Curiously, there's a case being heard by the california courts right now over porn piracy where the defendant's argument is that you actually can't legally copyright porn, and therefore it's not a crme to pirate it.
Taken from: The Consumerist [http://consumerist.com/2012/02/lawsuit-you-cant-charge-me-with-downloading-porn-because-you-cant-copyright-obscenity.html]
Wh knows what the decision would be, but it's a little bit hilarious.
In order to rule that porn could be legally restricted for sale to minors, they had to class it as obscenity.
Classing it as obscenity indicates that it can't be legally copyrighted.
I'm interested to see how this case plays out.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the U.S. Congress "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."
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.
Subsequent non-en banc decisions by the Ninth Circuit failed to follow this prior circuit decision in California.
Given the absence of any subsequent en-banc Ninth Circuit decisions, Supreme Court precedent, or changes in the Constitution that copyright is authorized for works which does not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, the subsequent Ninth Circuit decisions are void and do not constitute binding precedent.
Taken from: The Consumerist [http://consumerist.com/2012/02/lawsuit-you-cant-charge-me-with-downloading-porn-because-you-cant-copyright-obscenity.html]
Wh knows what the decision would be, but it's a little bit hilarious.
In order to rule that porn could be legally restricted for sale to minors, they had to class it as obscenity.
Classing it as obscenity indicates that it can't be legally copyrighted.
I'm interested to see how this case plays out.