- Why do they (subjectively) look so much better than regular/old DVD rips?
- Do their creators use the original source material or just normal bought DVD available to the public?
I hope this doesn't break any rules and thanks!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Last edited by Baldrick; 24th Apr 2023 at 08:38. Reason: New title
or QTGMC + some ai upscaling,... (never seen such content, but a quick search seems to hint in that direction)users currently on my ignore list: deadrats, Stears555
I'm asking especially since I do not have the DVDs and they can't easily be acquired anymore because I was confused why official websites that have licenses to use them still only offer such inferior qualities.
Maybe it's really some other, original source material...
First things first, it is not piracy because movies of this type are not eligible for copyright protections under U.S. Copyright Law.
Every single state has laws against offering or giving anything of value to have sex and even offering or paying for two other people to have sex. There is no exception for the presence of a camera or any other recording device and in fact many people have been prosecuted and jailed for producing these types of movies, even if the acts themselves were consensual.
Further, there is a federal law that prohibits the interstate or international transport of adults for the purposes of having sex, even if the acts would be legal in the new locale, as long as it would be illegal in the originating state.
On top of that, U.S. Copyright Law specifies that in order to have valid actionable copyrights to a work, 2 copies of the highest quality, typically 2 copies of the master files, must be sent to the U.S. Copyright office, one is kept in that building and one is sent to the Library of Congress.
The problem is that federal law does not allow the possession of any pornography on any government property, it is a federal crime, and there is another federal law that makes it illegal to send obscene material through any common carrier.
Taken together that means that even if it were legal to produce these types of movies, they still could not enjoy copyright protections because it is impossible to comply with the provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act.
For the record, the above has been successfully argued before a federal judge.
The above notwithstanding, I would argue with the OP that the movies he is referencing do not subjectively look better. They are so over-processed that they look fake, artificial.
The only ones that i have ever seen that look very impressive are the ones from the 70's that were distributed on film and people are able to scan the film and convert it to a digital format.
Those showcase why film is a superior media for movies, in fact I recall seeing two from the early 70's that were so clear and clean that they would put many modern mainstream movies produced for Netflix to shame.
Last edited by sophisticles; 15th Apr 2023 at 16:12.
Copyright Law and Pornography
Oregon Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 1, 2012
Sex-for-hire is usually illegal, unless it is being filmed. Debates about pornography tread uneasily into legal terrain that implicates freedom of expression under the First Amendment, the specter of censorship, and genuine concerns about the function and role of pornography in persistent gender inequality. It is less common for conversations about pornography to include a discussion of copyright law. Yet copyright law is a powerful tool that operates to protect the financial interests of pornographers. Owners of copyrighted pornography frequently threaten public exposure of an alleged infringer’s consumption habits in order to force a financial settlement. Thus copyright law operates as both a metaphoric legal shield and sword in the hands of pornographers.....
Copyright is automatically granted to the author of an original work (that otherwise meets the basic copyright requirements, discussed above). Registration is not necessary. However, registration amplifies a copyright holder's rights in a number of ways. Registration is required before a lawsuit can be filed, and registration creates the possibility for enhanced "statutory" damages.
Pornography is subject to copyright. Obscenity is not. Whether a particular porn is obscene or not is open to interpretation.
I'm not easily offended, but that's probably because I've watched so much I'm desensitized to it.
Since you specifically mention Oregon:
A person commits the crime of prostitution if the person engages in, or offers or agrees to engage in, sexual conduct or sexual contact in return for a fee.
A person commits the crime of commercial sexual solicitation if the person pays, or offers or agrees to pay, a fee to engage in sexual conduct or sexual contact.
A person commits the crime of promoting prostitution if, with intent to promote prostitution, the person knowingly:
Owns, controls, manages, supervises or otherwise maintains a place of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise;
Induces or causes a person to engage in prostitution or to remain in a place of prostitution;
Receives or agrees to receive money, goods, property, services or something else of value, other than as a prostitute being compensated for personally rendered prostitution services, pursuant to an agreement or understanding that the money, goods, property, services or something else of value is derived from a prostitution activity; or
Engages in any conduct that institutes, aids or facilitates an act or enterprise of prostitution.
Notice that there is no exception for the presence of a camera or other recording device.
As I stated, this has been argued successfully before a federal judge during one of those troll pornography download lawsuits and these arguments have been used by people around the country to win those suits.
Last edited by sophisticles; 24th Apr 2023 at 15:11.