[alicewales]

I guess in the case of pornography, both participants are being paid by a third party (the producer) for taking part in the sex act. This is different from a typical prostitute/client relationship, where one is paying the other for sex.

(I don't know if this is addressed in the article - the site seems to have fallen over.)

[pavel_lishin]

That's one of the criteria, yep.

Another one is legal forms required for producers and actors - there are forms that each actor must fill out, these must be verified and kept. Not doing so is a felony.

[irishcoffee]

So, I can't believe I'm about to say this: this kind of presents a prostitution loophole, no?

As long as a 3rd party is involved, and "films" it (still, unmanned camera in the room) and everyone fills out the paperwork, and the 3rd party handles the payment (minimum wage for party A, minimum wage + $X for party B), party A "buys some porn" at the curious cost of minimum wage + $X.

Am I missing something? Did I explain this poorly?

[quirkafleeg]

From the article:

    I get a handful of calls per year from guys who think 
    they're the first geniuses to come up with the great 
    idea of setting up a "Freeman Brothel" and calling it
    a "film studio."

    They're all disappointed when I tell them that they're 
    not getting away with this "brilliant plan" unless they 
    take so many steps to make it look legitimate that it 
    will, in fact, become a legitimate porn production 
    enterprise — in which case, why bother with the ruse in 
    the first place?

[AndrewKemendo]

So, yes? The author incredulously assumes that "it's not worth it" in which case it actually might be worth it for someone and that is an avenue to do it.

[burkaman]

Law is not code, prostitution as a concept is illegal. This is sort of like wondering if you could avoid income tax by just doing a bunch of favors for your really good friend, and then getting a totally unrelated Christmas present from them.

[pc86]

> Law is not code

Remembering this would put a stop to 90% of legal "discussions" on HN.

[Spivak]

Except for when it is code. If you do something that is legal under the letter of the law or when the law is ambiguous you are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt and granted leniency. If this wasn't the case then lawmakers would have no reason to write laws precisely.

It's the other situation where law stops being code. If you do something that is technically illegal but probably oughtn't be then the law can be reinterpreted in your favor.

Assuming you followed the absolute letter of the law with your totally-not-a-brothel then you would be fine (until the law is amended).

[burkaman]

My point is that laws are often intentionally not written precisely, because it's impossible to enumerate every type of violation in advance. Looking at my own state's prostitution law, you would need to define the following things to get a precise law:

"money or its equivalent"

"offers"

"adultery"

"fornication"

etc.

The law is written in terms of broad concepts that a judge can interpret. In most cases there is no such thing as "absolute letter of the law", partly because English makes that impossible, but mostly because legislating such strict specific definitions would be a bad idea. I think the impossibility of bug-free software makes it clear that we wouldn't want laws written like code.

[paulddraper]

Laws aren't code because they are written in English (or other similarly ambiguous languages).

Select parts of laws may have the rigor of a programming language, but the greater portion expresses things for humans, with human ambiguity.

[mcphage]

It's disappointing how many people here imagine that an incredibly transparent ruse will get them out of legal difficulties no problem. It's like they can't conceive that yes, other people have thought of it before, and yes, it's transparently obvious, and no, you can't get away with a crime with a "gotcha!".

[pc86]

It's because of things like the following scenario, which as a 17 year old with a lead foot, I was "lucky" enough to have happen to me.

A police trooper pulled me over for ~80 in a 65 (deserted highway at night). He somehow transposed the last two numbers in my license plate, so I obviously assumed I was home free. Until, while I was on the stand, the judge just looked at me for about 10 seconds, said "Were you driving the car?" "[pause] Yes, your honor." "[gavel slam] Guilty."

[SomeStupidPoint]

Don't rich people basically do exactly that to pay fewer taxes than they're supposed to because favors and gifts aren't taxed like income?

I'm not sure your example was the best for showing there aren't loopholes based on overly literal interpretations, given that the tax code is notorious for them.

[burkaman]

Ok yeah taxes were probably a bad example. I guess the tax code a lot closer to code that you follow literally than most of the legal system.

I hope the point was clear though, that the "spirit of the law" is a real thing, and most clever loopholes will not work with a human judge.

[bfstein]

FWIW, this is taxable by law. Gifts above a certain amount (I believe $10k) are taxed as normal income.

[akurtzhs]

At least in the US, this is incorrect.

There is a gift tax, but it's paid by the donor, and they can give up to the annual exclusion amount a year without hitting it. This year, the limit's $14,000.

Once a gift goes past that for the year, the excess starts counting against the donor's lifetime exclusion and needs to be reported on the donor's taxes. Gift taxes come into play once the lifetime exclusion limit is exceeded, and it's $5.4 million.

[cbr]

It's also not a gift if it's compensation for doing work.

[_audakel]

but then doesn't the reciever have to pay taxes?

[jessaustin]

A friend who claims to have watched a fair amount of free online porn suspects that many of the "POV" sites are basically just fat ugly trust-fund dudes paying for intercourse with attractive young women, in those particular locales in which lots of attractive young women are interested in "getting started in porn". (SoCal, Miami, Eastern Europe, etc.) The "producer" and "camera operator" and "actor" seem all to be the same person.

[pavel_lishin]

I've watched some of the porn that's like what you describe, and yeah, it seems to be the same camera guy every time - and nobody else but the girl - but I think the key distinction is that they market themselves, they do sell the videos, and they are actually producing porn that a lot of people end up watching.

One of the things the article points out is that if you're going to "exploit the loophole", it's going to take about as much work as actually running a production company. This seems to be the case here.

(And, presumably the guys in question are also keeping records of the actresses, filling out all the paperwork, etc. No fun going to prison for fucking a 17 year old on camera.)

[AndrewKemendo]

Oh man, maybe that's why there is so much free porn out there!

[pdpi]

"A" buying for minimum wage + $X won't pass the smell test. Judges aren't automatons blindly following a set of rules, they're (usually, pretty clever) human beings with both the capacity and the authority to use their best judgement in interpreting the law.

[ge0rg]

I suppose most customers will be strongly opposed to being filmed, for fear of blackmail or leakage.

[schoen]

The linked article is primarily about this scenario.

[bashinator]

That might once have been true, but these days most of the public own a pocket-sized video production and distribution studio.