Porn doesn't pay

In an April post about Veoh, an online video-sharing service distinguished by having Michael Eisner as an investor, I  asked:

How is Veoh different from YouTube and the various other me-too videotechnology start-ups now littering Silicon Valley? All are premised on the idea that video-amateurs like posting their work on the Internet. Some have more users than others, but there appears to be no significant difference between them.

Well, I was wrong. Veoh was different from other online video-sharing services, such as YouTube or Google Video, in one significant way. Veoh was willing to host porn, whereas the others weren't.

But Veoh's decision to allow pornographic content on its site has been, so-to-speak, rear-ended. The so-called "adult entertainment" company Io Group have filed a lawsuit against Veoh, saying that videos owned by the porn company were being broadcasted, without their consent, in the "adult category" of Veoh.

I don't usually support the ethics of the pornography business, but here I have to commend Io Group's lawsuit. These porn guys are absolutely correct to go after Veoh and I hope this is the first in a succession of expensive lawsuits against video-sharing companies. Copyrighted content is copyrighted content, whether it's tasteless or not, and it doesn't surprise me that it is the well funded and litagatious porn companies who are now leading the clampdown on online intellectual theft. So here's to Io Group stripping Veoh of all its assets.

Poor old Michael Eisner. First he gets thrown out of Disney, then he invests in a me-too video sharing site and now Veoh is being sued for showing other people's porn. How lame is that?

So, for once, porn doesn't pay. At least for Veoh and Michael Eisner. And speaking of asset stripping, one suitable ending to this rather pathetic tale would be spank Michael for his stupidity and then broadcast the video on The Great Seduction. But, on second thoughts, that might not be so smart. Io Group could sue me for stealing their content.