Originally Posted by TheDoc
(Post 14287788)
Is he not the owner of the Company? Doesn't Max give permission for someone to distribute a video? Is he the primary producer? He is in control of it all, just like all primary producers are. The only time it's not in your control is if you have been pirated.
If the Film/Movie industry has different rules/laws to follow, then he/we should be able beat a trailer or site, being taken as a whole. However, a trailer that was cut from a full production, is enough to sample, understand, view, and experience without having to watch the entire thing. The idea of that is to show that it's tasteful, artful, contributes, whatever that crap is it says. Now, one trailer being a sample of an entire Website, I see the idea they are going after. Maybe if the site actually did have an artful taste to it, learning, or community, some special videos, I'm sure the court would allow those. Pending they wouldn't make the court puke.
I look at it like this, I can think or not think obscenity is right or wrong. If it is unconstitutional then this case should go high enough to prove or disprove that. I can see a clear, hardcore sex, safe line that will not get you into trouble, Flynt set that for us. We have a huge gray area, most of it being safe. But you can also clearly see a red zone that will get your ass nailed, beast, fake sexual rape, scat, the easy to spot extreme shit.
I don't think Max stuff should be found obscene, at least the small amounts I have watched. I'm not a hardcore porn fan, but adults consented to view his films and I'm fine with that as long as everyone in the production was aware of what was going to happen before hand.
I see some new laws coming in, if this case sticks, years from now prob. I see the degrading women law (bondage-bonded, extreme pain, ect.. in sexual moments) something like Canada has. This is what the Max case is screaming to me.
|
