Porn can't be copyrighted

[Aimless]

This is among the most heartwarming things I have seen this month (and I have seen many kitten vids let me tell you):

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...nt-says-no.ars

The strange case of Hard Drive Productions versus "anyone that the video company's lawyers suspect of illegally downloading its pornographic movies" has taken a new and interesting twist. One of the nearly 1,500 "Does" being sued for allegedly sharing a Hard Drive film online has resorted to what seems, at first glance, like a novel defense. In addition to her insistence that she never actually downloaded "Amateur Allure Jen," Liuxia Wong of Solano County, California argues that copyright law doesn't even apply to smut clips. They are not copyrightable, and therefore no infringement occurred.

The matter is quite simple, Wong's petition for declaratory relief explains to the federal court in San Francisco. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution defines the purpose of copyright: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Notice the words "science" and "useful arts" in the aforementioned sentence? Since when did movies with acronyms like "P.O.V." or "M.I.L.F." qualify as either? Therefore, "copyright is authorized only for works which promote the progress of science and the useful arts," says Wong's lawyer from the firm of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney.

"Early Circuit law in California held that obscene works did not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and thus cannot be protected by copyright," the brief also notes, then reiterates the point another seven times:

86. Hard Drive's work does not promote the progress of science.
87. Hard Drive's work does not promote the useful arts.
88. Hard Drive has judicially admitted that its work is adult pornography.
89. Hard Drive's work depicts obscene material.
90. 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.
91. Hard Drive's work depicts criminal acts and/or conduct.
92. Hard Drive's work is not copyrightable.
Holy utilitarianism, Batman . . . is this true? Do the language and stated assumptions of the Copyright Act really exempt garden variety smut video from its protections? And if so, how are people being sued in porn file-sharing cases across the country?

[continued]

It's like a great college/underdog nerd movie I hope it works purely on the basis of sneakiness

[Nessus]

Videodrome got so many things right, for all the things it got wrong... What a strange world.

[RandBlade]

I doubt it'll work, the US Supreme Court has already ruled many times over that pornography is legitimately held speech under the First Amendment. As such it must surely be a "useful art".

Unless there is something special about this porn, 89-91 are categorically wrong anyway under aforementioned case law. Child porn is prohibited but not much else is.

[Nessus]

Ostensibly porn is the most useful art there is, as it enables all workers and job-creators to remove stress in an efficient manner... But this kind of reasoning is foreign to most.

[RandBlade]

I agree. Maybe not most, but its definitely useful.

[Lewkowski]

I dislike the idea of the government decides what is or is not useful art.

[Flixy]

I dislike the idea of the government decides what is or is not useful art.

Agreed. And it is at best very subjective to decide what art is useful or not, if any art is considered to be 'useful' at all. Useful for what, exactly, anyway? Is making people happy useful? Is making people disgusted useful? Is making people think useful?

[RandBlade]

If people buy it, they must find it useful, therefore it needs to be copyrighted.
If people don't buy it, copyright is unnecessary, therefore the whole debate is moot.

There is no situation where any "art" need by stated as unuseful.

[Flixy]

If people buy it, they must find it useful, therefore it needs to be copyrighted.
If people don't buy it, copyright is unnecessary, therefore the whole debate is moot.

There is no situation where any "art" need by stated as unuseful.

Aye, but with that definition of 'useful' the entire addition of 'useful' in the law is unnecessary, since you could copyright pretty much anything but it just won't have any effect in what you consider not useful. But it is listed in the law, so they should take it out then to avoid confusion, or stretching the term 'useful'. I thoguht laws were supposed to be non-vague?

[Aimless]

I don't see where the government is deciding what is or is not useful art. The counter-suit is based on what judges have decided.

What's more, the text of the law grants these exclusive rights to authors and inventors. From what I can tell, "useful arts" is a reference to inventions and the like, not to any form of artistic expression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_arts


Actually nevermind I have no idea what any of this means

[CitizenCain]

Is making people think useful?

Better question: is that even possible? Empirical evidence would seem to indicate not.