Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
3) Having stated #2 above, I also think the "porn isn't copyrightable" claim has very little prospect for success. Rather than try to explain why in my own words, I recommend reading this article that Marc Randazza wrote for XBIZ a while back. It lays out some of the relevant case law that governs the question of whether porn can be copyrighted, and notes that the court would have to break with several precedents in order to reach that conclusion regarding any sexually explicit depiction that has not already been found obscene by a trier of fact. It might be possible that the judge in this case can issue a declaratory judgment that the individual Malibu work in question is obscene, but I strongly, strongly doubt any judge will go so far out on a limb as to declare all porn to be ineligible for copyright protection. |
there is one huge problem with the entire argument of "economic censorship"
Son of sam laws prohibited the sale of the content in question
Open source proves that you can still sell your content even though it not protected by the control of copyright.
The argument being made is that you can't because explictly
denying the income earning ability you can't
take away monopoly control that artificially raises it above
market equilibrium pricing even though there is a proven economic model that support the industry at a lower level.
That is a serious stretch of the legally establish principles too.