Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are so dense gideongallery.
Nobody is paying for sex. What part of that don't you understand?
The only thing anybody is paying for is for a piece of film.
A girl sitting on a couch doesn't mean anything. Where the fuck do you come up with these completely off the wall analogies? LOL
If I film that girl just sitting on a couch and then offer to pay her for the film...I will give her what I think it's worth. Nothing.
If she takes it in the ass from 5 black guys instead of just sitting...then I'm gonna pay her and the guys for the rights for that video.
I'm not paying them to have sex. I'm not even paying them to be there at all. I'm paying them to sign a piece of paper giving me the full rights to that piece of footage to distribute in any way that I see fit.
|
you just admitted value (pay) changed based on sexual act
remember freeman got convicted in the begining
go back and look at the case and you will see that freeman made that arguement and he still got convicted.
the prosecutor argued that if you paid x (nothing in your example) to film the person not having sex with 5 black guys was x+y (something your example) then y is the amount of money you are paying for sexual activity (having sex with 5 black guys)
They won on that arguement and freemen got convicted on 5 counts.
the supreme court accepted that having sex on film was a first ammendment protected right of expression and that is what allows you to make the arguement you are making.
say for example the court had ruled that the first amendment did not apply because the founding fathers never considered porn when they were writing the bill of rights.
All that california would have had to do is make a law that would make it illegal to distribute movies with sex scenes in them and that would criminalize the entire industry.
Because the value of having sex with 5 guys would be zero and you would not be paying them for proportionate compensation for its market value.
ok back to the safe harbor
the parallel is same in this case
the tube sites are not violating your copyright
they are providing a service that allows their user to potentially violate your copyright
and blindly trusting the user when he says he is not committing such a violation
they can legally do that because the safe harbor provision says they are not responsible as long as they take down the content when the blind trust is not legitimate.
as long as the first ammendment is not changed to exclude porn your declarations make your act legal
like wise as long as the safe harbor provision exists their actions are also equally legal.