Not really.
For if one can live off a website then logic would lead one to conclude that they're doing rather well particularly considering the average American income for a household is around $46,000.
Actually from what I've seen the "tube sites" mostly have her scenes from her Vivid days which are at least 4 years old if not older, not scenes that have been recently produced.
And given that the popularity of any scene is directly proportional to its date of release, any profit lost due to the sharing of this particular content is negligible.
I would agree that the money lost is likely small and more than likely it's an issue of her merely being annoyed about it.
A statement such as one can live off a website isn't vague it's quite obvious, it would seem though that some don't like the implication of it.
And the context can been seen by all who read the discussion. It was about websites and she stated how with the right webmaster one can live solely off their site which she did for 2 years.
