Well,they probaly wouldnt sue them if there was no their content there and that is why settlement is possible.

keep in mind i'm sure they have been preparing for this from day one.

a settlement is always possible, my point is i trust it is not an option due to the reasons i listed.

very interesting...

Yes, sometimes it's the statement that matters, rather than the simple acknowledgement, imho

lol, kudos, i left myself wide open on that one :thumbsup

:thumbsup to Topbucks. Been dealing with them 8+ years and earnt some decent money 'back in the day' with them. From straight up sales to quality exit traffic, it's always been a hassle free pleasure to do any business with them.

Let's hope the suit comes good for them.

I'll have to check out their shemale sites and try and send some sales to support the war effort.

The redtube lawsuit was retarded to begin with. Allison and her team are smart. I imagine they have a lot of evidence that they've gathered over the past 2 years that is going to fry brazzers on this one.

just remember teen revenues bullshit arguement set the legal precedent that defends every tube site now.

i really hope it not the stupid they get rid or watermarked content so of course they can tell the difference between licienced and unlicenced (fair use and explictly) too.

a 5 dollar a day person can be hired to get rid of watermarks (i see a watermark therefore it goes)

even 300/hour viacomm lawyers could not tell the difference between fair use and infringing.

Not to mention Allison hired a top law firm with experience in online copyright issues, and has a history of coming out on top. Extremely key.

Jenner and Block is a strong IP litigation firm and I would estimate that the retainer on this case could have set PV back a minimum of $50k and the costs of litigation will exceed $100,000.

This isnt a BS case. I am sure this has been 2 yrs in the making before it was filed. I would be surprised if it settled early. This one has a chance to go the distance... unless the govt gets theirs first.I think that may be why this was filed so quickly after that announcement...

Good luck PV.

$6.75 million lawsuit... wow... Big amount of money.

I have this theory that if I get rich, I don't care how rich exactly.

So, what I'm saying is I don't care whether it's $5Mill or $10Mill of $100Mill.

I'd say anything above $3Mill would be good enough.

I hope they won't settle. Settlement will only give them short-term cash injection, but in the long term if a lot of free movies still exist, no one is going to make that much money. They need to start taking these site down or convert them one at a time.

Finally someone with balls

best of luck, kristin

i agree. model is good - stealing content is bad

thats what happens when a big company buys big websites.......but yeah i think its a small fee, it should be alot more.

In your professional opinion, do you think that this could be a chain reaction and many others will come out and sue the illegals?

I agree. Tube sites should be like modern TGPs. Eliminate "user submitted", all posted content should have revenue attached in some way- either afl or pay to post, etc.

Just like galleries, companies should be able to control what they put out there for free and it's easy to police it if you wanted to. Just as someone else said, if they have the resources to strip and bump watermarked content they surely have the resources to flip it the other way around.

It sucks, you shouldn't have to force people to do the right thing, but the nature of the beast is a site with full length pirated content is going to get more traffic than one with authorised teaser trailers and short clips. To eliminate this content producers are going to have to step on illegal tubes like the music industry did to file sharing sites. You have to bring the battle to a point it becomes unprofitable or nonadvantageous for them to continue to do business illegally. The way to do that is through law suits such as this.

I applaud Top Bucks, they are taking the lead, but to make this truly successful they will need a few others to throw their hat in the ring and file similar actions. :2 cents:

100 lawsuits

Topbucks ROCKS

no settlement

maim,crush,KILL

Just to clarify since it hasn't hit the online dockets, this case was actually filed last week. The U.S. Gov't case was just a coincidence with timing. Couldn't really plan for something like that.

~Alli

Alli,

Hats off to you and your crew!!!

A very smart move....

Peace

Todd

No. Most companies I have consulted with either havent used the proper forms -- work for hire agreements with their videographers and editors or havent actually employed the videographer and editor as employees in order for them to own the copyrights to their own videos. One defense to copyright infringement is that the company filing the lawsuit does not actually own the rights. In copyright just because you pay for it doesnt mean you own it. Copyright is a property right and can only be transfer from the videographer to the company by way of a written instrument or if they are actually an employee of the company by using the traditional definition of employee - ie., salary with taxes deducted.

And then there is the fact that most companies dont bother to even actually file for registration. Without a copyright registration you cannot even file the lawsuit. If the registration is filed after the infringement the company would be limited to damages such as actual damages and not be able to ask for the statutory copyright damages that allow for large recoveries. Actual damages are difficult to prove and will require the services of an expert opinion. Which means that usually it is not worth even filing the lawsuit. Actual damages can be difficult to prove.

And then there's the cost of experts. We just retained an expert in another copyright case which is rather simple compared to this one and I expect the expert's fee in that case to be in $25,000-$30,000 price range.

In this case, I am sure that PV has all their Is dotted and Ts crossed. Jenner and Block would not overlook the obvious. They are too good.

Interesting. But good timing none-the-less. Good luck.

Forbes picked up on the story. Interesting on what they calculate Brazzers monthly revenue. I had it much higher

http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/201...e-video-sites/

Quoted from the article: "As for the numbers we do know, insiders guess that the online portion of the industry is anywhere from a $6 to $12 billion dollar business. And some tube sites appear to be making real money, mostly from advertising and premium account offerings, though not as much money as the big studios are used to, as Forbes reported last August. Pardon estimated that Brazzers is making around $3 million a month on the various websites it runs."

$36 million a year is a rather large porn company... I know it gets bigger, but that still isn't playing around.

And especially so if that 'making' is 'taking'. 3 mil a month in profit is pretty big.

how much of that money is straight up stolen from producers

Go Pink Visual!

Happy times :thumbsup

Yahoo and AFP sponsored bump.... "Pink Visual takes porn piracy battle to US court"

"Pink Visual has taken a long-running online porn piracy battle to court, asking a US judge to stop "tube sites" from playing dirty when it comes to copyrighted digital videos."

:thumbsup

I personally like the "Pink Visual has been "overwhelmed with support" from members of the industry, according to Vivas."

Seriously, it's crazy how many people have come out of the woodwork and hit us up with their support.

I was just cleaning my office up a bit today and saw that I only had one 2 year old AVN Magazine still sitting in my office that I don't even remember when the last time I saw it was. The title of that issue was "Down the Tubes". I thought the article from back in February 2008 was a pretty interesting read even now:

http://business.avn.com/articles/5774.html

when will it goto court? Have to bookmark that date.

Way to go!:thumbsup Congratulations! :glugglug

I wish it was that simple. Needs to go through the process( responses, discovery/depositions, motions, etc) before it gets scheduled.

Once the complaint is put live on the docket, most attorneys will have access to view the progress and I'm sure there will be updates.

Go Top Bucks! "Crush Kill and Destroy" :thumbsup

WTF?

Settlement Conference Slated for Pink Visual-Brazzers Case

NEW YORK — Will the Pink Visual-Brazzers copyright suit end up in a settlement?
A May 19 settlement conference date before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck was scheduled today, with an order for Pink Visual attorneys to provide a "confidential settlement memorandum" one week prior to the hearing.

"[The proposal] should be the realistic settlement range of that party, not just the party's 'opening bid,'" Peck said in the order. "The settlement range in the settlement memorandum will be kept confidential by me and not disclosed to opposing counsel."

Peck ordered both sides, including company officials and their insurance representatives, to be present at the May 19 hearing.

Settlement conferences are often ordered by the court as a preliminary step to holding a trial or offered by case adversaries. Many times, those conferences end up as an impasse.

Officials at Pink Visual declined comment on the matter; XBIZ was unable to reach Brazzers officials Thursday.

Pink Visual maintains that Brazzers' parent company, Montreal-based Mansef Inc., operates a number of tube sites that permit users to upload and download infringing files, maintaining servers in New York.

The sites at issue in Pink Visual's claims include KeezMovies.com, PornHub.com, ExtremeTube.com and Tube8.com, all owned by Mansef and Interhub, whose officers operate both companies as well as one of the best-known adult companies, Brazzers.

Pink Visual's parent company, Ventura Content, claims that Brazzers systematically abuses the 45 Pink Visual-copyrighted videos. They point to Brazzers categorizing the infringing videos and providing the means for user to comment on, rate or virally distribute infringing videos.