Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
I still don't understand why 18 USC 2257 isn't used against the tubes.
AEBN used it and then quickly settled their case.
I used it in a BitTorrent case with an Unfair Business Practice cause of action.
And then Pink Visusl used it and I believed settled their lawsuit.
And I don't think anyone has since.
I know the First Amendment Lawyers Assoc was against it though. I caught a lot of flack for doing it from some of their attorneys. But it worked like a charm. A federal judge was afraid to rule on a motion filed by the defendants in my case for fear of making a finding against 2257.
I think 2257 could be a great tool to use. But once again Im sure I will catch flack for even suggesting it...
|
I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Using 2257 could backfire badly if that became a common tactic. The message it would send is that 2257 is not strict enough since many sites are able to offer videos without 2257 docs, LEGALLY.
It would eventually lead to more strict rules, the rules would effect the content owners but not the tube site owners.
They would most likely argue that they merely provide space for the user who uploaded the "video" and they merely act as an ISP/OSP.
I doubt the judges are afraid of doing any 2257 rulings I'm guessing its because The Communications Decency Act would provide immunity against 2257 breaches to the tube site owner... If they filed all their paperwork correctly.
Touching subjects like that could be an instant career killer for any judge.
Personally I would go for the "uploaders".