E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe porn industry says it loses billions of dollars a year to Internet piracy, and one of its prime tactics to recover some of that money is to send letters to alleged downloaders threatening to sue them, thereby exposing their identities — and browsing tastes — in public records.
Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union say it's nothing more than extortion. When such cases make it to court, they're usually thrown out, but the industry still sends the letters to tens of thousands of people every year on the assumption that some will settle — usually for $3,000 to $5,000 — because they're too scared to risk outing themselves as porn aficionados.
But a California woman is taking a different approach, according to Courthouse News Service. The woman, Liuxia Wong of Solano, sued first, hitting a studio called Hard Drive Productions on Monday with the argument that its demand for a $3,400 settlement was unconstitutional because porn is obscenity, and obscenity isn't protected by the Copyright Clause of the Constitution.
You can read Wong's suit in .pdf form here. It argues that:
Hard Drive's work does not promote the progress of science.
Hard Drive's work does not promote the useful arts. ...
Hard Drive's work depicts obscene material.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that to create the work, Hard Drive and its agents and/or its employees violated laws which prohibited pimping, pandering, solicitation and prostitution, including any claims of conspiracy.
Hard Drive's work depicts criminal acts and/or conduct.
As a result, she argues, "Hard Drive's work is not copyrightable" in the first place.
Msnbc.com traced how such piracy cases usually work last year:
The shorthand description of what plaintiffs' firms ... do is scour P2P networks to identify IP addresses that are downloading copyrighted material.
In non-tech, that translates to looking for videos that are being distributed across decentralized peer-to-peer (hence, P2P) file-sharing networks called "torrent sites." Then, using geotracking technology (like the GPS in your car or on your smartphone), investigators harvest the numeric Internet protocol addresses of the computers that are retrieving and sharing them. ...
That requires sophisticated programming, because the computers linked into the torrent "swarm" go on and offline from second to second — and when they're plugged in, their IP addresses can also change second by second.
A letter is typically then sent to dozens or hundreds of people at a time. The letter usually explicitly urges potential defendants to seize the opportunity to avoid litigation by settling before their names are published in a lawsuit.
In some cases, the potential defendant turns out to be an otherwise innocent bystander. Many people still don't know to secure their wireless routers with password-protected encryption, leaving them open — and easy for anyone in the neighborhood to piggyback on.
The industry shorthand for those people is "false positives," some of whom turn out to be 70-year-old grandmothers or ministers who had no idea the kids next door were feeding off their wireless systems.
One of the leading practitioners in this area of law, John Steele of Chicago — whose firm sent the original demand letter to Wong (you can read it here in .pdf form) — talked with msnbc.com at length about his strategy:
And yes, one of the goals is to "scare people," he said — not primarily into writing checks, but to stop them from "stealing our clients' content."
That's not a bad thing, Steele said, because piracy today is so easy that "the industry's really on its knees right now."
Lots of people may think his firm's methods are unfair, but adult entertainment companies are legal businesses with valid claims, and "we believe it's completely ethical and important to recover more money than the cost of the litigation," Steele said.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
Copyright the spoon? Don't think so...
The suit should have charged them with extortion. The veiled threat that their names would be published in lawsuit documents really does amount to extortion and should be treated as such. I do not know that I buy the argument that the material can not be copyrighted, after all Playboy definitely has copyright on their photos. I would imagine it might depend on whether the images/videos would be considered to have any artistic value or not. Since that would e a very subjective thing to determine, I would bet that the courts would tend to side with the industry against the individuals downloading the material unless it was clearly illegal or grossly obscene content. And if it were illegal content I doubt anyone would be threatening copyright lawsuits. It will be interesting to hear how this case turns out. It could have major repercussions for other art forms that people find offensive and with no artistic value, like the person who made religious statues out of feces. Judging whether something is entitled to copyright protection or not based on the artistic, scientific, intellectual, or other socially redeeming value of the content it sets a dangerous precedent.
Could you imagine the lawsuits if "Porn Producers" began suing each other for copyright infringement...they are all exactly the same, with different actor/actresses...IE... Every (mainstream) Filmmaker and Studio "reshoots" Avatar with different casts
"Will the defendant please rise....." That would be a amusing case to watch.
Nothing more fun than making love to someone who doesn't think lovemaking is an art.
..and then you list all the things that are different. Wouldn't call that exactly the same.
There are pictures of naked people on the interweb?
Denying porn copyright protection because it's illegal , (only in some localities) would open the door to legalized theft by public condemnation.
Just because your locality deems it immoral doesn't give another the right to take it in another locality.
Gee, maybe all of these lazy fu-ks should get real jobs making useful articles for people to use in their everyday lives, instead of thinking that they have a right to get rich off of somebody else's ideas. And which adult entertainment executive invented f--king, exactly? The special treatment given to a tiny number of content businesses, primarily pushed by the software industry to insure obscene profits on the backs of every other business is one of the primary causes for the disposal of manufacturing in this country. I'm just as thrilled as everyone else that Mcdonalds is hiring again, but without FACTORIES, the sad inexorable fact is that this will be a country with all the time in the world to download porn, and no money to pay for it.
Who cares if somebody's name is shown in a lawsuit about porn?
Every red-blooded male that I've ever met views porn and has a porn stash.
It's the ones that don't view porn that scare me.
.
What scares you about people who don't masterbate to their computer screens?
There's a lot of ins and outs to copyrighting porn!
Guy,
United is concerned because such abnormal behavior is usually caused by some form of deep seated psychosis. I'd be scared too.
Son
What weak mind you carry. Just because you simply decide not to manipulate your reproductive organ to a picture that millions carve to 'screw' doesn't make you "abnormal", it makes you "normal", and not sick/disgusting/weak.
That sentiment is what conducts the weakness and sheer stupidity of the human mind. The preference of a picture (who's subject probably carries enough STD's to know you out in one arousal) to a REAL partner is beyond me, but all I know is that it is one of humanity's gravest mistakes.
Considering that you may believe in some primitive religion, May Whoever you believe in Bless You.
guy from orlando... I know plenty of Christians that watch porn. Get off your high horse. You have probably never had hot sex, just plain old missionary 2 min quickies.
I think "guy from orlando" has proven "United's" point...people you should be VERY, VERY afraid of those that condemn you for viewing porn and then throw religion at you like it is the only answer. Religion is the biggest pornographic industry in the world, just ask any altarboy. Be afraid, be very, very afraid.
"the industry's really on its knees right now."~porn industry spokesman
Ah the visual I'm having right now!
@Freethinker
So? Christians do that all the time, from the public library to the backroom of the Church.
@Pizza
I never threw my religious values. I just know United is a religious person who puts God in his arguments only where it benefits him.
Unlike you primitive atheists/backward-age theists, I don't make up conclusions about things that I'll never know of (afterlife) until I die, it's called agnosticism, which is synonymous with the word 'logic'. I admit, I'm sorry I started this religious debate, but that's the truth.
Back to the topic, it's better to be afraid of people who masturbate to pixels, only a real genetic mistake would even support it, let's not say those who practice it. I have a life outside "XXX.com" sites, I actually interact with girls (no, not talking about prostitution), unlike 'jacking off' to pictures, like you pro-porn no-lifes. It's called "talking to a girl in real life", not "talking to a screenname who probably identifies themselves with Googled images".
It's so sad what humanity has become. This is why aliens don't talk to us.
@guy from Orlando
Really? Because of PORN aliens don't talk to us? HELLO! ever hear of anal probes? Aliens are into porn more then we are!
PS. religion is most likely the reason aliens don't talk to us. "God created man in his image" what god created the aliens then? "SATAN MUST OF CREATED THEM, DIE DIE DIE"
we cant live on this planet together without some kind of conflict, you think we would be able to live in this universe with intelligent life on other planets? Yea right...
So is atheism. The aliens must be laughing at all you religious/atheist kooks, "They don't know crap about the afterlife, yet they stick to their stupid and weak personal conclusions, hahaha! Let's go contribute to another, more sensible, nonatheistic/nontheistic/agnostic race that uses logic".
Yes, porn is a step backwards in human maturity. Why would you like seeing someone spread a bunch of good food all over themselves, and manipulate the human reproductive cycle? Eventually, even child porn will become gradually accepted into this worthless and trash-heap society.
It's the right for TWO humans to enjoy sex TOGETHER, it's just an act of vandalism towards one self to share a two-person bond with a million other virgins.
I disagree. Sharing is caring, and porn stars are doing a great service to all the unwilling virgins.
Now, it's obvious to me that it's much better to have real sex, but you can't expect everyone to get laid every day. Studies have shown that masturbation is healthy, so it's advisable to masturbate on days when you're not having sex. And what about couples who watch porn to get ideas? Would you say the same about them?
Unwilling virgins are those who do not know how to talk to girls to find a date.
It's not about masterbation in general, it's just the lack of care people have to themselves. To fantazise is one thing, but to be naked, having sex in a place where millions can see you is pretty self-degrading and quite sad.
Tell me, and be honest, would you film yourself having sex with your girlfriend/wife/husband/whoever you are with, and post a video on it on the Internet?
There's a difference between "the porn industry losing money" and "the porn industry not getting money it wouldn't have gotten in the first place".
Thats one of the biggest issues with anti-piracy claims. When the software/film/music/porn industry talk about how much money they lose a year to piracy, they always assume that every single illegal download is a lost sale. All the figures they quote assume that if people didn't pirate their product they would go and buy it 100% of the time. Obviously that is simply not the case, and one of the main reasons people pirate things is because they CAN'T afford to buy it. There is no doubt these industries lose money every year due to piracy, but the true amount is certainly much lower then they claim, especialy for the porn industry given the amount of non-pirated free porn on the net.
Isn't this like telling Ferrari they didn't lose a sale when you stole their car, because you never would have been able to pay for one? Somehow it's different when it's downloadable content, rather than hard goods? The people involved put in WORK and invested actual MONEY to create the materials. They should be entitled to protection. The material is not illegal, and the performers are not acting in any criminal fashion.
apples to ferraris
CK,
yes it is VERY different. With physical theft you lose that physical property and cannot sell it as it was stolen.
Digital theft you do not lose the property after it is stolen and can still profit from it.
See the difference?
I can't click a button and make a exact copy of a Ferrari and leave the original one undamaged. If you COULD do that, you wouldn't be losing anything and we wouldn't even be discussing this.
It's true that with digital theft, the owner of said property doesn't lose anything. But the one who takes from him or her, gains something, and gains it in a manner contrary to the owner's original intent.
What it comes down to is it's still theft. Something is gained by the one who takes, and that person doesn't compensate or give back anything of value to the person who put in the hard work of creating the digital property.
There's a lot of gray area here, but digital items that are clearly for sale should be purchased and not simply copied. People's livelihood depends on it. If you "wouldn't have bought it anyway," why take it in the first place? Just because you can? Not a good excuse.
Dr. Cat that is by far the best response to tha I wasn't going to buy it anyway. Its like the people who stand in the bookstore reading the entire novel in the store then put it back on the shelf. That author put a lot of effort in writing that book and now won't get compensated. It is still stealing.
Dathias....is it theft then if I get that book from the library and read it? I didn't buy it nor did a hundred other people who read it. Since the library isn't paying royalties to the author every time the book is signed out it would seem that the author is losing money thanks to the library system that let's people read books without having to pay the author every time the book is read or signed out.
Then this is fairly similar to torrent sites that house movies, music, books, and even porn similar to a library (minus the porn) you either get charged a nominal fee for use or download or its entirely free. The author, etc. isn't getting paid the only real difference is the physical nature of a book versions the intangible digital nature of eBooks, music, movies, etc.
The whole piracy thing is a farce being driven by the fact that specific industries are still clutching to old models of delivery and do not understand how they can maintain positive control over their content. Which they truly can't in a more modern digital era.
Geowil, you are incorrect. Imagine if someone stole a car dealership, the the Manufacture would be out the sales that dealership would have produced.
Digital assets have two parts, one, the asset itself, adn two, the modal of delivery. Without control of the modal of delivery, all copies of the digital asset becomes severly comprimised.
If someone steals a car, nothing affects all the other cars being bought and sold. So, in reality the product in question is access, and someone is providing unlicensed access.
Try selling a ferrari if somone could click a button and copy theirs, and provide it freely to anyone who wanted one.
Don't compare tangible items to digital items. They, their sale, and availablility are complely different. In fact, it's arguable that a stolen ferarri is better than stolen digital copies, because that stolen copy affects all other future sales, whereas the ferrari, you just lose the one.
Exactly, especially porn! Far, far fewer people are willing to pay for porn then the number of people who may have viewed any. The same holds true for most other things as well, like crappy movies you'd never pay to see. Good movies bring in more today then they ever have because they are worth going to the theater to see.
They should just get together and demand a cut from the service providers who profit from their clients accessing the web. Easier to blackmail some shmuck.
You CAN build an exact duplicate of a Ferrari, maybe not with a click of a button but it IS possible. That is called COUNTERFEITING and that is ILLEGAL too.
Most counterfeiters try to sell their stuff at high prices. I doubt anyone would care if you built yourself a Ferrari, told nobody about it, and never tried to sell it.
If reading a novel in the bookstore is "stealing", then you might as well apply the rule to newspapers and magazines too. See the slippery slope now?
Does this mean that when I read the newspaper in the coffee room on lunch break, I'm breaking the law because I'm not the one who purchased the paper?
"...and when they're plugged in, their IP addresses can also change second by second. "
^lol
All of these articles related to the internet (piracy, DDOS, "hacking" etc) make me laugh. It amazes me that the author of news article can be as stupid as the people reading.
There are people who can tap into other computers for down loads and those people don't know that they are binging used as a piggy back. Their iP will come up.What I am trying to say you can be accused for a down load with out you knowing it.
True you can be an unwilling accessory to illegal downloading or storage because your home computer is unsecured and you have either just a cable modem (no security) or a wide open Wi-Fi access point (no security). Just because you get letter doesn't mean jack, but if you get a subpoena and some guys show up with a warrant for all computing devices then you should be worried except if you haven't done anything wrong or have child porn hidden somewhere on your machine.
However it works out the porn content police would have to prove that you were in fact the person who downloaded the material and going by IP address only is not proof.
What a load of bull@!$%# this reporting is. History tells us that it's more likely the "minister" downloading porn OF the "kids next door" than anything else.
History tells us that some people believe that a handful of high-profile cases involving clergy are indicative of a mass epidemic of (insert your favorite crime here), typically because they hate religion and want to believe that such behavior is typical rather than exceptional.
In any case, methinks thou dost protest too much.
If you are going to quote Shakespeare, at least get the quote right and understand its context. It's "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." and protest does not mean what you think it means.
Carmen Aventura:
You just said that men of the cloth (an EXTREMELY small % of the online world) download more porn than everybody else.
Your village called, they want you to come home.
Dan Lake, you're my hero.
@Dan Lake
+1 for working in a Princess Bride quote. Perfectly done my good sir!
Nice argument she made. Good point.
How cana goldfish destroy!?
Well Morlack, we might not know how a goldfish can destroy, but since we dont know how, its gonna shock us when it does!
Before the porn industry starts to tackle this issue, it should be tackling the issue of porn stars who tweet copyrighted pictures of themselves from movies and links to sites to watch free video clips of their movies. How can the "industry" be concerned, while some of their paid performers are encouraging their fans to pirate?
See your on to part of the scam here. This isn't about stopping piracy... its about making a few extra bucks off some poor sucker who gets caught trying to download porn he couldn't afford/wouldn't otherwise buy. The truth of the matter is the porn industry isn't being hurt all that much by piracy. If anything, piracy helps get their product out there and build name recognition. No, these "lawsuits" are just another way to make a few bucks from people who are scared to be taken to court for downloading porn. After all, who wants the world to know they were caught downloading porn... especially if they have strange taste? Some of these companies try to extort between $2,000-5,000 a pop. That's more then 100 movie sales, so even if you only get a couple dozen people to settle they are making a pretty good buck.
Whats REALLY hurting the porn industry is the rising amount and quality of the free porn industry. Sites like YouPorn stole far more sales last year then did pirates.
The Porn industry is on it's knees? Sounds like the movie I saw.
still laughing at that line....I think the industry was on it's knees long before the internet came along.
Yeah... it's a quirky nifty comment... But you're "still laughing at that line"? I see comments of such caliber on gaming forums and I can instantly tell the poster's age.
porn industry is doomed anyway - the best porn comes from amatuers anyway. The only time people actually want the "pro" porn is when they are stuck at a hotel.
Porn is prostitution plain and simple.
People are getting paid to have sex.
It is against the law.
AND if you publish my name in a lawsuit, you will get sued back.
(not that I care)
LOLOL. And who the hell are you to judge what other people do?
See, here's the hilarious thing. It is illegal to pay someone to have sex with you. However, it is NOT illegal to pay someone to have sex with somebody else while you film it. Funny how that works.
LOL I don't judge.
I don't care ( I have porn just like most everyone else).
But you cannot protect via copyright what is illegal in the streets.
How this "industry" has even survived is beyond me.
When you pay people to have sex, it is prostitution, simple as that.
What an act of vandalism to one's self. To manipulate your own body, and to trample on the human reproductive process. Just shows what measure of self-disrespect people have towards themselves.
Ummm you do know that humans are hardwired by both nature and god to enjoy sex right? And that means there is nothing wrong with enjoying sex beyond procreating right?
God said to enjoy sex...............Why stop!!!!!!!!!!
Obviously it isn't prostitution. Prostitutes get arrested.
Viewer....the industry has "survived" because there is no shortage of people who will screw for $500.
It only takes a hundred sales to recoup the entire production costs.
Sex is an action of two people, not two million computer monitors.
And you still stick to your primitive theist beliefs aswell?
Free willie!
And why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away for free?
Admittedly, I wouldn't recommend a career in prostitution (because you frequently get the unsavory types) or in porn (most don't get rich or famous) but I wouldn't judge them by their profession. For starters, they aren't harming anyone.
They aren't harming anyone but themselves. What would you say if you saw a loved one in the middle of exposing themselves in such a lewd way like that?
How is public flashing illegal, and porn not? With all the rising understanding of hacking, using primitive hacking programs and the sorts, more kids nowadays know how to get past filters, or bump into that kind of stuff (porn) by accident? They might accidently go on it, see something that "so-and-so wants to chat", and get themselves into danger with child predators, hackers, etc.
This is how cyber criminal activity goes into motion. The uncensoring of strong topics, and the weak "evidence" of one's age.
No, porn doesn't harm anyone severely. I just find it to very negative to expose yourself in such a manner, and I believe it's way too open for anyone to see.
I'm not encouraging a 'nanny state', just a society where people can caution themselves more. We are way too soft for a society, and too open about things.
I don't care if Allah, Buddha, God, your neighbor, whoever said to enjoy sex. You can enjoy sex, but it's "morally wrong" (I wouldn't use that term directly) to practice in porn.
Guy,
ever been to a beach in Europe? OMG! people exposing themselves!
Religion fanatics aside though, porn is a legit business but instead of them trying to strong arm the downloaders into paying they should develop better ways to prevent copying of the product in the first place. Or at least attack the one providing the free download.
Yep, I have been to a beach in Europe, nothing bad there.
Anyways, what religious fanaticism am I imposing? Atheism, theism, both sides are stupid and equally dangerous.
Seems to me they're getting what they depict.
LOL you mean screwed or blown?
both, at the same time.
awesome....
Umm so what is the porn industry going to do about all those millions of peeps who dont download but watch porn online for free? Also i was not aware that sex acts could be copyrighted.
Maybe if you come up with a new one you could copyright it!
It's not the sex acts themselves they are attempting to copyright. It's the entire *film* - including plot (if any), character names, costumes, music, etcetera. Just like a regular movie or book, these are often common (or uncommon or unique) elements which are combined in a unique (and hence, supposedly, copyrightable) manner.
That said - the lady in this lawsuit brings up an interesting point. If copyright law has a loophole which would require the copyrighted material to meet a definition of being "beneficial to society" or not meet a definition of "depicting criminal activity"... porn movies might be unable to qualify for copyrights...
your examples, "beneficial to society" and "depicting criminal activity" would make half the music and movies out there unable to qualify for copyrights..."PIRATES of the Caribbean" PIRATES?? Depicts criminal activity? YES! "Gansta" music, guns, killing mayhem....all of which is surely "beneficial to society" ..uh huh....
as for "depicting criminal activity" - yes, Pirates WOULD qualify, because they are depicting SIMULATED piracy (actors in a story about piracy, not actual piracy)... porn movie potentially would not because it is showing people who are having sex for money (prostitution?)... difference is that in this case, the actors themselves are potentially committing a crime, not just playing characters who are criminals.
As for "beneficial to society"... true, that sounds like a bit of a higher standard, but actually probably the one the porn people would go after, claiming that it's a form of entertainment, which itself has been judged a benefit to society before - such as FDR's decision to keep MLB operating during WWII.
That said - I'm not a legal expert. Just reacting to this story.
.
Shandril the Catholic church IS in fact infested with pedophile priests and it is a mass epidemic in the Catholic church because it has been proven that rather than turn there pedophile priests over to authorities they just move them to another church. So if the church hides them away from authorities rather than turning them in, it is inevitable the problem will reach epidemic proportions, this is very simple basic logic.
Morlack--the number of priests who harmed children was/is very low; the number of children harmed (in the past) was very high because those priests had easy access to children for years and years and were moved any time they got caught.
Many of the cases of priests molesting "children" were of priests and boys of 16 or 17 years of age--at the time, such boys were legal and there were no laws about "people in a position of trust." Not a few of the boys probably were fine with the situation, just as girls of 16 or 17 years of age are often fine with the relationships that they are the instigators of. It is still wrong for priests to have sex with teenagers (male or female), but this is not pedophilia--though it is now, as far as I'm concerned, correctly considered a crime.
Further, not all the priests were guilty--there was a lot of money to be made, and at the time, priests were considered guilty before being proved innocent. One poor guy with no history of anything did no more than pat a kid on the rump at a pool party--in plain view of everyone there--and he is now in jail for 15 years.
The percentage of priests accused of molestation is between 1.5 and 5% of all the priests in the US for the last 50 years. This is about the same as the percentage of clergy from other religions, and quite a good bit lower than the rate in the general adult male population. It is very simple basic logic to do a calculation of the number of priests in the US in proportion to the number accused--and then to compare that to the total number of adult males in the general population against those who are accused. If you don't find a higher rate, and it is in fact lower than the general population and the same as other religions--well, you don't have an "epidemic" in terms of the number of priests, do you?
Bishops moving priests around was/is a problem--giving priests easy access to many children is what created the issue--but let's not use inflammatory language for something that isn't happening at a higher rate in one institution than in any other.
Beanathome, you had me until you claimed that 1.5-5% is a much lower rate than the general male adult population. Show me the evidence that six million men have been accused of molestation. That's just at five percent of the male population. Even if you spread it across fifty years, that is 120k accusations a year, which I still don't buy.
You also lost it with "not a few of the boys probably were fine with the situation". This sounds uncomfortably like "She was asking for it."
Morlack, so is the school system...what's your point.
Dan, sounds like a lot, but there are an awful lot of people out there, men and women who have not been caught and won't be. It's seems like every time a situation comes to light, it's been happening for years.
Dan,
We can safely assume that more than six million men have engaged in molesting children. Maybe they haven't been convicted, but if you look at molestation statistics, there are a heck of a lot of abusers in our country.
Roughly 33% of girls and 14% of boys are molested before the age of 18, according to the U.S. Justice Department. In 2011, there were 75.6 million people ages 0-18 in the US. Assuming half are boys and half are girls, that's a total of roughly 17.9 million children who have been molested sometime in their lives.
17.9 million kids being molested......there's gotta be at least 6 million perpetrators at work here.
As Jay Leno would say, the Porn Industry is having trouble getting it up, or shall I say "itching to get back to work." Perhaps the porn stars can get off their knees and start looking for a real job, then at least they'd get recognized for something besides their bra sizes, or butt sizes, or penis sizes. But given some of the sick stuff coming out LA's milk cow, is anybody seriously going to pay to watch girls with hideously fake boobs or gangbang scenes or torture scenes? My advise to the pirates is this: Have your day in Court and make the porn lawyers PROVE their piracy charges. Just imagine a porn lawyer with a straight face presenting his "evidence" to the Jury.
Like every empire that doesn't understand its competition, it is getting angry and beginning to thrash. As other posters have mentioned, there seem to be a large number of people willing to post themselves on the internet free of charge. Whether they are seeking fame, a quick thrill, or something else, I couldn't say. But the point is that the big companies are being outdone (in quality and quantity) by individuals.
What they don't talk about here is how the IP addresses are converted to actual addresses. Are the ISPs willingly handing these over, or is legal paperwork filed to retrieve each address?
Industry needs to get over copying.. These are copies, not people selling something. ITS A COPY. like giving your book to a friend when you are done with it. Same idea. Then it gets deleted. Its no different then a book club where people gather together and share all their books among themselves. ITS A COPY.
@Freedom4Everyone - that argument is flawed. When a "book club" shares, there is only ONE copy of the book. It is *NOT* duplicated. Thus if you lend a book to a friend, you do not have access to the book until it is returned. This is fundamentally different than DUPLICATION.
In fact, for many types of copyright material ANY duplication is illegal. It took quite some time to get the legal ability for a person to make a backup copy of software for use in a disaster recovery situation.
@Freedom4Everyone - that argument is flawed. When a "book club" shares, there is only ONE copy of the book. It is *NOT* duplicated. Thus if you lend a book to a friend, you do not have access to the book until it is returned. This is fundamentally different than DUPLICATION.
In fact, for many types of copyright material ANY duplication is illegal. It took quite some time to get the legal ability for a person to make a backup copy of software for use in a disaster recovery situation.
Hmm, can porn be copyrighted? Well, it would seem to me that the answer is 'yes'. There are ample cases of porn magazines, books, etc that are covered under copyright law. As long as the content is legal, then it should be covered.
What is interesting here is that the porn industry is making the exact same arguments that the motion picture industry is making in trying to get SOPA passed. Well, guess what, whatever applies to one will apply to the other. Nice quandary for our Reps who are in the back pockets of Hollywood. Pass something like SOPA and also protect porn or don't pass it and piss off your donors. This will be fun to watch.
Some porn can be artistic. Playboy for instance. But the majority of it is.....not. It is simple sex and pleasure. Now, I don't know about you, but I would love to see the lawyers present "evidence" to the court.
I'm wondering if this lawsuit is going to have the opposite effect that it intends, and force SCOTUS to recognize that the "artistic merit" distinction is worthlessly vague. Playboy may dress itself up as artistry, but for the vast majority of its consumers it is no different than Girls Who Love Girls and the Boys Who Love to Watch Them, Vol. 17.
In other words, why does "simple sex and pleasure" not have artistic merit?
If porn is not copyrighted, the porn business would go away because no-one could make any money doing it.
Sure there would be. Amateurs are putting porn on the internet all the time for nothing. Hell, if the porn industry collapses, we would probably see a quality rise in porn.
Okay so can the Movie companies sue the porn industry for making porn knockoffs of their blockbuster movies?
I can see the arugment where adult magazines can copyright photos because it is considered an original work of art by the photographer. However the porn industry has never had anything original it is always a knock off of another film and then copied over and over by other knock off porn companies.
The world might be a better place if the pron industry disappeared forever in my honest opinion.
Like, Scooby Do Me?
No because mocks and satires are allowed under the "fair use" doctrine.
the case of idiots v. idiots.
On the subject brought up in this discussion about priest abusing children. I am not saying that all sexual abuse would stop because you have perverts everywhere, but the vast majority of it would stop if the church would only allow priest to marry. From what I read in the Bible (KJV), it is my understanding that there is no restriction that prohibits priest from marrying. Christ did say that he would prefer man to be celibate as himself, but there is no steadfast restriction about priest being married. It is just a man made doctrine, therein lies the problem.
The real reason priests are not allowed to marry is because of greed. The Roman Catholic Church created this idea of celibacy and no marriages because they didn't want the priest to give any of the church's wealth to his family. They want his attention and all his possessions to go to the church. If a man is married, his number one priority, financially and otherwise, should be his family. The church doesn't like this. They want him 100% dedicated to the church.
Sounds a lot like a cult, doesn't it?
First off one person had it right on this post. They can most likely copyright this stuff. But how many sexual acts can you copyright. I'm sure they'd all be so busy sueing each other that they'd go broke.
I hope this person wins. This stuff most likely was not copyrighted. Which at that point they are guilty of exstortion. No copyright it's free stuff.
The porn industry...is on its knees. Sweeet.
bottom fishing with claims to sue and getting caught should be consider criminal. Setting up a fancy network sniffer gig to bottom fish with lawsuits using blind faith to interpret law is just plain criminal. DOJ involvement should reprimand self for excercise of law with blind faith. Leave the blind faith at church!