What Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Hath Wrought

Yet another reason to simply laugh at the claims that porn is “under attack” in this country; it could hardly be more mainstream.

3 thoughts on “What Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Hath Wrought

  1. It’s hard to tell if there is an actual thought in this post or just misplaced snark.

    If there is an argument, I think it goes something like this: the protections against copyright infringement liability outlined by Supreme Court in Campbell are over-inclusive because they protect people who create pornography, or maybe more broadly, speech I don’t like. The freedom to engage in this sort of speech without fear of copyright infringement liability proves that there are no important efforts to suppress or marginalize pornographic speech.

    If that is the argument, I can see why you didn’t actually spell it out.

    If you just want to post videos, feel free. That’s what the internet is for, it seems. But if you want to make a point, you’ll need to try a bit harder.

  2. I guess the point was too obtuse for you, being a compound sentence and everything. Here it is again: “Yet another reason to simply laugh at the claims that porn is “under attack” in this country; it could hardly be more mainstream.”

    Porn lawyers looking to scare their clients into bigger retainers may instrumentally claim that sentence reeks of impending censorship, but nobody of reasonable intelligence would graft any argument about censorship onto this post.

  3. I also didn’t see what the argument was meant to be. That’s not because the sentence wasn’t clear, but because the video it referred to wasn’t clear.

    I’ve never watched a whole episode of Seinfeld and little clips such as this trailer make it fairly clear to me that it wouldn’t be worth my time if I did. The narrator of the clip not only didn’t say anything funny, but spoke in a funny voice making some things they said hard to decipher. (Seriously, why is saying “Geography” while showing a big man twiddling his finger supposed to be funny?)

    I have absolutely no idea what relation that clip has to the idea that pornography is under attack. The clip wasn’t pornographic, it wasn’t advertising pornography and it did not appear to have anything much to say about the prevalence of pornography in the States (or anything else for that matter).

    I’m also not privy to the argument that pornography is ‘under attack’, so I feel completely bamboozled by this entry.

    Most of all I feel irritated that I’ve been encouraged to watch a rather vulgar and humour-less video.

    Meh!

Comments are closed.