Wow, that's a really interesting read on 2257, and I'm no attorney, but I'd be really surprised if anyone at Justice would agree with that read. My assumption was that AEBN was simply taking the "bring it on" mentality.

Google is a search engine. It doesn't host content. Ditto Ask. Pornotube hosts the content. It also exercises the ability to moderate the content, I remember when the 16 year old kids had their content up there (it was clearly marked as such) and it took half the adult webmaster community on GFY half the weekend to get somebody at Pornotube to take the stuff down.

As I've always heard it interpreted, the ISP exclusion is for ISPs (web hosting providers) or search engines who really *don't* have any access to the content or means of taking it down other than, maybe, to pull the whole server down. Pornotube clearly is in a different category:

While pornographic and adult content are accepted, PornoTube also reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright infringement and violations of intellectual property law, such as, but not limited to, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length. PornoTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User’s access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion. (From Terms of Service at pornotube.com)

Doesn't sound like a platform that finds media and reports on its location to me. But on the other hand, AEBN is one of the few companies in the business that could afford a phlanx of lawyers to defend it, which is why Justice probably won't bother to go after it.