Appeals Court: free Internet porn isn't unfair competition to pay sites

One day in March of 2009, the proprietors of Redtube.com were minding their own business, streaming free pornographic videos to the public, when they received notice of a lawsuit against them in the mail.

"The ubiquitous distribution of free adult videos through redtube.com has had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors," charged the complaint against Redtube owner Bright Imperial Limited of Hong Kong. "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." Thus, Redtube.com has caused "many millions of dollars of damages to proprietors of adult entertainment websites," including those of the plaintiff in this instance, one Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles, California. This, he charged, was a violation of California's Unfair Practices Act. Whatever you think about Internet porn, if you have any sympathy for online commerce you will be glad to know that this lawsuit failed. A California Appeals court has dismissed the case as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit—an action designed to censor free speech.

"The publication of a video on the Internet, whether it depicts teenagers playing football or adult entertainment qualifies as 'conduct in furtherance of... free speech," the court ruled last week. "...All of Cammarata's causes of action arise from Bright's conduct of placing speech on the Internet where it can be viewed for free by the public. This is the 'predatory pricing' that Cammarata complains of."

The judges also took a look at the Redtube business model, and after a fascinating review of the history of broadcasting and the Internet, rejected the plaintiffs unfair competition claims.