Thoughts Over the Second Morning’s Coffee: Why Isn’t Stagliano Suing Manwin?

Check out our advertisers www.getmybelt.com www.pornfidelity.com www.risingstarpr.com www.auditionporn.com/tour1, and www.vantagedist.com/page/manufacturers/id/1895/manufacturer/Brandxxx_Pictures.html

Follow Gene Ross at twitter@GeneRoss3; Follow AdultFYI at twitter@Adultfyi1

Here’s the thing I don’t get about porn copyright lawsuits. Attorneys representing porn companies are going after the little guy when there’s bigger fish to fry, like Manwin, the real culprits in a sordid tale of trademark infringement.

Here’s another thing I don’t get. When I asked Christian Mann why Evil Angel was advertising on Manwin websites, Mann gave me an answer similar to the article written by AJ Hall on www.xbiz.com www.adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=58687

Mann, I suppose, as punishment for asking that question, stopped advertising with me. He can do what he wants, of course, but it still doesn’t answer the question why Evil Angel porn is now all over Manwin’s free tube sites. That doesn’t seem to bother Stagliano, though, but Mallcom does.

Stagliano has a January trial in his $4.85 million copyright infringement suit against the parent company of Mallcom.com and BlingBucks.com. Stagliano claims they infringed on Evil Angel content by allowing complete downloads of its movies on PornStar.com.

Stagliano alleges that PornStar.com without permission sold monthly memberships to consumers who were able to stream and download movies from Evil Angel’s catalog of licensed content.

According to the lawsuit, Direct Distributions Enterprises Inc. — the parent company of Mallcom.com, BlingBucks.com and PornStar.com — approached Stagliano execs and requested to license its movies for distribution through its VOD section of the Mallcom.com, according to court documents.

Stagliano execs, however, declined the offer.

But in July 2009, the same execs discovered Direct Distributions had reproduced Evil Angel movies, placing them on PornStar.com under an “unlimited consumption” sales model.

The alleged infringement as reported in a www.XBiz.com article, includes 19 Evil Angel films from directors Giacinto Fusco, Jon Rutkowski, Joseph Nassivera, Carlton Shurman, John Leslie Nuzzon and Michelle Kelly, as well as Gilbert Grosso’s Christoph Clark line. Yadda yadda yadda.

The fight is over the term “unlimited consumption” and Stagliano’s suit seeks statutory damages of $150,000 for each infringed work, plus $2 million for infringement of the Evil Angel trademark.

What I don’t understand is, again, if there’s all this free content out there, and I can give you links as the day is long to Evil Angel product, why would a consumer risk the download of a movie? Because as soon as you do that you’ve got John Steele and the Prenda boys coming after you.

The bigger question is, why isn’t Stagliano going after Manwin which offers dozens and dozens of his scenes for a mere click. Granted, my lack of knowledge just makes me another dumb guy in retirement asking dumb questions no one wants to give answers to. I’m sure there’s plausible reasons why Stagliano isn’t going after the real pirates. Unless he’s the galley cook on the Jolly Roger.

But when I ask, all people do is yank ads.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*