Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Burning Porn = Making Porn
An anonymous reader writes "An appeals court has upheld the prosecution of a Michigan man who was charged with production of child pornography after downloading and burning pornographic pictures from the Internet. The pictures were created by a Russian website that the man was not affiliated with in any form. From the court decision (PDF): 'After reviewing the dictionary definition of
the word make, the circuit court stated that the bottom line was that, following the mechanical
and technical act of burning images onto the CD-Rs, something new was created or made that
did not previously exist.' Is this simply a court's overreaction to a scumbag pedophile? And how does this affect the lawsuits by the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA?"
If true, he definitely crossed the line.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
For example, it is illegal to create computer-generated child pornography
No, it's not.
See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
The court ruled that simulated child porn that involves no images of children and no children in its production is constitutionally protected free speech.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Regarding the counts related to the CD-Rs, the prosecutor argued that MCL 750.145c(2)
encompassed activity where an individual arranges for, produces, makes, or finances child
sexually abusive material, and when defendant took the blank CD-Rs and burned images on
them, he clearly created child sexually abusive material. The prosecutor noted that the statute
defines "child sexually abusive material" as including any reproduction, copy, or print of a
photograph depicting a child engaged in a sexual act. The prosecutor argued that, therefore, by
copying, reproducing, or burning the images onto a CD-R, defendant "made" or "produced"
child sexually abusive material.
Of course by reproducing the material, he knowingly became part of the chain, and therefore also part of the abuse.
Yes, there *is* a differnce even though you chose not to see it. Remove the kiddie porn because in the context of this discussion it is moot.
Drugs laws already make this distinction. Because if he burned the CD for his own use, the drug law equivilent is "Possession". If he burned the 500 or whatever number, he could be charged with "Possession with intent to distribute".
If we followed your logic, then the person who has one or two marijuana plants for their own use can be charged with Possession with intent to distribute when clearly one or otwo plants does not allow for that.
Simply burning the CD is not producing the content. It is transferring between media.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Committing a murder during the course of a felony (the rape, in this case)--in some states--automatically bumps the murder up to 1st degree, which means, depending on where you're being tried, that you'll be looking at life without parole or the death penalty.
Similarly, if you break into someone's house and are caught, wind up killing the person who catches you and decide NOT to kill the rest of the family, and have a good lawyer, you can argue that the murder was accidental, demonstrate that you were only there for a little petty theft, you might be able to shake the 1st degree murder and work your way down to 3rd degree murder or even down to manslaughter. 20 years is certainly better than life without parole.
Not intended to be legal advice, use with caution, don't run with scissors, etc.