Wow, that is kind of a bizarre ruling. Unpacking it from the current context of finding file sharers, on what grounds should a court get to decide that a production loses all copyright protection solely because of its content? It's not just the sex acts but the performers, I presume, that give value to a porn video (and of course, production value and story writing).
I suspect that some athletic broadcasts enjoy copyright protection by the league and yet it'd be strange to deny their copyright just because it's a bunch of guys kicking a ball around
I think we are still living in times where some parents would rather deliver a person in a society where the chances of being a porn performer are reduced, compared to the chances of being a sports performer.
Torrentfreak is such a terrible linkbait sensationalist piece of poop. This is one decision of one court for a specific tiny selection of films. It has absolutely no meaning in a broader sense.
They don't even link to the sources in that article.
> On that basis the District Court found that the works had never been released in Germany and were therefore ineligible for protection under the Copyright Act
Germany is a party to the Berne Convention, so I find that highly unlikely. German copyright law explicitly says that foreign nationals are accorded all the protections required by international treaties (see article 121, section 4 of their Copyright Act).
5 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 21.6 ms ] threadI suspect that some athletic broadcasts enjoy copyright protection by the league and yet it'd be strange to deny their copyright just because it's a bunch of guys kicking a ball around
They don't even link to the sources in that article.
Flag and or skip.
Germany is a party to the Berne Convention, so I find that highly unlikely. German copyright law explicitly says that foreign nationals are accorded all the protections required by international treaties (see article 121, section 4 of their Copyright Act).