$29 Million Suit Filed by C1R, Titan Media and Corbin Fisher Against 3 Gay Adult Sites
By: Keith Witchka
Three of the top gay adult studios in our industry have teamed together to file a $29 million lawsuit against the two operators of three gay adult web sites over the alleged infringement of more than 200 gay videos.
Channel One Releasing, Corbin Fisher Entertainment and Titan Media/Io Group, have joined together in a suit filed at U.S. District Court in San Francisco in yet another battle against web sites that operate tube site ventures with alleged poached content.
Keith Webb of Titan Media Entertainment told JRL “We are very proud to be working alongside C1R and Corbin Fisher in the fight against piracy. By joining together we have triple the resources and triple the power to fight and win.
This is just the first shot across the bow, we will not stand by and allow the wholesale theft of our content”. He further stated…”United we stand, divided we fall!” he said. “I’m gonna be working in a sweat shop soon if we don’t do something about these pirates.”
The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco’s U.S. District Court last Friday, March 26, 2010, focuses on the operators of JerkYourTube.com, GayForIt.com and ItsAllGay.com. All three web sites are owned by three companies whose directors and shareholder include United Kingdom residents Steven and David Compton.
The Comptons are not only known as operators of the three similar-looking sites, they are also known for recently rolled out COP-CMS, a software program that proclaims to protect adult studios from copyright infringement.
In the suit waged by Titan, Corbin Fisher and C1R, the Comptons’ three sites “serve as prime examples of web sites designed with the sole purpose of redirecting profits from copyright holders to the un-invested poachers operating the infringing sites.”
It is also stated in the complaint that the gay adult web sites try to shield themselves behind the possible legal actions that are now before them by stating that content is user-generated and that the “defendants place their brand on plaintiff’s intellectual property as if it belonged to them.”
This story is still developing and as it does we’ll keep you up to speed right here on JRL.