send some shock waves through the industry. The question is whether it will have anything beyond this initial filing.

It's an interesting strategy to use though I'm not sure how successful it will be with including companies that aren't stealing their content. Not to mention that their lawyers will be taking on lawyers for about a dozen different entities which, I imagine, will be quite the workload to have to deal with as they get deluged with motions upon motions to respond to.

actually, I think it is exactly the way to go. As of the date the lawsuit is filed, the sponsors have no way to say "they were not aware of violations". Each and every one of those sponsors has anti-hacking / anti piracy terms (Videoz; "NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATIONS. Webmasters are prohibited from engaging in any promotion which would violate the intellectual property rights of any person, group or corporation."). So basically, as of this date, each one of those sponsors should in fact be pulling away from RedTube, because they are now aware that RedTube is potentially in violation.

I am not sure that Teenrevenue will ever get a dollar for all this, but I suspect they will get redtube shut down at some point.

[gonzo]

Way to go Kevin.
Instead of being like DGay Erik or XXXJay sitting around crying and beating your cheat youve stepped up to lay the smack down!

[tony404]

They get a win on one of the advertisers. The house of cards will fall fast.

[Forest]

They'll never win.
Nice try though.

i pretty sure he knows he wont win the suit

BUT if he can effect the money flow from the advertisers then he Does win

[pussyMaster]

Finally a good news :)

[Paul Markham]

i pretty sure he knows he wont win the suit

BUT if he can effect the money flow from the advertisers then he Does win

Spot on. It's all about going after the advertisers who as RawAlex points out are in clear breach of their own rules.

But don't expect it to change the fortunes in our industry.

If this case is successful and it stops Tubes using content they don't own or don't have the rights to, there will be some customers returning. But not as many as we lost.

There's nothing to stop anyone with content opening a Tube site with content they own, giving it away for free, buying traffic and living off the profits from the adverts. The companies advertising on illegal Tubes will be looking for legal sites to advertise on.

Same goes for people like Brazzers. Or anyone with a lot of content that's not making money. Like content providers. So as the industry buys less content it's an option for content providers.

Then there are also the Tube sites with 3-6 minute clips, sometimes hosted by the sponsors. These sites will get content so they can sell dating and cam sites. All backed up by sponsors looking for the easy route, even if it kills the business in the long run.

There is only one way to get customers to buy. That's give them something they want to buy. In adult it's even more important, because porn customers are repeat buyers. Customers who buy repeatedly have a habit of learning

And customers will decide the future of this industry.

[RawAlex]

Actually Paul, the consumer decides only in part - when mob rules mentality runs amok, everyone thinks everything is free. But that can change pretty fast, consider:

http://www.thelocal.se/18770/20090409/

The rules changed in sweden recently, that makes downloading music from pirate sites (like TPB) risky - basically, you can be tracked down and found liable very easily now. Well, suddenly, paid downloadable music is seeing massive growth.

I wish some people in the porn business would wake up.

[tony404]

Actually Paul, the consumer decides only in part - when mob rules mentality runs amok, everyone thinks everything is free. But that can change pretty fast, consider:

http://www.thelocal.se/18770/20090409/

The rules changed in sweden recently, that makes downloading music from pirate sites (like TPB) risky - basically, you can be tracked down and found liable very easily now. Well, suddenly, paid downloadable music is seeing massive growth.

I wish some people in the porn business would wake up.

The problem with our industry alot of people made alot of money inspite of themselves. Things have been starting to change for a few years and they started to panic. When you have a business model that's based on giving so much of the sale as commission for life.Unless you have huge numbers that business model starts to fail. So alot people attached themselves to tubes instead of fighting. You never saw the music industry flying ads on pirate sites. lol

[Paul Markham]

Yes Alex the customer can only buy what he can afford, wants and is available. But he's still king of this castle.

I wish some people in the porn business would wake up.

As I said if they bring down illegal Tubes they will be replaced by legal ones. The only way is to make the product fit the buyers needs more than Tubes. More content, better content, more varied content, flexible joins and freebies like live shows and dating. You need only tip the balance between profit and loss to make it work. You don't need all the free loaders to come and buy memberships. They never did, never will and we don't want them to. We want them burning the Tubes BW. Traffic + not enough sales = loss.

Take the profit margins out of running any kind of Tube and they sink.

You never saw the music industry flying ads on pirate sites.

The record industry is run by businessmen and people who understand the concept of marketing. Not people who will fill sites with enough content, legal or not, to deter customers from buying. Then tell you the solution is to get more traffic.

[griffin8r]

The record industry is run by businessmen and people who understand the concept of marketing.

I don't know a ton about the porn industry, but I can tell you, unequivocally, that the record industry is NOT run by people who understand 21st century marketing. It is run by people who have learned that forcing something down the public's throat is the only way to make money.

Seriously, the RIAA marginalized talented musicians because talented musicians may or may not sell records, and they are generally a pain in the ass to deal with (read: they won't just sign an ass-fucking of a contract with a big goofy grin on their faces) in favor of cookie-cutter bullshit they could easily just "recruit" (read: idiots that look good but have no talent) and "polish in the studio" (read: Autotune + dance lessons)

The music industry is suffering just as bad, if not worse, than the porn industry because they just don't fucking get that people will NOT spend $20 for a CD that includes ONE decent song and a bunch of crap - especially when that ONE song is questionable, at best...

Just my $5.73 (two cents, adjusted for inflation...)

[Paul Markham]

I don't know a ton about the porn industry, but I can tell you, unequivocally, that the record industry is NOT run by people who understand 21st century marketing. It is run by people who have learned that forcing something down the public's throat is the only way to make money.

Seriously, the RIAA marginalized talented musicians because talented musicians may or may not sell records, and they are generally a pain in the ass to deal with (read: they won't just sign an ass-fucking of a contract with a big goofy grin on their faces) in favor of cookie-cutter bullshit they could easily just "recruit" (read: idiots that look good but have no talent) and "polish in the studio" (read: Autotune + dance lessons)

The music industry is suffering just as bad, if not worse, than the porn industry because they just don't fucking get that people will NOT spend $20 for a CD that includes ONE decent song and a bunch of crap - especially when that ONE song is questionable, at best...

Just my $5.73 (two cents, adjusted for inflation...)
So don't buy the CD and don't steal it.

One of the reasons they are reluctant to sign bands who are on the edge of making a profit is because their profits are slashed by the piracy.

Music piracy is rife so it seems these albums that are so bad are worth downloading for free.

The part of your statement about cookie cutter bullshit also shows how young you are. They have been doing this since the 50s. I don't know about before because I'm only 58.

Your post is one of the typical ones to justify theft. The reason people steal is because they think they can get away with it. They never care about the people they hurt. Recently a friend of mine lost his job in the music industry, because of piracy, he also is now bankrupt and has lost his house. Is that his fault or the people who decided to steal instead of buy?

Also many of the greatest bands of the 20th Century are suffering from piracy. So it seems thieves don't just steal the bad, they steal the great as well.

The power of the consumer is in the fact that he can direct and shape and industry by buying what he likes. When he stops buying he has no say in what direction that industry takes to keep as many people in work as possible.

[griffin8r]

The part of your statement about cookie cutter bullshit also shows how young you are. They have been doing this since the 50s. I don't know about before because I'm only 58.

1) I'm not as young as you think I am.
2) I'm a music history and music theory buff, and play several instruments. I recognize cookie cutter bullshit everywhere in rock music. Chord progressions that have been beaten into the ground, melodies that are anything but, bands that self-copy (Nickelback, anyone?), bands that copy other bands (Def Leppard/Nazareth ripoff back in 1988), it goes on, and on, and on, and on.

Your post is one of the typical ones to justify theft. The reason people steal is because they think they can get away with it. They never care about the people they hurt. Recently a friend of mine lost his job in the music industry, because of piracy, he also is now bankrupt and has lost his house. Is that his fault or the people who decided to steal instead of buy?

Slow down there, partner, I'm not advocating theft of intellectual property. The piracy issue is a whole separate issue, and one that the industry could have dealt with swiftly back when it first started cropping up - not by suing everyone, but by embracing the digital delivery system and implementing legal pay-for-download sites back when MP3.com and Napster were still in their infancy.

The culture of illegal downloading developed back then because people were sick of buying CDs because of a single they heard, and finding out that single was the only song worth hearing on the CD. There were no other options for checking out the album beforehand in the mid 90's, unless you were lucky enough to have a local record shop that still accepted returns.

Again, I don't condone it, but I see why it happened.

Also many of the greatest bands of the 20th Century are suffering from piracy. So it seems thieves don't just steal the bad, they steal the great as well.

Sure, and it's absolutely wrong. However, thieves also steal and hack software regularly, some of the biggest names in the software industry (Adobe CS4 anyone?) and yet the software industry goes on, undaunted, because they continue to make quality products that professionals buy. The music industry could take a lesson from this.

The power of the consumer is in the fact that he can direct and shape and industry by buying what he likes. When he stops buying he has no say in what direction that industry takes to keep as many people in work as possible.

You are absolutely correct. Personally, I prefer to do my shopping for music in the underground scene - better variety, better prices on CD's, production might be a bit shaky from time to time, but the songwriting and stylistic approaches in many cases are more honest. There's something inherently satisfying about listening to a raw recording of an honest songwriter, versus a slicked-up production of someone who can't sing without electronic help trying to sing a song they didn't write, over music they didn't produce. (Barbara Mason, anyone?)

[Paul Markham]

1) I'm not as young as you think I am.
2) I'm a music history and music theory buff, and play several instruments. I recognize cookie cutter bullshit everywhere in rock music. Chord progressions that have been beaten into the ground, melodies that are anything but, bands that self-copy (Nickelback, anyone?), bands that copy other bands (Def Leppard/Nazareth ripoff back in 1988), it goes on, and on, and on, and on. Then you would know that pop and rock music has been copying each other for 50 years. Do you think people stealing the music gives them any power to shape an industry?

Slow down there, partner, I'm not advocating theft of intellectual property. The piracy issue is a whole separate issue, and one that the industry could have dealt with swiftly back when it first started cropping up - not by suing everyone, but by embracing the digital delivery system and implementing legal pay-for-download sites back when MP3.com and Napster were still in their infancy.

The culture of illegal downloading developed back then because people were sick of buying CDs because of a single they heard, and finding out that single was the only song worth hearing on the CD. There were no other options for checking out the album beforehand in the mid 90's, unless you were lucky enough to have a local record shop that still accepted returns.

Again, I don't condone it, but I see why it happened. Again another weak excuse. You won't sell me what I want at the price I want it so I will steal it. Tell that to a judge or someone who lost his job through piracy. If you don't like it don't buy it, then they will change.

Sure, and it's absolutely wrong. However, thieves also steal and hack software regularly, some of the biggest names in the software industry (Adobe CS4 anyone?) and yet the software industry goes on, undaunted, because they continue to make quality products that professionals buy. The music industry could take a lesson from this.Maybe you could tell the lesson that's to be taken. Besides sell it for a fraction. Not that this would stop them from stealing. It's a cultural thing. They do it because they think they are right, but in truth it's because they won't get caught. Catch more, sue more and bugger the bad publicity. Or just take their Internet connection away. If you can't use a toll properly you should not complain if it's taken away.

You are absolutely correct. Personally, I prefer to do my shopping for music in the underground scene - better variety, better prices on CD's, production might be a bit shaky from time to time, but the songwriting and stylistic approaches in many cases are more honest. There's something inherently satisfying about listening to a raw recording of an honest songwriter, versus a slicked-up production of someone who can't sing without electronic help trying to sing a song they didn't write, over music they didn't produce. (Barbara Mason, anyone?) If more buy more, the market will develop more.

Just because an industry does not produce what some want and for the price they want it does not give them the right to steal it. It's too easy to say "This is not worth buying, so I will steal it to teach them a lesson." Because the proof is the opposite. As a musical historian you will know that some of the best Rock music was produced in the late 60s and 70s. But these titles are still being stolen. They steal the best and does that "It's not worth it." excuse include some of the greatest rock stars ever?

Yes industries carry on and that was glib. Come and say that to my friends face. He lost his job and home because for the industry to carry on it had to trim down. He would love to hear your excuses.

[Paul Markham]

And if it's right for people to steal, or in your words can see how it happened, it's also right for the pirates to be tracked down and sued. When hundreds of them are getting letters in the post asking them to appear in court or pay a fine, which is funnelled back to sue more, then piracy will decrease.

When companies are sued for advertising on sites that promote theft they will stop advertising and the problem will diminish. Because the piracy industry is not just a bunch kids trying to get a free record, program or what ever. It's an industry making money. From Paypal, to Brazzers, to AFF. Try and steal off them and see how they would like it.

It will diminish because with out the companies behind them to pay for the sites the sites will diminish.

[miz_wright]

Paul, Griffin:

I think you both have valid points, but I also think you both have some things wrong. The RIAA did a lot of its own damage, in part because it has LONG pushed mediocrity to the top (payola scandals, anyone?) and freely engages in cultural appropriation with little to no regard for the culture from which it sprang (see: mountain folk, delta blues, and Harlem jazz for early examples of US music industry identity theft; musical progression and exploitation of founders is fairly prevalent and easily recogniseable). Combine this historical approach with a late-80s determination to grab consumer funds at the highest possible rate by doing away with singles at a reasonable price point (and blaming it on technology costs due to the advent of the CD-era), and you have a receipt for eminent disaster.

There are a lot of similarities between the industries - from respective consumer missteps (though on markedly different time lines) and reactions to alleviate self-perpetuating problems.

Paul, you do good stuff. You have an amazing portfolio, and your tenure in the industry is remarkable. For the last two years, though< I have seen you have an almost word-for-word knee-jerk reaction to problems plaguing us. We can't take the approach that we must change the consumer's thinking - that never works. What we must do is begin thinking in a new way, to provide the consumer something s/he is willing to buy.

Sure, the content itself is commoditised almost to the point of being worthless - and we have ourselves to blame to some degree here (HellPuppy and others have made excellent points on this same board about entry costs). The question isn't how do we limit the content at this point - it's not possible, because even if we, as an industry,wrap our material in DRM from here til doomsday there is still a girl out there that's taking pix with her $50 digital camera and posting them online 'cos it gets her off.

The question is where do we shift our thinking to make it worth the consumer's hard-earned dollar?

[gonzo]

We can't take the approach that we must change the consumer's thinking - that never works. What we must do is begin thinking in a new way, to provide the consumer something s/he is willing to buy.


The question is where do we shift our thinking to make it worth the consumer's hard-earned dollar?

:-pearl: :-pearl:

[griffin8r]

And if it's right for people to steal, or in your words can see how it happened, it's also right for the pirates to be tracked down and sued. When hundreds of them are getting letters in the post asking them to appear in court or pay a fine, which is funnelled back to sue more, then piracy will decrease.

When companies are sued for advertising on sites that promote theft they will stop advertising and the problem will diminish. Because the piracy industry is not just a bunch kids trying to get a free record, program or what ever. It's an industry making money. From Paypal, to Brazzers, to AFF. Try and steal off them and see how they would like it.

It will diminish because with out the companies behind them to pay for the sites the sites will diminish.

I appreciate the fact that the downturn in the recording industry has touched a friend of yours. The downturn in the insurance industry touched me directly - I'm out of a job right now because of it.

But I would greatly appreciate it if you'd quit with the straw man here. As I already stated, I am vehemently anti-piracy. It does hurt the industries it touches, whether that be record companies, porn producers, software developers, or movie studios.

Being able to objectively analyze the situation and go "yeah, I get how this happened and why it came to this" is not the same as supporting the end result.

For fuck's sake, dude, I'm a musician. I've released records with several bands before I got out of the gigging thing, and it irritates the hell out of me that we barely recouped the cost of recording because some chucklehead handed out copies to his friends rather than encourage them to buy their own.

But it's been going on since the advent of cassette tapes. It's more prolific now, but it's nothing new. You adapt to the state of the marketplace, you survive, you don't, you die.

[Paul Markham]

Paul, Griffin:

I think you both have valid points, but I also think you both have some things wrong. The RIAA did a lot of its own damage, in part because it has LONG pushed mediocrity to the top (payola scandals, anyone?) and freely engages in cultural appropriation with little to no regard for the culture from which it sprang (see: mountain folk, delta blues, and Harlem jazz for early examples of US music industry identity theft; musical progression and exploitation of founders is fairly prevalent and easily recogniseable). Combine this historical approach with a late-80s determination to grab consumer funds at the highest possible rate by doing away with singles at a reasonable price point (and blaming it on technology costs due to the advent of the CD-era), and you have a receipt for eminent disaster.

There are a lot of similarities between the industries - from respective consumer missteps (though on markedly different time lines) and reactions to alleviate self-perpetuating problems.
Agreed, but the music industry rarely understood it's product and saw the easy money in churning out pulp. From the boy or girl bands of today and back to singers like Mary Poppins. The problem is it was easy money. The public bought them. but it makes no difference, the theft would still carry on, until it's stopped.

Paul, you do good stuff. You have an amazing portfolio, and your tenure in the industry is remarkable. For the last two years, though< I have seen you have an almost word-for-word knee-jerk reaction to problems plaguing us. We can't take the approach that we must change the consumer's thinking - that never works. What we must do is begin thinking in a new way, to provide the consumer something s/he is willing to buy.
Thank you. Can I suggest you go read my replies about fitting our industry more to the customers to win more back. Try the Zoo today. The problem will be some will never buy if they can steal. It's cultural, but if you remove the profit margin you diminish the problem. (Another knee jerk. LOL)

Sure, the content itself is commoditised almost to the point of being worthless - and we have ourselves to blame to some degree here (HellPuppy and others have made excellent points on this same board about entry costs). The question isn't how do we limit the content at this point - it's not possible, because even if we, as an industry,wrap our material in DRM from here til doomsday there is still a girl out there that's taking pix with her $50 digital camera and posting them online 'cos it gets her off. And read the countless posts where I have warned that most dumbed down the content we sell to a level where there is little point in buying from one site or the next. The level of content production has never been so bad. We are just as bad as the music industry and suffering from it.

The question is where do we shift our thinking to make it worth the consumer's hard-earned dollar?
This one is simple. We spend less on shifting traffic around and more on the content of a members area. We don't stop spending on traffic, we just re adjust the amounts.

The problem today is few sites are really worth joining. They are just points to download video content from. There is little to distinguish one site from the next and often one scene from the next. The main reason Tubes get more traffic is they are free. They are also better for the surfer. No joining, no risking your CC details, no spam, no lengthy joins, you can come and grab it when you like and if you don't like one scene go for another, an immense selection in the same niche and genre from different producers.

We have been infatuated with the myth that it had to be exclusive and recently it has to be HD. Truth is the opposite. The customers we are losing don't have the patience to see everything, they want 1-3 scenes to get off and get on with the day, they don't care if it's HD. They want the selection and choice.

The problem is we don't know how to compete, in general we dream Tubes will close.

Yes you are spot on saying we have to find what the customers will buy. I have opened my site and give away a free one hour live show every night. I'm adapting.