No, but it is hard to follow their logic as they seems to be all over the place, over time. Take a look at some of these PayPal stories, and go back several pages using the 'older stories' link at the bottom of each page.
How could anyone *not* consider it? It's an obvious case.
They might think no one would prosecute self-pornographer children under the bill and thus not put in such an exception.
And they *might* be unicorns too. But I doubt it.
It's not the cops' job to enforce the law "equally."
It most certainly is.
They are supposed to use human judgment. If laws were enforced equally, we'd all be in jail and bankrupt from paying fees because we all break laws everyday.
Then, gee, let's just make breathing illegal and let cops just use their judgement as to when to enforce it. We can pretty much get rid of all the other laws then.
Arresting a child for making "child porn" of themselves isn't equal with arresting a 35 year old with making child porn with a child.
So, you think it's OK up to age 35, eh? Yeah, I don't think so.
For another thing, if a child isn't legally capable of providing consent to have sex with an adult and thus would be the victim of statutory rape if they had sex with an adult, then a child isn't capable of providing consent to the creation of child porn and thus can't be convicted of making their own child porn of themselves.
Again Hollywood is pressuring a company to do what it has been unable to do thru their country restrictive licensing agreements.
Hollywood wants to have control and keep it thru the guise of copyright reinforcement when in reality it is all about money derived from the restriction of content.
If Hollywood priced it fairly and stop cumbersome restriction of content with the Geo location restrictions, maybe people wouldn't have the need for VPN's to get around the Geo location restriction to use the services like Nextflix that they paid for.
But alas Hollywood has learned nothing from the Likes of Napster and online streaming services, they still cling to the day when they controlled the distribution, production and venue for where the public could get their content despite their record profits and claims of how without copyright enforcement and geo restriction licensing deals they will lose millions
This is exactly what is done in Australia for the 2 major football codes by the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation which is government owned). The Grand Finals and held on consecutive weekends and Triple J radio (a part of the ABC) broadcast "The Festival of the Boot" pt 1 and 2 for the respective Grand Finals, which provides a comedic commentary about the game. It is broadcast across the country. There have been famous names introduced into the Australian vernacular from these broadcasts including "The Brick With Eyes" a current Australian Senator (https://www.google.com/search?q=brick+with+eyes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)
I purchased a very expensive 3-D Package once and it did the phone home thing. That made it difficult to install and especially reinstall. I ended up keeping it on a separate computer without network/Internet because Windows had viruses and reinstalling was to the vendor an admission of piracy. Before they went out of business and reinstallation became impossible. I swore never again, FLOSS (Blender) all the way now. I would much rather donate to nice guys than pay for being treated badly again.
Most payment services suck, but not as bad as PayPal
The above are not the only things PayPal has been obnoxious about. They have a long history of taking peoples money for various (what I consider nefarious) reasons. I used them once, to fund my Skype account for a whole $10 (pre Microsoft and I thought the $10 was worth the risk) but never since, and never in the future. If PayPal is the only way to pay, the business looses my business, and several have.
I worked as principal software architect and engineer for a major manufacturing software company for about 20 years. In the mid 1990's we considered DRM-based licensing for our software. We went as far as to test implement it. We were smart enough to realize that since our customers could not tolerate downtime at all (1 hour == $10 million in lost profits), that if the DRM caused a semiconductor fab to go down because of some stupid problem, we would be up shite creek without a paddle! We promptly dropped the idea. Never lost a dime to "pirated" software - and our software cost million$ to purchase, implement, and install! We ended up one of the 50 largest application software companies in the world...
Somebody wants the EU to regulate hyperlinking. That somebody must hold a lot of copyright material that can be found online. Somebody mustn't be able to go after all the folks hosting a site that's dealing out "their" content. Hence they want to criminalize the users, not merely the dealers. That is, not just target the supply-side but target the demand-side too (hoping each dealer's business dries up).
But where does that leave me?
Host XYZ, he sits in Country1. Host XYZ has his webserver in C2. Hyperlinker ABC, she sits in C3. Her blog is host in the cloud. The cloud company is a registered business in C4. And now I click on her link from C5.
The link puts the XYZ file into my eyeballs. This is when all the above copyright fine print needs to be assessed. I might have just accessed something Hollywood wants to hide from me.
Who will read all the legislation to decide if I am safe or able to be sued? And how will Hollywood know that @b needs to be assessed, since today I committed such an act/click?
I think u can see why the users of the internet are as confused as the users who are EVERY DAY simultaneously bending the Laws in countries C1,2,3,4,5.
My solution will be, not better Laws to deal with internet usage, but better technology. The law is best if pined to a single jurisdiction, it's physical inhabitants, and not a web of 5+ countries.
Laws should be drafted in such a way to allow the invention of such useful "internet forensics" technology to operate. That is, after a court has decided that an online wiretap is warranted on internet user "@b".