Just thinking out loud here (I haven't received enough info on this case yet to forumlate a comprehensive response).
So, outright content theft/piracy is okay, but having a link back to the actual uploader/sponsor is not (I know it's apples and oranges).
In the article, I did not see where the Judge indicated how 2257 compliance by the mainstream adult industry posed much, if any, real threat to minors. Aside from the Dirty D case (which I assume is still being tried), I know of no other cases involving a legitimate adult company that caters to adults, having shot a minor.
As a primary producer, 2257 is a fact of life for me. However, it's going to be a potential nightmare for many so-called secondary producers to comply with this ruling.
Once an appeal is filed, I presume that all will be on hold again until that case is decided.
If there is a silver lining, it may mean that many tube sites, and other copyright infringing forums, torrents, etc., might now have to supply documents provided by their copyright infringing uploaders, which is not going to happen, because they don't have the docs.
If this becomes law, I hope that the government goes after businesses that cannot provide the docs, or do not even have so much as a link back to the primary producer.
Likewise, primary producers are going to have to be careful about who they trust as secondary producers.
ADG