wdef writes with the lead from a story that may bring you a big sigh of relief:
Quote"Free internet porn (http://techland.time.com/2011/02/03/court-rules-free-internet-porn-okay/) 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 (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/appeals-court-free-porn-isnt-unfair-competition-to-pay-sites.ars).
Choice Comments:
lennier1 (264730) writes: Just imagine all the "research" that went into this case...
WrongSizeGlass (838941) writes:"Your honor, I'm afraid I need to, um, 'file more briefs'. I'll be back in a little while."
:lulz:
Awesome.
Good to hear.
Whoever filed that simply does not understand how modern porn is monetized. It's all adverts now. Silly pornmonger.
"Red tube."
Heh.
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
Quote from: Luna on February 06, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
The Streisand effect FTW.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 06, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
The Streisand effect FTW.
Which is why Rick Santorum will never be president. (Google his name sometime.)
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:23:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 06, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
The Streisand effect FTW.
Which is why Rick Santorum will never be president. (Google his name sometime.)
Oh, I've been a fan of Dirty Ricky for quite some time.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:24:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:23:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 06, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
The Streisand effect FTW.
Which is why Rick Santorum will never be president. (Google his name sometime.)
Oh, I've been a fan of Dirty Ricky for quite some time.
I'm still waiting for him to be caught with an underage rentboy, actually.
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:24:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:23:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 06, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
The Streisand effect FTW.
Which is why Rick Santorum will never be president. (Google his name sometime.)
Oh, I've been a fan of Dirty Ricky for quite some time.
I'm still waiting for him to be caught with an underage rentboy, actually.
You do him an injustice.
It will be multiple rentboys, none of whom speak English, all doped to the gills on valium and booze. Dirty Ricky will make a statement blaming the "liberal media" for setting him up.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:29:43 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:24:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:23:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 06, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
The Streisand effect FTW.
Which is why Rick Santorum will never be president. (Google his name sometime.)
Oh, I've been a fan of Dirty Ricky for quite some time.
I'm still waiting for him to be caught with an underage rentboy, actually.
You do him an injustice.
It will be multiple rentboys, none of whom speak English, all doped to the gills on valium and booze. Dirty Ricky will make a statement blaming the "liberal media" for setting him up.
Sure, if he wanted to do it RIGHT. I suspect he can't even pull off an epic scandal.
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:38:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:29:43 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:24:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:23:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 06, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
The Streisand effect FTW.
Which is why Rick Santorum will never be president. (Google his name sometime.)
Oh, I've been a fan of Dirty Ricky for quite some time.
I'm still waiting for him to be caught with an underage rentboy, actually.
You do him an injustice.
It will be multiple rentboys, none of whom speak English, all doped to the gills on valium and booze. Dirty Ricky will make a statement blaming the "liberal media" for setting him up.
Sure, if he wanted to do it RIGHT. I suspect he can't even pull off an epic scandal.
Hush your mouth. South Carolina's governor set the example. Dirty Ricky will live up to it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:38:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:29:43 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:24:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:23:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 06, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
The Streisand effect FTW.
Which is why Rick Santorum will never be president. (Google his name sometime.)
Oh, I've been a fan of Dirty Ricky for quite some time.
I'm still waiting for him to be caught with an underage rentboy, actually.
You do him an injustice.
It will be multiple rentboys, none of whom speak English, all doped to the gills on valium and booze. Dirty Ricky will make a statement blaming the "liberal media" for setting him up.
Sure, if he wanted to do it RIGHT. I suspect he can't even pull off an epic scandal.
Hush your mouth. South Carolina's governor set the example. Dirty Ricky will live up to it.
Is the Good Reverend says, so may it be. I await his spectacular flameout with bated breath.
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:38:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:29:43 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:24:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 07, 2011, 03:23:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 07, 2011, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 06, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Lemme get this straight. They sued to stop the distribution of one channel of free internet porn, in order to prop up their own business... thereby providing the address of said free porn to thousands of people who may never have heard of said free porn site.
I've heard of it being illegal to sell something that it's legal to give away, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to make it illegal to give away something that it's legal to sell.
The Streisand effect FTW.
Which is why Rick Santorum will never be president. (Google his name sometime.)
Oh, I've been a fan of Dirty Ricky for quite some time.
I'm still waiting for him to be caught with an underage rentboy, actually.
You do him an injustice.
It will be multiple rentboys, none of whom speak English, all doped to the gills on valium and booze. Dirty Ricky will make a statement blaming the "liberal media" for setting him up.
Sure, if he wanted to do it RIGHT. I suspect he can't even pull off an epic scandal.
Hush your mouth. South Carolina's governor set the example. Dirty Ricky will live up to it.
Is the Good Reverend says, so may it be. I await his spectacular flameout with bated breath.
I know the face of degeneracy.
Quote"Free internet porn (http://techland.time.com/2011/02/03/court-rules-free-internet-porn-okay/) 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."
:lulz: Who do they think OWNS most free porn sites?
AND SO THE FAPOCALYPSE BEGUN
:fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap:
I just wanted to say pornmonger.