Vivid Cows on the Loose
Looks like Vivid Video is having a cow because--get this--they're having trouble making money on their expensive, lame-assed, high-budget, fakey-looking couples-porn when there's so much free stuff (much of which is substantially more erotic, quite honestly) available on the internet:
Porn filmmakers join fight against Internet piracy
I mean, really--why should I pay $20 or $40 or whatever the current going rate is for a DVD when I can download clips of real-life college girls dancing their naked asses off on spring break? Given that, why exactly would I be at all interested in the photo-shopped, surgically enhanced bimbos offered up by the mainstream porn industry?
However, that argument is not very substantive (heh), so I'll try this instead:
Just because someone decides to set up a website and allow other people to upload stuff to it does not place upon them a legal requirement to ensure that those uploads are not infringing. This is, to the best of my knowledge, according to current U.S. law. However, reading this quote from the article, one might be tempted to think otherwise:
Personally, I'm kind of glad to see this. For one thing, I haven't bothered much with PornoTube myself, and, quite frankly, this lawsuit is pretty indicative of the fact that Vivid is not doing a good job of adjusting to the new reality. Which means they might go out of business someday, and, frankly, I would be happy to see that happen.
Porn filmmakers join fight against Internet piracy
I mean, really--why should I pay $20 or $40 or whatever the current going rate is for a DVD when I can download clips of real-life college girls dancing their naked asses off on spring break? Given that, why exactly would I be at all interested in the photo-shopped, surgically enhanced bimbos offered up by the mainstream porn industry?
However, that argument is not very substantive (heh), so I'll try this instead:
Just because someone decides to set up a website and allow other people to upload stuff to it does not place upon them a legal requirement to ensure that those uploads are not infringing. This is, to the best of my knowledge, according to current U.S. law. However, reading this quote from the article, one might be tempted to think otherwise:
Similar to [YouTube], PornoTube has become a destination for free porn by letting anyone post sex videos without filtering out clips that might be copyrighted.Look, the facts of this are pretty simple. The landscape has changed. Vivid's business model no longer works as well as it used to. They are trying to turn back the clock by suing someone. They are trying to lock the barn door after the horses have already escaped. Good luck with that strategy.
"In other words," the lawsuit reads, PornoTube "deliberately and knowingly built a library of infringing works ... enabling them to gain an enormous share of the Internet traffic, increase its businesses and earn vast amounts of revenues in the process."
Personally, I'm kind of glad to see this. For one thing, I haven't bothered much with PornoTube myself, and, quite frankly, this lawsuit is pretty indicative of the fact that Vivid is not doing a good job of adjusting to the new reality. Which means they might go out of business someday, and, frankly, I would be happy to see that happen.
posted by cke at 1:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home