4 ms·
Why are so many people conflating non-obscenity and "useful art"? Very odd. It's not obscene (wink, wink, sure whatever) but you would have to delve into the
by mynameishere 15y ago
Why are so many people conflating non-obscenity and "useful art"? Very odd. It's not obscene (wink, wink, sure whatever) but you would have to delve into the lower reaches of willful stupidity to claim that "Anal Creampies 5" is "useful art" and therefore suitable for copyright protection.
- matthewcieplak 15y agoIt's not much of a stretch to say that it's useful to the creator, as he stakes his livelihood on it. The constitution does not specify to whom the art must be useful.
- vidarh 15y agoIn the legal world, it's not "useful arts" that would be in question, but "science" in this case. "Useful arts" is in contrast to the "performing arts" and "fine arts" - it refers to practical skills, not what we talk about as art today.
- anigbrowl 15y agoBecause a) there is a large body of case law delineating the boundaries of what is copyrightable, and questions of utility (as distinct from obscenity) have been litigated to death already; and b) Wong' argument is that the porn in question is non-copyrightable because it is obscene, rather than because it lacks utility. Anyway, utility for what? Is entertainment lacking in utility? If so, should music not be copyrightable, since people derive only aesthetic pleasure from it?