Now Durst has come out fighting, and has filed suit against 10 Web site operators, including various porn outlets as well as Roadrunner Records and Gawker Media.

While the lawsuit against porn sites was to be expected, apparently Durst is also unhappy with sites that posted pictures taken from the video, hence the filing against Roadrunner, which hosts the music news Web site Blabbermouth.net, and Gawker, which publishes several gossip-oriented blogs such as Defamer and Wonkette.

So far most if not all of the sites named in the suit have removed the offending video. That is, if they had it on their servers in the first place.

But it’s the story behind the video that has people Googling for Durst doing the nasty. According to papers filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which are posted on TheSmokingGun.com, Durst’s manager, Peter Katsis of The Firm, was contacted by the owner of a pornographic video company late last year who claimed to know about the existence of the clip, saying it was in the hands of a third party.

The pornmiester then asked Katsis if Durst would be interested in commercial exploitation of the video.

But it was a no-go as far as Durst and Katsis were concerned. Evidently Durst, along with the willing assistance of a former girlfriend, made the video back in 2003, and it was Durst’s belief that the only copy in existence was stored safely on his hard drive. Because of that, Katsis told the individual that neither he nor Durst believed that the video existed, and even if it did, Durst had no interest in marketing it commercially.

But it didn’t stop there. The aforementioned third party contacted the manager in hopes he could persuade both Katsis and Durst to allow him to market the video. The person claimed that various contacts in Seattle were in possession of the clip, and offered to provide the video to Durst as proof.

According to the lawsuit, Katsis, believing the only copy was in Durst’s possession, maintained contact with the third party so he could “flush out” what Seattle contacts the person claimed to have had. This went on until February 25th when the third party told Katsis that the same people who had hacked Paris Hilton’s T-Mobile Sidekick account were also responsible for hacking Durst’s computer in order to obtain the sex flick.

Shortly thereafter, the sex video was unleashed on an unsuspecting world.

Meanwhile, Durst was taking steps to legally protect his interests. On the advice of his attorney, Durst copyrighted the video so that he could claim ownership, and therefore charge infringement if anyone sold or displayed it without his permission. Then he sent out Cease and Desists to all Web sites either hosting the clip or displaying video clips taken from it.

It was also at that time, according to the lawsuit, that Durst’s attorney was told the United States Secret Service was investigating the apparent hacking of Paris Hilton’s T-Mobile Sidekick. What’s more, the agent in charge felt the Hilton caper, as well as the Durst naughty movie heist, were related. According to the court filing, the Secret Service is investigating both matters.

While there’s an apparent link between the two cases – the phrase “T-Mobile Terrorist” is supered over Durst and his lady friend throughout the video – Durst himself was quick to squelch rumors that he was a victim of a Sidekick saboteur, and said that the video was probably filched from his hard drive when he had the computer serviced.

Durst isn’t the first celeb who’s found his own bare backside exposed on the Net. Motley Crue’s Tommy Lee had to grin and bare it when a video with former wifey Pamela Anderson found its way to the Web. Of course, the video of a 19-year-old Paris Hilton getting her jollies in a Vegas bedroom has taken on legendary status.

However, Durst may be the most aggressive in fighting those who might make money from such a vid. By copyrighting the clip, not only has Durst officially declared ownership, but has declared himself as the holder of all legal rights regarding the clip, including film, broadcast and photo, thus giving him a firmer legal leg to stand on than the usual invasion of privacy complaint.

Who knows? If Durst is successful in halting the unauthorized distribution of the video, he may very well become a consultant on such matters the next time a celeb gets caught with his or her pants down.