This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps

April 23, 2014

This is a pretty familiar story line. A businessman wants to open a strip club. Some members of the local community decide that they do not want that kind of thing in their town. The resistance is usually faith-based (which is where the wheels really come off). I fail to understand how anyone can believe in a supreme being, who created all of heaven and earth, but would be upset at some boobies.

The City this time is Destin, Florida. As reported in their local paper, it seems that the driving force behind the attempt to keep the strip club out of town was “ a vocal group of citizens determined to keep an adult entertainment establishment away from a nearby neighborhood and church.” (source)

The strip club sued, under the theory that the city’s attempts to drive them out of town was a violation of their First Amendment rights. And, after spending $300,000 in attorneys’ fees, the city finally backed down – and paid the strip club owner $2.1 million for his First Amendment rights. There will be no strip club, so the zealots can be happy. But, the money to pay the settlement comes out of the City of Destin’s taxpayers’ pockets.

Dollars to cover the buyout will come from the city’s $5.2 million unassigned fund balance, putting a serious dent in reserves accumulated over the years to use in emergencies. (source)

So almost half of the city’s reserve fund gone. I wonder if the churches will give up some of their tax exempt status to help replenish the fund.

Congratulations to First Amendment Lawyer, Gary Edinger, who was lead counsel for the strip club in this case.


Proposed New Porn Rule: No porn with your kids

December 27, 2012

A few weeks ago, I declared that I have two rules for porn:

Rule #1: The subjects must be adults
Rule #2: The subjects must be consenting adults

I am not sure if I should add this as a third rule:

Proposed Rule #3: The subjects should not be in a pornographic film with their children, of age or not.

A mother-daughter duo is, apparently, launching a porn career together. (Oh… one guess where these beauts are from).

The mother and daughter claim that this is not technically incest because they refrain from making physical contact with each other during sex, while participation of a third party.

Although in the video it may seem as though they are touching or kissing, they claim that it is not happening.

What do you think? They’re both over 18. So this does not violate Rule #1 or Rule #2. Do we need a third rule? Maybe not… maybe we should just have a “now that is totally fucked up” category.

Update: A commenter asked if I thought “sister porn” was ok. I said that was all right, since I presume that sisters are relative equals, thus there is no power dynamic that fucks things all up.

I guess what makes me uncomfortable about parent-child porn is that if it is the parent driving the move, then I can’t see how there could be an absence of coercion. If it is the child driving the bus to crazy-land, then I just can’t imagine that there was good parenting involved.

I think that my discomfort really isn’t from a “this porn is too fucked up” perspective… it is a parenting issue. Because honestly, if a two women pretended to be mother-daughter, mother-son, father-son, father-daughter, in a porn movie, I wouldn’t care. I might not buy it, but I wouldn’t care if you did.

I might be getting old.


Anonymous Comes for Hunter Moore – Moore’s Man Card Revoked

December 1, 2012

Anonymous has now targeted Hunter Moore.

In a release published today, Anon writes:

Greetings citizens of the world, We are Anonymous.

This is a call to all Anonymous worldwide, you have a chance to make a real difference in the lives of hundreds of bullied teenagers and protect them from real harm such as rape or stalking.

Hunter Moore, Founder of previous revenge pornography site http://www.isanyoneup.com is coming back stronger than ever from the shutdown of his previous website. This capitalist makes money off of the misery of others.

People submit pictures of others naked to his website and he posted their social networking profiles along with the pictures.

This time he is taking it a step further and plans to list physical addresses next to the victims pictures along with a map to their house, self proclaiming that he has singlehandedly enabled the stalking of hundreds.

His servers are up. he already has domains he is secretly testing and will go public soon. He hides behind a loophole of section 230 of the United States online decency act which states he cannot be held legally accountable for third party submitted content.

This is a call to all of anonymous. We Will hold hunter moore accountable for his actions, we will protect anyone who is victimized by abuse of our internet, we will prevent the stalking, rape, and possible murders as byproduct of his sites.

Operation Anti-Bully. Operation Hunt Hunter engaged. We are Anonymous, we are Legion, we do not Forgive, we do not Forget, Hunter Moore, EXPECT US. (source)

I applaud them for it. I do have one issue with the missive — I don’t think that Moore is as protected by Section 230 as he likes to believe.

But, lets set the legal issues aside for this post: Moore is a douchebag, and deserves everything that Anonymous may throw at him. Here’s why:

Once upon a time, girls weren’t all paranoid about being raped, having shit slipped in their drink, or being stalked. Then, douchebags discovered rohypnol, stalking, etc., which ushered in a new era of “Why has this asshole just showed up at my table with a drink in his hand? Does he think I’m an idiot?”

Now, thanks to these clowns, you need to convince the girl that she should have sex with you AND that you’re not going to rape her or cut her into little pieces. Girls who were once approachable are scared to death to even have a conversation with you in a bar. All because of douchebags who need to circumvent rejection with drugs. And stalking. Lots and lots of stalking.

The douchebag’s MO is to shit out a cloud of fear. That cloud of fear supports an ecosystem that only benefits two kinds of people — other douchebags and second-wave feminists who absolutely love women in fear, because it makes their bullshit message resonate with just enough terrified women to keep a few of them signing up for their classes. Never forget the best way to control behavior is through FEAR. Just like the TSA, fear creates a justification for existence. There is the implied message of “If you challenge me, I’ll fucking spank you, so you better choose wisely.” But, if you take away fear, the assholes evaporate.

Involuntary Porn sites (like those run by Hunter Moore, Eric Chanson, Craig Brittain, and Chance Trahan) are the online equivalent of the asshole who goes to a bar with roofies in his pocket, or who stalks a girl who won’t give him the time of day. They punish all women through fear because they got rejected by their high school prom date or some chick in a bar or…whatever. They get off on the smell of fear and the resultant power over a woman and this is the drug that gives them the warm tinglys.

Imagine if no women had to live in fear of a shithead ex-boyfriend or these dickless fucks. Forget the morality of what they do, if you want, and think about from a purely utilitarian / economic perspective. Without these nimrods, a woman would always feel comfortable letting you take naked pictures of her. Women would feel comfortable sending you those pics as a “hey good morning” present. More naked pictures of girls means a better world for everyone, in my humble opinion.

Real men don’t get off on scaring women. Real men get off on trying to take that fear away.

Not because we are nice, or chivalrous. OK, some of us are, but more importantly, it’s because we want more naked pics and Hunter More and Craig Brittain are fucking with that.

So fuck you, Hunter Moore. Fuck you, Eric Chanson. Fuck you, Chance Trahan. And Fuck you, Craig Brittain.

Any man who gets off on putting women in fear loses his man card.

Good hunting, Anonymous.


Steve Swander

November 24, 2012

Steve Swander, R.I.S.

We lower the Satyricon’s flag to half mast today in honor of Steve Swander, the Immediate Past President of the First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Mesothelioma took his life at 3:45 AM today.

His practice was based in Fort Worth, Texas, where the local weekly described him as an expert at fighting authorities in the State of Texas over “morals laws.” (source) Swander was a much-respected soldier in the ongoing battle to preserve civil liberties and freedom of expression. (source) And, he did so in Texas – hostile territory for someone on his side of the fight. (source)

The Dallas Observer wrote of him:

Swander is a professorial type who speaks carefully and almost winces when he comes to the more colorful details of what obviously is a specialty, the relationship between body parts and free speech. He spiels off the history of clear latex pasties: the court decision that caused the clubs to switch to non-latex pasties in order to change their status to Class A dance halls and escape location limits, followed by a new ordinance in 1997 focusing on the breast beneath the nipple, struck down by the court, thereby allowing clubs to operate with non-flesh-colored pasties as dance halls rather than sexually oriented businesses. (source)

That might not be a typical selection for a eulogy, but Swander wasn’t a typical guy. I see that quote and a big smile breaks out across my face, as I remember Steve.

And, it isn’t just me… my inbox is bursting with expressions of respect and sorrow from fellow members of the First Amendment Bar. If you knew Steve, this would be of no surprise to you. If you didn’t know Steve, and you saw the list of names in the “from” lines on those emails, you would think that a Supreme Court justice had just passed away. This was a bona-fide First Amendment Bad Ass.

Normally, I wouldn’t share FALA emails with the rest of the world, but I think I can make a limited exception in this case.

The current president of the organization, Daniel Aaronson, wrote about observing Steve as he prepared to take over the FALA helm.

I saw a man who conducted himself with a quiet calm grace that made all respect him. I will truly miss Steve and on behalf of all of FALA I will take the liberty of saying that we will all miss him.

Thank you Steve for your dedication to the First Amendment, to our organization and for just being you. You will be remembered.

The usually irreverent Paul Cambria, provided this particularly somber expression of respect:

When a person dies there is a set of numbers on the left of their tombstone representing the day their life began then a dash and a set of numbers on the right representing the day their life ended, but the dash represents their life. In Steve’s case that dash was filled with good things, good friends and good accomplishments great guy will be missed by all of us.

In honor of our fallen friend and colleague, I lower the flag to half mast and award Mr. Swander a posthumous First Amendment Bad Ass award.

If there is an afterlife, I am certain that Steve has already gotten to work there making sure that the place is more fun for the rest of us when we arrive. When you get there, if the angels are bare-breasted, and not wearing bikini tops, you can probably thank Steve.

Rest in slack, Steve.


It isn’t Condoms that will drive the porn industry to Nevada

November 10, 2012

Measure B passed. And, by now, everyone knows that Los Angeles will now require condoms in porn production. Cue the reporters calling me incessantly asking the same question: “Will this now push the porn industry to move to Las Vegas?” Because that is everyone’s theory.

The answer is “no.”

No, the porn industry will not move to Las Vegas just to avoid using condoms in their productions. But, when the State of California raises income taxes by 30% retroactively, THAT makes successful business people wonder if living in LA is really worth it.

I wrote an article, back in August, making the case that porn producers very well should move to Nevada. See Randazza Legal Group: The Case for Relocating Porn Production to Las Vegas. The rationales in that article still stand.


The Copyrightability of Porn

August 18, 2012

Back in April, I wrote an article “Challenging The Copyrightability Of Porn” (html versiondigital mag version)

This was to confront a growing chorus of voices questioning whether porn can be copyrighted. You likely don’t need to read my article to know where I come down on it.

Over the past week, The First Amendment Lawyers’ Association has honored me by permitting me to file amicus briefs on its behalf in Colorado and Massachusetts, confronting this issue in the courts. (The MA one is a little better refined)


Massachusetts court strikes down ordinance limiting permits for adult businesses

March 27, 2012

By Laura Tucker

A U.S. District Court in Mendon, Mass., granted summary judgment in favor of Showtime Entertainment, allowing the company a special permit to open a live nude dancing venue and invalidating an ordinance that gave the zoning board too broad of authority to deny permits to similar businesses.

In its order, the court reasoned that even if the establishment would have an adverse secondary effect on the community, the court is still “bound by long-standing principles of constitutional law that narrowly constrain” the regulation of activities that are protected by the First Amendment.

The Mendon city ordinance at issue in the case prohibited the operation of an adult entertainment venue absent a special permit from the Mendon zoning board. The ordinance stated that the board “may” issue a special permit for adult businesses, provided that the business did not fall under certain categories.

The board granted Showtime’s application, but determined that the venue would increase the risk of crime in the town and required that Showtime meet certain conditions prior to operation—notably that it limit its hours of operation from 4 p.m. to 1 a.m. and that it provide various parking, security, safety, and noise reduction measures, as well as prohibiting the venue to sell alcohol.

According to the adverse secondary effects doctrine, government officials may limit adult businesses if they are concerned that the business will have negative secondary effects associated with them—higher crime, for example. The doctrine has sometimes been broadly applied by courts, and many First Amendment advocates are critical of its implications.

Section 5.01(f) governs when the board should not grant a special permit for adult businesses, but, according to Showtime, whose reasoning the court adopted, it did not explicitly state when a permit should be granted because it used the word “may” instead of a more definite “must.” The court analogized to a similar Massachusetts case in which the court invalidated an earlier version of the statute for virtually the same reason. Thus, the court held, the ordinance allowed for broad authority in denying such permits, in violation of the First Amendment.

The town argued, however, that the statute did, in fact, state when a special permit could be granted: when the conditions under which the permit should not be granted were absent. The court rejected this reasoning, stating that the statute did not affirmatively state under what circumstances an adult entertainment venue could operate. Furthermore, the court said the town offered no reason to show that the word “may” should be construed as “must.”

The court’s reasoning included a good reliance on authority from Massachusetts cases, and provides a great upholding of the First Amendment, notwithstanding the town’s reliance on the secondary effects doctrine. Even though the court clearly shows its disapproval for such businesses in the second paragraph of the opinion (“the Court is entirely sympathetic to the concerns of the people of Mendon, as reflected in the actions of their public officials, that such an establishment is likely to have a deleterious effect on the community in a variety of ways”), it still did the right thing by invalidating the ordinance.


Bieber Bang Bus Presents

March 6, 2012

Dominatrix Lawyer Spanks Former Boss

October 21, 2011

Former New York state prosecutor Alisha Smith, who helped secure a $5 billion settlement from Bank of America, was unceremoniously suspended from her job because she spent her spare time as a dominatrix.

She was suspended from her job because the New York Post questioned whether she was paid for her nocturnal activities. The prosecutor’s office has a policy that prohibits outside employment without prior approval if the prosecutor earns more than $1,000. (source)

The New York Post reports:

Famous in the S&M world for her skillful spandex-clad spankings, Smith, while not denying her freaky ways, says she did not make money trolling the dungeons while working for the state’s top law-enforcement official, a job she’s held since 2002. (source)

Nice of the New York Post to have a positive story about Ms. Smith, since its sloppy reporting on her private life is why she got suspended in the first place.

She appeared at a press conference with Gloria Allred by her side to quit her job. (source) Working for $78,000 a year at a job where your boss doesn’t give you a chance to explain when the New York Post, of all places, writes crap about you — yeah, that’s grounds to say “I don’t get paid enough for this shit.”

Lets keep score:

    She kicks the shit out of Bank of America and brings $5 billion into the public coffers.

    The New York Post writes a sloppy piece full of muck and innuendo about a her private life.

    The prosecutor’s office lacks a spine and suspends her, without so much as giving her a chance to respond to the story.

    And now all of us suffer, because a seemingly good prosecutor is now making the Gloria Allred circuit instead of kicking the crap out of criminals.


Stripper lacks class (status, that is)

October 20, 2011

She take my money, well I’m in need
Yeah she’s a triflin’ friend indeed
Oh she’s a gold digger way over time
That digs on me

An exotic dancer by the stage name “Ms. Behaved” sought to be a class representative in a class action against Fantasy Topless in Colton, California. Beachemin v. Tom L. Theaters, Inc. No. SACV 11-0394-DOC (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011). Beachemin brought suit against Fantasy Topless in an increasingly-common class action claim against strip clubs — alleging that the club misclassified the dancers as “independent contractors” as opposed to employees. The claim further alleged that as employees, the club failed to pay the dancers minimum wage and forced them to share tips with the management.

Fantasy Topless succeeded in knocking out Beachemin because she was not a proper member of the class she purported to represent.

It is well-settled that Plaintiff must be a member of the class for which she seeks class certification, in order to satisfy both the typicality and adequacy prongs of Federal Rule 23 class certification requirements. “[A] class
representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” (Order at 5)

Ms. Beachemin defined the purported class as follows:

[a]ll individuals, who at any time from the date four years prior to the date the Complaint was originally filed continuing through the present, worked as an exotic dancer at Fantasy Topless in Colton, California, but was designated as an independent contractor and therefore, not paid any minimum wages. (Order at 5-6).

Unfortunately for Ms. Beachemin, the court found that she wasn’t exactly a member of the class that she purported to represent. The Defense showed that Beachemin was never actually hired at the club, she never signed a “Dancer Contract” with the club (as all dancers were required to do), she never had a dancer license from the City of Colton, as all dancers are required to do. See Order at 6-7. The evidence showed that she only tried out to be a dancer, and only performed one dance for approximately three minutes. On the other hand, Beachemin testified that she worked at the club for two days, for a total of less than eight hours. The court was not persuaded and denied the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

Despite the Court’s cold reception to Ms. Beachemin’s claim to represent the class, the Court did not seem hostile to the claims themselves.

Plaintiff has accordingly failed to meet her burden of proving that she is an adequate class representative and that she possesses claims typical of the class. There is no indication that Plaintiff ever signed an independent contractor agreement, Plaintiff was never paid by Defendants, and Plaintiff was not forced to share her few dollars in tips with Defendants or any other Fantasy Topless employee. As such, she could not have been misclassified as an independent contractor, like the remainder of the Purported Class, and she suffered no injury from the Defendants’ tip-sharing policy, unlike the remainder of the Purported Class. This Court does not wish to unduly hamper the potential success of the rest of the Purported Class by approving Plaintiff as class representative when she appears not to fall within the her own definition of the Purported Class. The Court expresses no judgment on the likelihood of obtaining class certification on the basis of the above-described claims with a different member of the Purported Class serving as class representative. (Order at 8)

I ain’t sayin’ she a gold digga. But she does sound like someone looking for an easy payday. The judge saw through it, but once the lawyers find a dancer who was a proper class representative, they may find greater fortune. While most strip clubs traditionally classify their dancers as independent contractors, the employee vs. independent contractor analysis is trending against the clubs. See Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-2082-RWS (N.D. Ga. Sept. 7, 2011); Thompson v. Linda and A, Inc., 779 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D.D.C. 2011).

Strip club owners need to make sure to cover their asses. Just like the protagonist in Golddigger sings “we want prenup,” dance club owners need to have their relationships papered — and papered right. And, if it costs a little more to classify a dancer as an employee vs. an “independent contractor,” they might just need to bite that bullet. The decisions are heavily trending in that direction, and the consequences can be quite expensive.


Can Connecticut take porn from its prisoners? Should it?

October 17, 2011

Many concerns come to mind when someone thinks about spending time in prison.  First and foremost, there is always the risk of being shanked with a very, very sharp toothbrush.  For the financial criminals, there is the distinct shame of being bested by Bernie Madoff in a game of badminton.  This is to say nothing for the fable of being made someone’s bitch. But what about a lack of porn?

Connecticut’s prisons were very tolerant of pornography in its prisons until recently. (source.)  Now that the Connecticut prisons are pulling the plug on this entertainment, the inmates are threatening to sue.  This is not isolated to the Northeast, either, as a Michigan man filed suit over a guard’s refusal to provide him with pornography, claiming the guard’s action violated his constitutional rights. (source.)

Not to put too dull of an edge on it, but prisons can basically do what they please to inmates. Correctional facilities have staked out the lowest standard of review available under law.  Prisons can enact policies that run counter to prisoners’ First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are rationally related to a legitimate penological interest, a standard that has consistently led to judicial affirmation of anti-pornography policies in the big house. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989); Smith v. Dept. of Corrections, 219 Or. App. 192, 198, 182 P.3d 250 (2008).  In contrast, the next-lowest standard of review – and generally the lowest for non-prisoners – is rational basis review, where a government action must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest to be constitutional (and intended as such – no post hoc analysis is allowed).

Courts review a prison’s limitation on the inmates’ First Amendment rights by using the three-prong reasonableness test enunciated in Thornburgh:

  1. whether the governmental objective underlying the regulations at issue is legitimate and neutral, and whether the regulations are rationally related to that objective;
  2. whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates at de minimis cost to penological interests; and
  3. the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on others (guards and inmates) in the prison

490 U.S. at 414-18 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987)); Owen v. Wille, 117 F.3d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 1997).

As seem in prong 3, rehabilitation interests of prisoners are not all that may be, or is, considered when evaluating these policies.  Courts have found that preventing the harassment of employees who work in the prison is a valid justification for a limitation on sexually explicit materials among inmates. See, e.g., Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 1999).

The reach of these policies has been broad. In Washington v. Werholtz, 2008 WL 4998689 (Kan. App. 2008), the Kansas appellate court upheld a policy that banned all sexually explicit material, which included any display, actual or simulated, or description of a variety of acts, including intercourse and masturbation.  While such a policy will cover Larry Flynt’s oeuvre, it will also ban trashy romance novels and some important works of fiction, such as L’ Histoire d’ O.

As long ago as 1989, Iowa grappled with this issue, which made its way into the New York Times.  Under Iowa’s policy, only inmates who had been psychologically screened and approved to view the material – with prisoners whom prison psychologists believed would be obsessed with the material being denied access to it. (source.)  The policy drew a bizarre distinction between how various forms of pornography were treated; inmates who could view porn were allowed to keep “soft-core” content in their cells, while hardcore content was only viewable in a well-supervised reading room.  One then-inmate complained that the reading room was impossible to enjoy under this policy, as the guards filed through the area as if it were a freeway – denying him any privacy in which to evaluate the materials.

In 2006, Indiana instituted a similar policy.  The Indiana Commissioner of the Department of Corrections previously explained that state’s pornography prohibition as something in the interest of both inmates and facility employees.  The Commissioner’s explanation appeals to stay at home moms everywhere, exempting medical and anthropological instances of nudity, but adopts an “I know it when I see it” definition of pornography. (source.)  Ultimately, Indiana’s restrictions amount to subjective, content-based limitations determined by what individuals find stimulating, as opposed to some objective standard by which the content can be evaluated, such as penetration. (Id.)

I strongly disagree with these policies.  While I have not been incarcerated in prison, I question the harmful effects pornography can have on its inmates, and am deeply troubled by the broad sweep that these policies can have – swallowing up non-explicit materials that have considerable value.  While prison exists to deny agency to its inmates, one cannot help but wonder if these policies beg the question about pornography’s supposed harmfulness.  In fact, research shows that more porn = less rape.  While there are other covariants at play, as everyone who has read Freakonomics knows, the results of isolating pornography and analyzing the porn-rape relationship have been in porn’s favor.  Beyond rape, the gratification of pornography may replace or inhibit other criminal or undesired activities as well.  In short, the premises that prison guards’ penological interests rest upon – that porn is bad and makes people do bad things – are beginning to be proven as bullshit.

When I debated the Indiana commissioner on Fox News, his rationale was to “promote public safety in Indiana.” Give me a break. Is Mary Homemaker “safer” because a convict doesn’t have a porn mag? He also stated that he wanted to see his prisoners devote their time to more constructive pursuits. This being Fox, I didn’t get a chance to cross examine him, but I presume he didn’t mean ass-raping one another. The biggest load of bullshit he slung was the meme that prisons need to ban porn because they want to promote a non-harassing environment for prison guards.

Seriously? You want to be a prison guard, but you can’t handle the sight of a guy reading Hustler? I got news for you if you’re “offended” by the sight of a guy jacking it to porn — you can’t handle being a security guard at a candy store, let alone being a prison guard.

The rationale for these bans clearly has nothing to do with “safety,” and it has nothing to do with the feminist-imposed “hostile work environment” bullshit. It has to do with an erotophobic attitude, fostered by superstition, and then fertilized with the crap of cheap political points.

Nonetheless, prisons have erected a high wall around themselves, their guards, and their asinine policies.  In a way, it is logically consistent for an enterprise that exists largely as a consequence of unjust and counterproductive policies such as the war on drugs to have special legal protection allowing it to further screw the people entrusted to its care. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 407 (describing moden prison administration as an “inordinately difficult undertaking”).  As such, challenged to these policies, however well deserved and meritorious they are, seldom succeed.


Give it a rest already – Myths and Facts about mass copyright litigation

September 29, 2011

by Vaughn Greenwalt

The latest criticism of mass-copyright litigation follows the same mantra of previously-pissed patrons: “I know I stole your porn but I’ll be embarrassed if anyone finds out so you can’t sue me!” Cut the crap already, “shame” is not a legal defense.

Lets play fact or fiction with the latest misleading article which was, oddly enough, endorsed by the EFF:

1. FACT: “The lawsuits name ‘Doe’ defendants until they can unearth the true identities of those accused of downloading porn through their Internet providers.”

Naming Doe defendants is the only way to bring suit against thieves who steal Copyright protected works over the Internet. The identities of those thieves is only ascertainable once the personally identifiable information associated with the thieves Internet Protocol address (“IP address”) has been subpoenaed.

The industry isn’t blackmailing thieves with the prospect of naming a Doe defendant, it is the only legal course to obtain requisite discovery.

2. FICTION: “The adult entertainment industry has dubbed [John] Steele the ‘Pirate Slayer.’ Steele calls the lawsuit a simple defense against copyright theft.

Fact: Steele named himself “Pirate Slayer,” and most of the industry mocks him. When he showed up to a conference wearing a badge that said “Pirate Slayer,” he immediately gained the nickname “Buffy.” That’s what the adult entertainment industry calls him — Buffy. And it isn’t a compliment.

Every studio has separate and distinct legal counsel and thus a separate and distinct legal strategy. While I cannot speak to the strategy employed by Mr. Steele, I can speak to the strategy employed by the Editor of this blog – it is anything but simple.

Without violating my ethical duty of confidentiality and privilege, I have been in many a meeting in which special emphasis was placed on “doing it right.” Efforts to safeguard the privacy of the defendants, fairness to the defendants, an opportunity to defend before being named as a defendant, and forewarning of the suits before suits were filed. In addition, some studios offered amnesty to those who sought to protect their privacy.

3. FICTION: “The intent of these lawsuits is to get peoples’ identifying information and attempt to extort settlements out of them” – Corynne McSherry, EFF’s Intellectual Property Director.

Ms. McSherry’s dogmatic whining borders on mental illness. Perhaps she should look up the definition of “extortion.” Words mean something. This word means to obtain money or property to which one is not entitled by threats or coercion. When a copyright owner seeks redress under the copyright act, the copyright owner is seeking restitution in a manner specifically authorized under the law. McSherry should not use big words without supervision if she doesn’t know what they mean.

Copyright’s purpose is to foster the creation of creative works. The music industry has already been economically gutted thanks to the likes of Napster, Kazaa and Limewire; the porn industry is seeking to avoid that very same fate. If protection is weakened so too is the drive to create and thus all suffer (even those of us who enjoy it late at night while our partner is sleeping). If copyright protected content is freely distributed among torrenters, then studio membership is impacted, which then impacts studio revenue, which then impacts studio quality and quantity, which then in-turn further impacts studio membership, which ultimately impacts the studio’s very existence.

I hope the EFF recognizes the difference between dissent and disloyalty (I really love you guys!). However, I find it odd that the Director of Intellectual Property is tossing grenades at those who would seek to protect their own Intellectual Property.

4. FICTION: “The so-called “mass copyright” cases all follow the same format: an adult film company sues scores of anonymous defendants, alleging a particular movie was pirated using the popular file-sharing technology BitTorrent. The number of defendants can be staggering, dwarfing the scope of the music industry’s lawsuits; there were 2,100 Does named in one recent San Jose case, and 23,000 in the largest thus far in Washington, D.C.

As referenced above, every porn studio has independent legal counsel complete with independent legal strategy, while some attorneys may look for the quickest and most efficient way to make a buck for their clients, others, like my Editor, do not.

Some attorneys, while legally proper to sue 23,000 defendants in a single suit, put their law clerks through WEEKS OF PURE TORTURE to determine the location of the individual IP addresses and group them based on state and federal judicial district. Once determined, suit is brought against them in their home state and district and regularly reduces the number to less than 100 Doe defendants in any single suit.

Again, some attorneys take great pain to make litigation fair for thieves.

5. FACT: Mark Lemley is… eh…. brilliant?

I have been to many symposiums where Mr. Lemley has proposed theoretically brilliant additions to U.S. Intellectual Property Law. I have witnessed, in sheer awe, his ability to dismiss, answer and be condescending all in a single sentence.

However, Mr. Lemley’s brilliant theoretical ideas are not so brilliant when it comes to actual litigation and practice . Incredibly, Lemley provided a brilliant addition to the subject article regarding the porn industry’s torrent suits: “… it made people at the margins nervous about file sharing… people are going to think twice about doing this.” Lemley is absolutely correct in his assessment. THIS is the ultimate goal of the porn industry’s torrent litigation; not to shame the pron-viewing public (honestly, isn’t that all of us?) for their lunch money, but to deter the theft and infringement of their Intellectual Property.

The simple answer to EVERY concern opponents of mass-copyright litigation has is incredibly simple: Theft is theft – no matter the medium. STOP STEALING SHIT AND YOU WON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT!!!!


With .xxx imminent, people finally notice it

September 8, 2011

By J. DeVoy

At Likelihood of Confusion, guest blogger Matthew David Brozik provides an overview of the .xxx roll-out, which is happening in phases beginning now.  For those unfamiliar with the domain name, there are two types of initial availability: Sunrise A, where existing adult companies can get .xxx domains to correspond with their .com domains, and Sunrise B, where non-adult companies can permanently de-reigster their hypothetical .xxx domain names (e.g., ToysRUs.xxx), and ensure they will never exist.  After that, there will be a “landrush” period for adult companies to get new .xxx domains to develop new brands and services, and then a perpetual period of general availability so that adult companies can get new domain names on a first-come, first-serve basis; trademarks outside of adult can also be de-registered during this time.  To understand the importance of this open registration period, bear in mind that 10 years ago the acronym CFNM was meaningless, whereas now it’s a popular porn genre, and “twitter” was similarly a nearly meaningless (and antiquated) intransitive verb. Or noun. Anyway…

Some groups, such as the Free Speech Coalition, are against the .xxx sTLD.  Others are agnostic, or open-minded regarding the extension.  Informal research reveals that many companies are indeed buying the domains, optimistic that they will generate more traffic and search engine recognition, and at a minimum protect the brands they have created.  Still, others eschew it.

Some non-adult entities are embracing .xxx to make a splash for themselves.  PETA, for example, is getting a .xxx domain name.  But, this likely is more of a publicity stunt than a lasting foray into adult.  After all, this is the same PETA that had some sycophant legally change his name to KentuckyFriedCruelty.com.

Brozik’s post is informative, but I do have one bone to pick with it.  Brozik contends:

So we’re almost certainly not going to see lawsuits over the likes of pepsi.xxx, kleenex.xxx, or xerox.xxx.

Don’t be so sure.  Perhaps there won’t be disputes over those domains and peer brands, but there is an interesting question brewing as to whether paying for de-registration of a .xxx domain name is essential to keeping it from being registered.  Within the adult space, Manwin Licensing International – owner of many prominent brands and valuable domain names, including Brazzers.com and YouPorn.com – has demanded that the .xxx registry’s operators prevent “exploitation” of those domains (or those that are confusingly similar) even without paid de-registration, or turn them over to Manwin, free of charge.  Making matters more interesting, the .xxx registry has preemptively de-registered domain names that constitute famous names, for both celebrities and politicians.  This step was apparently taken free of charge.  There may not be lawsuits brought by Pepsi and Xerox against cyber-squatters, but there may be more attempts by owners of established brands to get something for nothing.

If the .xxx registry’s operators commit trademark infringement for failure to provide de-registration where no registration has yet occurred, it would be a novel theory of liability.  Can one be liable for potential infringements that have not yet occurred?  If nobody registers the domain names, there seems to be a problem of standing, (and a lack of imminent harm, if the registry’s procedures prevent the domain names from being registered).  Other countries, however, may have different standing requirements.  Also, some infringement of the trademarks has to occur (or be sufficiently imminent for standing to exist) for there to be a cause of action for infringement.  Ron Coleman’s interest in secondary trademark infringement notwithstanding, infringement has to occur for primary or secondary liability to attach – just as with copyright infringement.

Given the novelty of the .xxx space and the brands at stake, it is unlikely that this issue is dead, or that it will be for some time to come.


Circumventing the first purchase doctrine with international manufacturing

August 29, 2011

By J. DeVoy

The Second Circuit dealt a body blow to the first purchase doctrine (aka first sale doctrine) in Wiley v. Kirtsaeng, a case about resold textbooks manufactured and obtained overseas – though subject to U.S. copyright registrations – and resold stateside.  The Second Circuit held that such transactions are not covered by the first purchase doctrine – codified in 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), and allowing the resale of copyrighted works by their first purchaser without royalty payments to the owner
- in part because because it would render 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1) (barring importation of copyrighted works obtained outside the U.S. without owner’s permission) a dead letter. (Op. at 15-16.)

The majority’s opinion can be summarized with this money quote from page 17:

In sum, we hold that the phrase “lawfully made under this Title” in § 109(a) refers specifically and exclusively to works that are made in territories in which the Copyright Act is law, and not to foreign-manufactured works.

The EFF contends that this harms free expression and consumer rights.  I don’t necessarily disagree, and align with the EFF far more often than not.  Pragmatically, though, the law is the law, and while one can observe the desirability in changing legislation to accord greater protections for free speech and open communication, it is not inconsistent to observe what one is allowed to do under existing statutory schemes.  Thus, I play the devil’s advocate; first, because that is why I went to law school, and second, because Satan is awesome (source: the entire genre of black metal).

The clear and mechanical way to circumvent the first purchase doctrine under the Second Circuit’s new precedent is simply to manufacture copyrighted works outside of the United States, and in countries known for their cheap labor, rather than robust IP laws.  It would also be best to ensure that there are no IP treaties potentially giving a defendant a toe-hold for claiming the manufactured works are “made under” the Copyright Act.

This result would kill the resale market.  On one hand, this comes about two decades too late, as VHS and DVD releases are increasingly uncommon.  At the same time, though, this allows content producers who do release such physical media to keep a leash on every copy they sell and ensure they receive a royalty on every subsequent sale of the material.

One must then query what constitutes “manufacture” of a file that is merely downloaded from a server onto a consumer’s hard drive, rather than physical media.  In Wiley, the term “manufacture” was constructed in a fairly literal sense that encompassed the book’s printing and binding outside of the US.  The closest analogue would be a whirr of storage media queueing up and transferring a large media file to an individual downloader.  If the servers are located in the USA, then the first purchase doctrine applies.  But, if the downloaded files originate from servers located in scofflaw nations like Malaysia, then it’s a different story.  If the “manufacture” analysis is pushed farther up the pipeline, a serious factual inquiry exists as to where the final work is “manufactured,” and exactly how much effort is needed from extraterritorial sources to remove a video from the Copyright Act.

The advantage of taking this route digitally is the ease with which producers can find their content being resold by others.  Admittedly, these resales are a minute piece of the free content pie plaguing mainstream and adult media, but they exist, and will become a larger share of infringements as legal action against one-click hosting sites, torrenters, torrent sites and even tube sites brings their respective unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content to heel.  By manufacturing products overseas – and going through the effort to determine at exactly what point a downloaded file is deemed “manufactured” so that point may be reached outside the Copyright Act’s clutches – opens a new stream of infringement monetization.

A caveat to this: The Ninth Circuit (i.e., California/Nevada/Washington/Arizona) has came to a different conclusion than the Second Circuit in Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp, 541 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008).  In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that the first purchase doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), applied to foreign-manufactured items that were sold in the U.S. with the copyright owner’s permission.  Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s view does create some extraterritorial application of the first purchase doctrine.  In contrast, the Second Circuit’s view considers all private resales of foreign-manufactured goods to be in derogation of the legitimate copyright owner’s exclusive right of distribution.

This division may play out in several ways.  First, the Supreme Court could reconcile the circuit split on the issue.  Given the 9th Circuit’s record on Supreme Court appeals, I find it unlikely – though possible – that its view would prevail.  In the alternative, the applicability of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) to foreign-manufactured goods may be a question with slight jurisdictional wrinkles, similar to the award of attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act.  Similarly, the point at which “manufacture” occurs, especially digitally, may be subject to disagreement between the Circuits.

What is clear, though, is that the Second Circuit has torn open wide a new vein for content monetization.  How it will be taken advantage of, and when – as the content resale market has always existed, but is superseded by piracy now – remains to be seen.  Unless the Supreme Court or Congress (lol) does something, though, copyright law now is more royalty-friendly within the 2d Circuit.

Prior discussion of the first purchase doctrine’s use in porn is available here.


Why filming porn in Las Vegas should make sense (or: unsolicited response to Bobbi Starr)

July 18, 2011

By J. DeVoy

A law school friend who shall remain nameless sent me a link to this post by Bobbi Starr, asking me if I’d seen it yet.  I hadn’t, a revelation that stunned him – apparently I should have, since we’re all in the same porn universe.  It’s a pretty good blog and I’ll be checking it regularly in the future, though.

People vastly overstate how porn-related, and concomitantly, how fun, my life is.  From what I surmise of their assumptions, I sometimes wish they were right.  In a given week I see enough porn that my preferences have been forever skewed to find some girl cooking dinner for me much sexier than any frilly underwear she can buy.  Porn’s just a portion of what I do, though it allows for lots of creativity, and it tends to have the most cutting-edge legal issues.  At this point, I think I’m better known as counsel of record in several mainstream copyright infringement suits.  But, even when I stay up all night working on motions in those types of cases, the assumption is that I’m doing something wild and, of course, concerning porn.  Just earlier this week, I had this text exchange with my older sister:

[jmd @ 5:20 am]: Had to write an emergency opposition filing. Just now going to bed. So much for a regular sleep schedule.

[jmd's sister @ 5:27 am (8:27 am her time)]: An irregular sleep schedule in the porn industry? Shocking :-)

And so it goes.  I should bring a tape recorder to my parents’ next Christmas.  Still, my life is not the hotbed of excitement some hope and, hopefully, others imagine with seething resentment.  I spend most of my time hanging out with lawyers, a couple of bodybuilders, and when I’m really hard-up for affirmation, law students.  More nights each month are committed to perfecting my deadlift form than drinking.

As mundane as my adult life is (college and, unbelievably, law school, were different stories), I like thinking about the issues facing the all-important porn industry.  I’ve argued, repeatedly in fact, that its victory in the culture wars has improved my life, and the lives of other men.  I firmly believe that it’s an industry worth fighting to help.  I’ve been meaning to write a blog post about how bigger chunks of the porn industry could benefit from moving to Las Vegas.  This doesn’t address every thought I have on the issue, but Bobbi Starr’s blog post provides a good springboard for my thoughts.  None of this should be read as being aggressive, or even necessarily disagreement with Starr’s points.  Having thought about these issues with some depth, I simply think an alternative point of view may be valuable.

Getting on to Substance – The Freeman Case, the First Amendment, and Sin City.

I’m based in Las Vegas and won’t claim to be disinterested in seeing a larger portion of the adult entertainment industry move here.  I say “larger” because anyone who reads twitter knows that several companies, including one of the largest in online porn, are already filming large amounts of content in Las Vegas.  There are challenges involved in this: Namely, it will be difficult to replicate the infrastructure found in San Fernando Valley.  Also, Nevada does not yet have the First Amendment protection found in California under the Freeman case.  New Hampshire has this protection, and I would wager that Oregon will probably be the next state to provide it – though, good luck getting anything done there with all the Dworkin/Valenti-types running around Portland.

In Nevada, prostitution – defined in NRS 201.295 – operates in a manner very similar to the California statute at issue in Freeman.  Overburdened though Nevada’s courts are, the state lacks an intermediate appeals court and could settle the question of porn production’s legality fairly quickly, with a fairly libertarian Nevada Supreme Court to render the final decision.  Then again, why tempt fate a second before it’s necessary?

In many counties, Nevada has legalized – albeit fairly stringently regulated – prostitution.  The status of prostitution within the state is practically a precursor for porn.  If anything, porn production is the next logical step.  And though the regulations concerning prostitution may be wielded like an axe at porn, they are easily distinguishable, as discussed further on.

Escape from L.A. – and AHF, and CalOSHA.

First Amendment concerns are not the only threat facing the porn industry.  The Scylla and Charibdis of porn for the last many years have been CalOSHA and AHF, the latter organization being capable of hectoring producers nationwide.  As Starr notes:

Here’s the thing — the AHF plans to continue its unwanted crusade across the country. They’ve already made noises in Miami and if the industry moves to Vegas, I don’t see why they wouldn’t show up there as well. If you’re going to make a stand, LA is the place to do it.

As Starr observes in her post, stating that “the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is looking to grandstand and make points with their donors,” the inescapable conclusion is that this controversy boils down to money.  Specifically, AHF needs to do something to justify getting more of it from its backers.  In my opinion, it would be a rational proposition to pit AHF against a bigger, badder entity that needs and wants money even more than AHF does: The city of Las Vegas and state of Nevada.  Is it even a “fight” if only one side shows up to do battle?  The city of Las Vegas isn’t going to care what some outsiders think of it – the area’s reputation for no-tell, debauched vacations is well established.  It’s not as if AHF is going to lower the city’s esteem as… what, a place to raise a family? A clean-livin’ town?  If anything, the chance to catch a glimpse of a favorite star is probably one more reason for a guy to visit Vegas.

At base, Las Vegas and Nevada need money, and now more than ever.  AHF will never win the hearts of minds of locals by trying to keep out reasonably lucrative businesses that need use of the services hardest hit in Las Vegas since the downturn.  Speaking of Las Vegas “locals,” the metro area is so transient that it’s not dissimilar from a 500,000 person city in its character, despite its population being around 2 million.  In some ways, Las Vegas might as well be Milwaukee.  And, yet, many locals rarely venture to the strip, or downtown; instead, they predominantly stay within their master-planned communities.  While some may call this a myopic and provincial way of living, this kind of bedroom community mindset is exactly what will lower any resistance people may have, even in the abstract, to porn companies coming to town.  If it’s not happening in their actual backyard, and they don’t see it, why would they care – assuming, in the first place, that they ever found out the porn industry was in town.

Because Nevada is Nevada and California is California, CalOSHA’s risks are mitigated.  If CalOSHA tries to regulate porn shoots occurring within Nevada because the companies they’re done for are based in California, the ensuing legal battle between Nevada and California will resemble a religious crusade.  Despite Californians having a huge presence in Las Vegas as transplants, tourists or otherwise, Nevada’s state character is steeped in making sure everyone knows that it is not California. (This was an overarching theme in BarBri when I studied for the Nevada bar exam.)  Nevada will not respond well to California encroaching its jurisdiction, especially if CalOSHA agents show up within Nevada’s physical territory.

Assuming CalOSHA won’t overstep its jurisdictional mandate, that leaves the porn industry to contend with Nevada OSHA (“NVOSHA”).  To get a sense of the disparity of resources at play here, compare the CalOSHA website with NVOSHA’s.  NVOSHA couldn’t keep six people from dying, most of them brutally, during the completion of America’s largest privately financed construction project.  Between that kind of feeble oversight, Nevada’s far more dangerous industries – such as mining – and the general lack of resources Nevada has relative to California, it’s reasonable to believe that NVOSHA has bigger concerns than whether two consenting, regularly tested adults are wrapping it up when making commercial motion pictures.

A potential slippery slope exists with respect to Nevada’s prostitution regulations, which have numerous onerous requirements, from monthly and weekly testing (depending on the disease) to mandatory condom use.  Prostitution, though, is a service open to the general public, while porn is a closed circle where those on camera are regularly tested and (theoretically) limiting their contact with unknown, untested interlopers.  Because of the inherent differences between porn companies and brothels, and the reduced public health concerns at play, the condom restrictions should not transfer over – but that will be left to the legislature.  If they’re getting all of this new growth because the porn industry wanted to escape the tyranny of condoms, will legislators foist them upon their newest constituents?  It’s possible, but seems unlikely.  Even if those provisions are put into effect, NVOSHA has to actually enforce them – something it may be ill-equipped to do.

Las Vegas Loves Porn… and Anything With Money, Really.

Another point raised by Starr is the suspicion that people don’t really love porn, despite the money it could bring to their local economy.  To some extent, I agree with this.  Some ultra-lib location like Manhattan would look down its collective nose at middle America for feeling uncomfortable about porn — but if production ever showed up below 125th Street with any substantial volume, it would quickly be zoned out as “harmful to property values,” and opposed under the color of PC rhetoric, such as how it’s “degrading” to women and normalizes male violence.  On the other hand, Las Vegas has a robust industry of escorts (despite prostitution being illegal within Clark County) and strip clubs that everyone accepts as part of the landscape.  Without making it sound like Detroit, as I am pretty fond of Las Vegas, I think people will embrace whatever revives the area.  Downtown Las Vegas, despite having a few cool bars and art studios I’m fond of, is underdeveloped for an urban core and fairly low-density.  Thus, it’s practically giving land away for development through tax credits.  They city doesn’t condition the credits on how the land will be used – as long as something’s being done, and people are being employed, Las Vegas is happy.

To those who claim that the tide will turn against porn when the economy improves, I have some good/bad news: Economically, things are never going to get better.  We’re at the dying, spasming end of American-style capitalism.  I hope you own a gun.  Consequently, capital holders can put a collar around places like Las Vegas, making governments and citizens alike do whatever the investors want.  Capitalists have the money, and capacity to bring more, that everyone else needs.  Those who can muster up $1M in liquid assets, and probably down to about $250,000, can basically write their deal’s terms.  The global economy’s collapse isn’t really any one person’s fault, anyway, so it shouldn’t impede making smart business moves in the here and now.  After all, if everyone lived in fear of the world ending tomorrow, nothing would get done, now would it?

A Sidebar About Miami.

Starr also notes the recent arrest of Kimberly Kupps on numerous obscenity counts as a reason to avoid Florida. (You can donate to Kupps’ defense fund here.)  This is a reasonable concern, but one that insiders within Florida’s adult community can dismiss with fairly strong assurances.  In addition to geographic distance, Miami and Polk County Florida are culturally very distant and distinct.  Polk County Sheriff, Grady Judd, has made it his life’s work to punish any kind of sexual expression occurring in his jurisdiction, and is a retrograde bully unmatched by any in Florida.  Miami doesn’t have the absolute safe harbor protection that Los Angeles does due to Freeman, but its resident businesses have done very well for themselves, mostly free from significant legal interference.  With that said, a Judd-like epidemic of arrests is unlikely to sweep Miami-Dade county.

Is “Going Underground” Still a Thing?

In this internet age, where everyone competes for Google rankings and traffic, and search engine optimization is a lucrative industry, rather than some annoying B-school buzzword, is it even possible to go underground?  Setting aside competition for internet traffic, since that’s where most of the money is now, going underground carries many possible tax consequences that can consume more than a company’s worth, or makes.  Back-owed interest and penalties are not your friends.

I’m ambivalent in the desirability of porn being mainstream v. underground debate.  There are pros and cons to each side, and I think the best approach depends on the company and its content.  Culturally, though, “porn” qua concept is mainstream, even if certain subsets and niches of it are less known.

One of the concerns raised by Starr is that “legitimate businessmen” would co-opt the industry if it were to go underground, and make it even more volatile than it currently is with CalOSHA and AHF breathing down its neck.  This, too, is a valid concern.  Any city with appreciable population, say over 200,000 people, has competing networks of organized crime.  Though the appearance has changed, from “families” with members wearing pointy-toed shoes and double breasted suits to gentlemen with baggy jeans and neck tattoos, these organizations still exist.  For the most part, their influence seems to have been confined to drug and prostitution trades.

I’m sure that there are intersections between organized crime and legitimate businesses throughout the country — assuming otherwise would be naive.  But, given Las Vegas’ modern origins as a gangster playground, the city and state are concerned about making sure that scenario never happens again.  Because of the efforts of people ranging from Howard Hughes to Steve Wynn, Las Vegas has come totally above ground and is very much a corporate town – all of the casinos on the strip and off are owned by a small handful of companies.  This isn’t to say there aren’t seedy elements of Las Vegas.  Seedy sells, after all.  But Las Vegas now is law-abiding in a way that it wasn’t at its 20th-century inception.

Because of this somewhat nefarious history, Las Vegas and Nevada are particularly sensitive to the presence of organized crime and its intersection with what appear to be legitimate businesses.  MS-13 will always be smuggling in drugs from Central America, no matter what local, state and federal authorities do.  To the extent organized racketeers can be prevented from co-opting businesses and disenfranchising their customers, though, Nevada and Clark County appear to take that threat much more seriously.  Theoretically, a mob takeover of business can happen anywhere.  In my observations, however, it’s less likely to occur in Las Vegas than other places.

Conclusion (a/k/a tl;dr, Summary)

Though Las Vegas is not a perfect location for relocation of the porn industry, it’s a good one – better than many alternatives.  While Miami is an option, it is a more expensive place to be than Las Vegas by most every metric.  Unlike Nevada, Florida still has a pesky capital gains tax.  Las Vegas is much closer to the San Fernando Valley, too, making it easier to get a critical mass of people to make the necessary jump across state lines.

Relocation may be easier and more profitable than digging one’s heels in the dirt and fighting a war nobody particularly wants to have, especially against deep-pocketed adversaries such as CalOSHA and AHF.  Las Vegas is as tolerant as it is willfully blind to the sex industry already here, and it is likely to welcome economic activity in any manner it can obtain it.

As in any business, there are risks involved in relocating – especially to Las Vegas.  But are they any costlier than the slow death of remaining so heavily in Los Angeles, where the thousand cuts of taxation, CalOSHA, AHF and other challenges bleed dry the remaining brick-and-mortar porn companies?  At this point, it hardly seems like it.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,612 other followers