More on Porn, Copyright, and Google
Right on, Ann.
One of the interesting things here is that until just a few decades ago porn did not qualify for copyright protection. See Mitchell Bros. Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theatre. And even since, most adult content providers have been relunctant to sue for infringement, despite obvious and widespread infringement all around.
I have two theories about that. First, they must appreciate the viral and perhaps addictive nature of their product. They realize that free stuff drives customers back for he paid for stuff. After all, Internet demand was pretty much fueled by porn demand. And so they figured even a big leak of content would not harm their swelling demand.
And second, they probably thought that they would not make good plaintiffs, being considered sleazy and all that. Lawyers understand that judges have prejudices and deploy them regularly from the bench. So porn merchants probably figured they had little to gain from suing.
But in this case, as Ann points out, the porn merchant figured he would get a good hearing. What does this say about the status and reputation of the porn industry in America today?
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)