opinion

Piracy Journal: Looking at Leachers

There is a copyright infringement case in Chicago that began two years ago, and it’s still before the court, and everyone interested in digital piracy should be watching it closely. It involves a content producer from Florida called Flavaworks, and a social media and video indexing site called MyVidster.com. Flavaworks sued MyVidster for copyright infringement because users of MyVidster had been posting links to videos produced by flavaworks without their permission.

The case is interesting because of the way MyVidster operates, which is different than some other tube sites. MyVidster is an “indexing” tube (sometimes called a leeching tube,) which means they can display video without actually hosting a copy of the file on their servers. I’m not an expert in the technology, but the basic concept is that a user of MyVidster can post a link to a video on another tube site, and MyVidster displays a screenshot from the video as well as the title provided by the user, the length, etc. When a visitor selects that video, it plays on the original tube site but it’s shown through a customized MyVidster player, which acts as a frame and keeps the viewer on the MyVidster site rather than sending him directly to the tube that hosts the content.

So if MyVidster holds the back door to the theater open, and they also collect advertising revenue based on the type of video files they index, why is that not akin to collecting a fee from the people they allow into the theater without tickets?

The case has become extremely complicated in the many months its been working its way to trial. And some very heavy hitters in the tech world have piled onto the case, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Google, Facebook, the Motion Picture Association of America, and Public Knowledge Public-Knowledge.org.

The idea of “indexing” versus hosting, and the complexities of defining contributory infringement make this case especially interesting. The machinations are complicated, but the short story is that a federal appeals court judge overruled the district court’s decision requiring MyVidster to comply with takedown notices, saying MyVidster did not infringe copyrights simply by facilitating viewing of infringing videos that are hosted elsewhere.

In his complex and sometimes rambling decision, Judge Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said something very interesting to those of us who are always looking for analogies to piracy in an effort to explain this kind of theft in terms that anyone can understand. The judge likened the actions of MyVidster to holding open the back door of a theater and allowing someone to enter to see the movie for free. It’s not the same as stealing tickets. It’s not, he said, copyright infringement, either direct or contributory.

His argument involves MyVidster’s intent. If there is no intent to induce members to post infringing videos (they are not paid for what they post,) and if the infringing content is not being stored or even handled at all by MyVidster, then Judge Posner said there is no infringement, he overturned the initial injunction, and MyVidster has been allowed to continue its operation and they need not comply with DMCA notices. For now.

What fascinates me about the case is the idea that a service can facilitate access to infringing material and bare no responsibility for contributing to piracy. It’s true that MyVidster doesn’t force users to link to infringing content. It doesn’t force people to go into the theater through the door it holds open, and it doesn’t make any money from their attendance at the movie —or does it?

MyVidster claims that its revenue, which it says it receives solely from advertising, is not affected by the quantity of infringing content available through the site. Its advertising revenue are based on the number of people visiting the site, of course. Advertising is all about traffic counts. And according to Alexa, MyVidster does big business in traffic, with a rank in the U.S. of about 2,300, and a global rank of about 6,500.

The MyVidster site is divided into two main areas – a family-friendly area, and an adultsonly area. Not surprisingly, the advertising in each area is very different – jewelry, credit score sites and real estate agents in the family area, and porn sites and “boner pills” in the adults-only area. And the distinction within the adults-only area gets even more granular if you look carefully. If you search for a well-known straight brand for example, all of the advertising you see is for straight porn. If you search for a well-known gay brand, all of the advertising you see is for gay porn. It’s easy to imagine that the type of advertising is assigned based on tags that are attached to every video, but often there are no tags attached at all by the member who posted the link.

MyVidster claims that it does no filtering and does not screen videos in any way. This is typical for sites that rely on user-generated content. In fact, their safe harbor from prosecution depends on them not being able to control the content contributed by members. So presumably, it is the member who specifies the type of video he is contributing. It seems somewhat disingenuous for MyVidster to claim that its advertising revenues would not be affected by whether or not it made infringing content available, when it’s quite clear that the type of advertising displayed is governed by the type of video offered at various locations on the site.

So if MyVidster holds the back door to the theater open, and they also collect advertising revenue based on the type of video files they index, why is that not akin to collecting a fee from the people they allow into the theater without tickets?

Suppose I built myself a weekend retreat by a pristine lake in the mountains, but within a reasonable drive of the city. I used the place once or twice a month — to get away from the pressures of my life in town, nice, peaceful, isolated. Suppose I leave the key under the mat or in a flowerpot by the back door.

Now what if someone decides they’re going to collect money from people who want to rent my place? They set up a website with some nice pictures of the cabin and they advertize anyone can rent this peaceful, isolated place for $300 a week. Send in your money and we’ll give you a map and tell you where to find the key. The people aren’t actually stealing my cabin. But they aren’t just using it while I’m not there either.

Whether you prefer the theater door analogy or the rental cabin analogy, it seems clear that the activity of using something that belongs to someone else to make money without involving or compensating the owner in any way is wrong. The court will decide whether it’s against the law or not. But I don’t think it requires a trained legal mind to see that making stolen property available to others and profiting from it, however indirectly, is not a sustainable business model for the Internet.

Remember that the software behind MyVidster keeps visitors at that site while they watch a video playing elsewhere. It keeps them there because that drives up traffic counts and the length of stay, which drives advertising revenue. To claim the site is a service that allows members to share links to their favorite videos is only part of the story.

Peter Phinney runs Porn Guardian with business partner Dominic Ford. The company offers a full suite of anti-piracy services to the adult industry and currently represents more than 370 individual brands across all content niches.

Related:  

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More Articles

opinion

WIA Profile: Lainie Speiser

With her fiery red hair, thick-framed glasses and a laugh that practically hugs you, Lainie Speiser is impossible to miss. Having repped some of adult’s biggest stars during her 30-plus years in the business, the veteran publicist is also a treasure trove of tales dating back to the days when print was king and social media not even a glimmer in the industry’s eye.

Women in Adult ·
opinion

Fighting Back Against AI-Fueled Fake Takedown Notices

The digital landscape is increasingly being shaped by artificial intelligence, and while AI offers immense potential, it’s also being weaponized. One disturbing trend that directly impacts adult businesses is AI-powered “DMCA takedown services” generating a flood of fraudulent Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices.

Corey D. Silverstein ·
opinion

Building Seamless Checkout Flows for High-Risk Merchants

For high-risk merchants such as adult businesses, crypto payments are no longer just a backup plan — they’re fast becoming a first choice. More and more businesses are embracing Bitcoin and other digital currencies for consumer transactions.

Jonathan Corona ·
opinion

What the New SCOTUS Ruling Means for AV Laws and Free Speech

On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, upholding Texas’ age verification law in the face of a constitutional challenge and setting a new precedent that bolsters similar laws around the country.

Lawrence G. Walters ·
opinion

What You Need to Know Before Relocating Your Adult Business Abroad

Over the last several months, a noticeable trend has emerged: several of our U.S.-based merchants have decided to “pick up shop” and relocate to European countries. On the surface, this sounds idyllic. I imagine some of my favorite clients sipping coffee or wine at sidewalk cafés, embracing a slower pace of life.

Cathy Beardsley ·
profile

WIA Profile: Salima

When Salima first entered the adult space in her mid-20s, becoming a power player wasn’t even on her radar. She was simply looking to learn. Over the years, however, her instinct for strategy, trust in her teams and commitment to creator-first innovation led her from the trade show floor to the executive suite.

Women in Adult ·
opinion

How the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act Could Impact Adult Businesses

Congress is considering a bill that would change the well-settled definition of obscenity and create extensive new risks for the adult industry. The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, introduced by Sen. Mike Lee, makes a mockery of the First Amendment and should be roundly rejected.

Lawrence G. Walters ·
opinion

What US Sites Need to Know About UK's Online Safety Act

In a high-risk space like the adult industry, overlooking or ignoring ever-changing rules and regulations can cost you dearly. In the United Kingdom, significant change has now arrived in the form of the Online Safety Act — and failure to comply with its requirements could cost merchants millions of dollars in fines.

Cathy Beardsley ·
opinion

Understanding the MATCH List and How to Avoid Getting Blacklisted

Business is booming, sales are steady and your customer base is growing. Everything seems to be running smoothly — until suddenly, Stripe pulls the plug. With one cold, automated email, your payment processing is shut down. No warning, no explanation.

Jonathan Corona ·
profile

WIA Profile: Leah Koons

If you’ve been to an industry event lately, odds are you’ve heard Leah Koons even before you’ve seen her. As Fansly’s director of marketing, Koons helps steer one of the fastest-growing creator platforms on the web.

Women in Adult ·
Show More