×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Free Internet Porn Is Legal, Says California Appeals Court

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the law-abiding-citizens-unite dept.

The Courts 286

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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

286 comments

Win!! (5, Funny)

mace9984 (1406805) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098144)

a million nerds rejoice!

Re:Win!! (4, Funny)

hellkyng (1920978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098396)

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

Re:Win!! (3, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098526)

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

Re:Win!! (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099166)

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."

Re:Win!! (2)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099360)

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.

The Land of the free! I'd salute the flag but.... (5, Funny)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098158)

My right hand might be busy

Re:The Land of the free! I'd salute the flag but.. (3, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098438)

>>>right hand might be busy

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

Re:The Land of the free! I'd salute the flag but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098640)

Learning to fap with the left hand is a lot tougher than learning to click with it.

This is great... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098510)

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)

Re:This is great... (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099074)

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.

Striesand Effect (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098164)

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

Re:Striesand Effect (1)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098332)

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.

Re:Striesand Effect (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098844)

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 [leagle.com].)

Why is there no link to redtube, eh? (3, Funny)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098170)

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...

Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? (3, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098210)

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.

Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? (4, Interesting)

wdef (1050680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098374)

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

Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098280)

Well, my submission - which was just hurriedly copied and pasted from the first para. of the article - does say "Redtube.com". Umm, you mean that doesn't look like a url to you? I can't believe you can only point and click.

Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099226)

Someone will always to find something to bitch about ... even in a submission about 'free porn is legal!'

Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098624)

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!

Re:Why is there no link to redtube, eh? (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098762)

So is redtube republican porn? I assume there's also a bluetube, with democratic port. (greentube for the green party?)

Retarded logic (5, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098186)

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.

Re:Retarded logic (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098334)

Porn wants to be free.

Common threads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35099248)

You're joking, but information/music/porn... these are all deeply human activities. Most people intuitively know that music should be free, that information should be free... and that love should be free (hence why there's so much villification of porn/prostitution). Maybe the common thread of free access/speech showing up in each is indicative of a deeper threads in common.

Or, another way of putting it is: maybe the RIAA and MPAA really are whores.

...capitalism does not require... (4, Funny)

jeko (179919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098376)

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!

Re:Retarded logic (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098468)

Right. New business models (for music and much web content) make money on artefacts associated with enjoying the content or associated fashion (in the case of music for eg). Andbanner ads. High quality versions of the content might still have some life left in them until buffering delays are a thing of the past and streamed content is cheap, easier and more convenient than Bittorrent. Or while new tech like 3D breathes new life into optical media sales.

Re:Retarded logic (2)

muindaur (925372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098608)

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.

Re:Retarded logic (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098918)

Part of the issue is that commercial music used to be scarce. It took money to buy instruments, record the music, press a vinyl album, tour. Even lessons to learn to play took money.

Now, thanks to the internet and autotune, the cost to produce a reasonable quality song in a distributable format is almost zero, and everyone and their uncle is doing it. Some people want to sell it as if it were still a scarce resource, when it fact it is a cheap commodity with more supply than demand. Particularly since the 2nd through 10 billionth copy costs about the same thing, near zero.

Not justifying pirating, it is just a fact. Just as it is hard to sell porn when plenty of people are giving it away: videos of people screwing are no longer a scarce resource. Most people screw, and if not, we know that at least their parents did.

Re:Retarded logic (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098896)

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

Unless we're talking about a capitalist republic, and it affects interstate commerce, in which case, even if free and doesn't cross state lines, it IS interstate commerce and therefore taxable, thus requiring someone to give everyone else some money.

this is a troll, YMMV

Re:Retarded logic (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099352)

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.

With all the ipv6 fuzz... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098208)

Now with all the fuzz about ipv6, can we please have free ipv6 porn again?

Re:With all the ipv6 fuzz... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098408)

Go for it. All you need is a bit of money for a server and colocation, and some free porn. Bandwidth shouldn't be a major issue, with such a small number of people able to access IPv6.

I'm still unable to access the freeipv6porn.com page via ipv6, though I can verify some ipv6 functionality by ping6ing ipv6.google.com. I was, however, able to access http://www.ipv6porn.co.nz/ [ipv6porn.co.nz] - which doesn't have any porn, merely the test-file http://www.ipv6porn.co.nz/Gv6QIHiL33k.flv [ipv6porn.co.nz]. It seems that the IPv6 network remains somewhat unreliable, and will remain so until there is enough demand for serious investment to take place.

All Pirated? (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098228)

Uh, what? Looking at RedTube, it's full of professionally produced porn. I had always assumed they were just pirating the materials they were streaming. Is this not the case?

Re:All Pirated? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098268)

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.

Re:All Pirated? (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098950)

And you call yourself a nerd. Tisk Tisk

Porn comes from 1 of 3 places on streaming sites, from the companies themselves that produce dvd's, amatuers, professional girls who have their own sites (similar to the way the big companies do it). Are you telling me that you never noticed all of the ads everywhere in porn sites? Or what about the little webcams that popup for you to click on on the bottom right?

So, I take it you are slightly out of the porn loop. Maybe you are married now or something (I don't know), but porn is the modern day YouTube. Before YouTube was bought out, they had scenes and stuff put on there from the actual companies themselves. Well, the user content is 99% of the time their content on themselves.

It is like YouTube, but riddled with ads and banners about smut (I will tolerate smut ads better because these ads are awesome and some are videos in and of themselves as well).

Most streaming sites are what would have happened to YouTube if it was not bought out by Google and they controlled users putting copyright material better (outside of the whole porn aspect).

Re:All Pirated? (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098976)

Sorry, I missed an important aspect to this. Most commercial streaming sites like YouTube, CollegeHumor, FunnyorDie, MYV.com will add have ads before the video, after the video, and sometimes in between. Porn, you get an add sometimes when the movie is buffering, but once it is done buffering, NO ADS!

WOOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098258)

Downloading now!

Aren't free sites mostly stuff ripped from DVD? (1)

toejam13 (958243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098298)

The few times I've been to sites like in the article, over half of their material appeared to be scenes ripped from DVDs. I wonder if they have permission from the copyright holders for that stuff. Just seems to be yet another bunch of businesses that profit from stuff illegally uploaded and the amount of time it takes the right-holders to find it and yank it with a DMCA takedown notice.

Re:Aren't free sites mostly stuff ripped from DVD? (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098508)

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.

Re:Aren't free sites mostly stuff ripped from DVD? (1)

toejam13 (958243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098996)

Right, which is BS. If some guy can convince a 1000 college girls to strip naked every month and post their videos to his site for free, more power to him. The established pay sites are just going to have to come up with a compelling reason why their sites are better. If they can't, then they will fail.

My observation was just a general one and not specifically with regards to this lawsuit. But it is an observation with merit. In some circles, if you admit to paying for porn (as opposed to finding it for free), you're laughed out of the room. It is everywhere. But not all of it was supposed to be for free.

Porn is just one more market where people have a choice between something given away for free, something that costs money, and something that is supposed to cost money. The question revolves around how much item #3 hurts item #2, and how much item #1 will make the other two irrelevant.

Re:Aren't free sites mostly stuff ripped from DVD? (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098514)

You don't just seem to be an ignorant piece of trash -- you are one!

It's all about the quality. (2)

enter to exit (1049190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098300)

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.....

Re:It's all about the quality. (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098500)

That's not always true. Professional studios will often use shaky cam to capture that visceral feel.

It works too. I hear a number of porno veterans walked out of Shaving Ryan's Privates.

Re:It's all about the quality. (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098504)

Redtube has many scenes from high production value pron and name stars. Or so, er, someone told me ;=)

Re:It's all about the quality. (1)

nanospook (521118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098700)

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

Re:It's all about the quality. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35099206)

Genius! You have just stumbled upon the idea that RedTube and who knows how many other sites ARE ALREADY DOING. Seriously, what are you doing on /. when you don't know the current status of internet porn.

Well, NO SHIT (5, Insightful)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098308)

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.

Re:Well, NO SHIT (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098400)

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

Re:Well, NO SHIT (4, Funny)

xero314 (722674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098546)

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

To bad there is no such thing.

Re:Well, NO SHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098588)

Sure there are. They're called men.

(I suppose you could argue they're the ones paying for it.)

Re:Well, NO SHIT (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098474)

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.

What else do you expect from a mob-controlled biz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098530)

The mob has no shame--and you better believe they control the for profit porn industry.

Re:Well, NO SHIT (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098492)

>>>Think of the precedent it would have set had the plaintiff won.

Only inside California. It doesn't affect me living ~3000 miles on the other side of the continent, and under a totally different set of non-california laws.

Re:Well, NO SHIT (1)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098524)

Are you sure? As I recall, Geohot was just sued by Sony in California, despite the fact that he lives in another state entirely.

Re:Well, NO SHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098988)

Think of the precedent it would have set had the plaintiff won.

They would regret it pretty fast.

Just setup a similar service, add a zero to the end of all your prices compared to the plaintiff, and sue them for undercutting your prices since providing something cheaper would be illegal.

Demand his site be shut down to provide yours with relief.

He would have to either raise prices to the point they go out of business but remain legal, or be deemed illegal and shutdown.
Either way his business would be screwed, or he would make arguments to overturn his original law. Win-Win either way

Re:Well, NO SHIT (1)

snookums (48954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099296)

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."

Was the plaintiff a stooge? The "complaint" sounds like a press release from redtube.

This is just too close to the TV advertising trope of "Mock news story on aggrieved producers of X suing/vandalizing/attacking producers of new, superior product Y".

What about copyright? (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098324)

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.

Re:What about copyright? (1)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098458)

FOAD it is, because there was no allegation of copyright infringement in this suit. Just that someone providing (original, in this context) free porn is illegally competing with paysites that offer professional porn. That's it.

Re:What about copyright? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098880)

EARLY 1900s. Before all that radio licensing baloney, and pay-to-play nonsense.

The judge is saying today's redtube (and also youtube) are akin to early Shortwave and AM radio - where companies put-up their goods in hopes people will like it and buy it. i.e. The money is made off the backend, not at the point-of-play.

Am I missing something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098434)

Isn't free porn like free email, or free search- the provider can offer a free service and still get paid, i.e. adverts?

Does free porn differ from every other free service that someone out there is pushing a paid for version? How did this even make court, what am I missing?

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098490)

Severs for Redtube.com lay in a smoldering puddle as they are Slashdotted to death.

Yeah, I wonder how many immediately went (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098578)

to the site to "check it out", you know, because of professional interest.

Taken to a logical conclusion (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098494)

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.

Re:Taken to a logical conclusion (2)

GryMor (88799) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099194)

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

consequence of bad law (5, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098542)

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.

Re:consequence of bad law (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098704)

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).

Re:consequence of bad law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098794)

Really think of this like MS suing Redhat/SuSE/Google/etc. for giving away their OS. I don't know why people don't think of it that way but that is the what is going on here.

Re:consequence of bad law (5, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098884)

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.

Subtle Theocracy or Amateur Rent Seeking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098558)

Rent seeking is just fine--but only if you meet certain moral standards. Then again, maybe he just didn't do it right. He should try again. First, he needs a lobbying group. Then, he needs extensive regulation of the industry. The regulations should be "for the protection of the performers and the viewing public". The real aim of couse, is for the regulations to be sufficiently complicated so as to require well-paid experts. Several lawyers and maybe an accountant. For bonus points, get unions involved. When that's all done, he can go back and try seeking rent again... oh wait, he already got it and you, dear reader didn't even notice. That's how it's done.

SLAPP damages (4, Informative)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098636)

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.

Free may be tough to compete with, but... (4, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098658)

...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".

Re:Free may be tough to compete with, but... (2)

nut (19435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099174)

...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.

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098890)

Redtube.com? *adds bookmark*

Well then, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098904)

looks like suicide is off the table.

use the porn luke! (1)

urbieta (212354) | more than 3 years ago | (#35098910)

The porn, will set you free!! hahaha Already done with this afternoon's whack! See you tonite harry hand! hehe

all i can say is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35098926)

all i can say is thank god

This is a slippery slope . . . (1)

Elviswind (1959800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099022)

. . . to which I'm looking forward. I can see the headline now; "February 3, 2016, California Appeals Court rules that Free Internet Porn is a basic human right."

This was a sticky situation (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099090)

Lawsuits like this see people in sticky situations, it is going to be tedius to clean up this mess. Coincidentally, the same can be said for the effects of visiting Red tube.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...