MPAA Opposes Proposed Minnesota Revenge Porn Law, Saying It Limits Speech (arstechnica.com) 96
New Minnesota legislation is "attempting to penalize those who post explicit photos or videos of ex-lovers on the Internet without permission," reports the Associated Press. But while 27 states across America have already passed laws against "revenge porn", Hollywood's lobbying arm, the MPAA, argues that Minnesota's bill doesn't specifically require an intent to harass in their definition of the crime, which "could limit the distribution of a wide array of mainstream, Constitutionally protected material, including items of legitimate news, commentary, and historical interest," according to Ars Technica. The MPAA adds that "images of Holocaust victims, or prisoners at Abu Ghraib, or the Pulitzer-Prize winning photograph entitled 'Napalm Girl' -- which shows a young girl running screaming from her village, naked, following a Napalm attack -- could be prohibited under the terms of this legislation."
"This is the same MPAA that fiercely supported the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2012," notes Ars Technica, though "many claimed that legislation would also curtail free speech because SOPA could lead to the removal of domains that host infringing material." But the state's ACLU chapter is also opposing Minnesota's bill, according to the Associated Press, pointing out that it doesn't require an offender to be aware that they're invading someone's privacy, and arguing that "We're not doing victims of revenge porn any service by passing a law that can't be upheld in court, that will let people go free."
"This is the same MPAA that fiercely supported the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2012," notes Ars Technica, though "many claimed that legislation would also curtail free speech because SOPA could lead to the removal of domains that host infringing material." But the state's ACLU chapter is also opposing Minnesota's bill, according to the Associated Press, pointing out that it doesn't require an offender to be aware that they're invading someone's privacy, and arguing that "We're not doing victims of revenge porn any service by passing a law that can't be upheld in court, that will let people go free."
Odd bedfellows. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the old saying is even a stuck clock is right twice a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of which, I don't think a digital clock can get stuck, unless you are implying something involving body cavities. If so, can I direct you to some politicians and the housewares department?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Odd bedfellows never boils (Score:1)
I always heard it as a "watched pot".
Re: (Score:2)
Quite correct. A broken clock might be broken in any number of ways that would invalidate the "broken clock is right twice a day" saying. For example, the hands could have fallen off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Odd bedfellows. (Score:5, Informative)
Sec. 2. [604.31] CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL
DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES; SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
Subdivision 1. Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. (a) A
cause of action against a person for the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual
images exists when:
(1) a person has threatened to disseminate an image or has intentionally disseminated
an image without the consent of the person depicted in the image;
(2) the image is of an individual engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are
exposed in whole or in part; and
(3) the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which a reasonable
person would know or understand that the image was to remain private.
(b) The fact that the individual depicted in the image consented to the creation of the
image or to the voluntary private transmission of the image is not a defense to liability for
a person who has disseminated the image without consent.
Or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The point is that somebody took nude pictures with consent and it was published for all to see without consent. The intent of the law is very simple - don't publish other people's nude pictures without consent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the law should say that instead of blanket statements that are open to interpretation as required.
Re: (Score:2)
Or partially nude.
Where do you draw the line?
Why do you people have such problems with the concept of judgement? "Drawing the line" is something that comes up all the time in law courts, even in murder cases. That is why you have judges - experienced and intelligent people - to judge where to draw the line rather than clerks with rule books presiding over courts.
That is how the legal system works in the UK anyway. Perhaps you problem is just an American problem.
Re:Odd bedfellows. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you people have such problems with the concept of judgement? "Drawing the line" is something that comes up all the time in law courts, even in murder cases. That is why you have judges - experienced and intelligent people - to judge where to draw the line rather than clerks with rule books presiding over courts.
While it's all jolly good fun to spend weeks in court, having your bank account drained by your lawyer, some folks might not want to be taken to court over a photo of their soon to be divorced wife in a bikini perhaps with the famous camel's to or erect nipples, posted on Facebook. That "private parts" provision is so broad you could drive the Costa Concordia though it.
Who knows, perhaps legal counsel doesn't cost anything on your side of the pond.
But over here, where the courts are used to bankrupt people - and yes, that might be a 'murrican problem - the law can be made a lot more specific. Harassment by publishing private pics depicting sexual activity without consent of the person in the photo.
And some times that might be a fully clothed person.
Even moreso, let's take feet. For some reason unknown to me, some folks find feet to be sexually stimulating. Harmless for certain. But if you took a photo of your wife or husband's naked feet, and published it without their consent, would you want to go in front of a judge who happens to share that same peccadillo?
"Guilty as charged, Mr. Broadstreet! And Mrs. Broadstreet, do you mind if we keep those photos in case we need to look up the evidence in this case again?" Some times it's hard under those robes.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, if it a totally bogus case like "bikini pics of your wife" or "blah blah ... feet" then you don't actually need a lawyer. You can just show up and speak normal words to the judge, and the case gets thrown out. You might even get some money... paid by the other party's lawyer for bringing a case without cause.
If it is a patent case or something, you'd have to know what words to say. But a typical case of accusations between individuals? No.
For example, landlord rental disputes are handled by
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the US, if it a totally bogus case like "bikini pics of your wife" or "blah blah ... feet" then you don't actually need a lawyer.
You knpw what they call a guy in a divorce case who doesn't think he needs a lawyer?
flat assed broke.
You might even get some money... paid by the other party's lawyer for bringing a case without cause.
You do know that many people in divorce cases do every damn thing they can do to fuck with each other, and not in the fun sorta way. You think that say, in an arena where it is typical for one spouse to completely untruthfully declare that the other was sexually abusing the children wouldn't just love to say that the blah blah facebook post wasn't done without consent? That's kinda sweet, but doesn't appr
Re: (Score:2)
Live in a better State. Fix your laws. There is no reason for a lawyer unless you have kids; if your state laws are reasonable.
In my State, everything is equally owned 50/50 unless you have evidence otherwise. Unless there are kids involved, the lawyers are mostly being paid to show up so you don't have to.
The reason you "need" a divorce lawyer is because most of the time the person controlling the money wants to try to cheat the other person, and so they hire a lawyer. But in that case, then the other pers
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you only have one chance to do it right. If it's a civil case, the risk is more limited, but if you're trying to avoid having a criminal record you do need to talk to a lawyer at the very minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot get a criminal record out of a lawsuit. Impossible.
You sound like you should go out and buy some unicorn impalement insurance or something. I'm sure existing legal insurance companies would be happy to give you a policy covering removal of "criminal" records created accidentally during a civil process.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read what he wrote? IF you're trying to avoid having a criminal record, so not civil but criminal.
This particular law we are discussing is a criminal law, and the incident being talked about would result in criminal charges against the man, which would allow the woman to take him to the cleaners in the meantime.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said a civil lawsuit? The statutes generally define criminal law, and if you fail to defend yourself adequately against a criminal charge you can indeed wind up with a criminal record and a prison term. If you fail to defend yourself adequately against a civil lawsuit, you can wind up bankrupt, which isn't really desirable either. In this case, publishing a photo with a little sideboob could indeed be construed as against the law, prompting a criminal charge and a civil lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this one is about creating a "cause of action."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Look up near the top of the thread where I quoted the proposed law.
See the words, "cause of action?"
Sec. 2. [604.31] CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL
DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES; SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Justice is what the judge had for breakfast" isn't just a silly blurb, there was a study that showed increased parole rates for cases after lunch hours. Granted, it was probably American courts, but I doubt UK courts are equipped with enough checks and balances to avoid the fallibility of arbitrary law.
It was Israeli courts. http://www.pnas.org/content/10... [pnas.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, I think it is an American problem (I'm British, living in the USA).
The British libel laws [npr.org] seem to be a lot farther from common sense and to threaten free expression far more than anything the US courts do.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the law's "intended meaning" in those cases. It doesn't have exceptions, or "only when so-and-so thinks it was bad." It is true that the prosecutor could defer prosecuting those cases, if he didn't think it would serve justice; but that is frowned upon, because of abuse of power. Abuses that we know very well, from English History.
It may simply be that the law is unpopular with some people. How many, who knows. But it was never the intent of the law to allow a person under 18 to engage in child porn
Re: (Score:2)
If it is a private, partially nude picture that was intended for personal use only then you have no legit right to post it anywhere.
Get consent.
I've always gotten consent. It is always the same conditions too... "you can show your friends but if you post it on the internet I'll kill you."
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the "while engaged in a sexual act" part?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you could find a legal definition of "intimate parts" somewhere in Minnesota law, so it's not quite as bad as you say.
Proving dissemination of the insemination (Score:2)
(Sorry for the title, I couldn't help myself).
How will they prove dissemination? I would guess in 98.3% of all the cases, the person who does it is logged enough to prove they did it, because stupid people.
But because we're talking the murky depths of human revenge, at least some people will be clever about it and go to enough effort to create reasonable doubt about who disseminated the image.
I wonder if they will argue that possession of the image (home computer, etc) is prima facie evidence you were resp
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. Interesting point.
You could stick to simple pathology (i.e. "a led to b led to c") and say that if only two known people were supposed to have the data (the insemination video, in your example, presumably only to be owned by the egg-bearer and the sperm-donor) and if one of those people is charging illegal dissemination of the data, then it must be the other person who did the deed.
So even if the charged person used darkwebz, deleted the logs of the logs of the LOGGING of logging's log log, and found a
Re: (Score:2)
You could stick to simple pathology (i.e. "a led to b led to c") and say that if only two known people were supposed to have the data
And only Jennifer Lawrence and her boyfriend were supposed to have her selfies, too.
And not a day goes buy where there isn't a story on Slashdot where there isn't some new security vulnerability on PCs, whether its Lenovo exploiting firmware to install their spyware, phone-home vulnerabilities, you name it. And none of this counts the hacking of services which might automatically back up data you didn't even *want* to disseminate into the ye olde cloud.
And then there's anybody else with physical access, th
Re: (Score:2)
Except that what you said is actually not true. There has to be proof of rape, or else it will get thrown out. The courts don't send men to prison automatically on accusation of rape.
Re: (Score:2)
In some states, Michigan included, a woman's testimony *is* evidence, and it does stand in a court of law.
I've known some men who've gone to prison for false rape accusations, and I've sometimes known the women who made the accusations as well. There are some women who are simply scourges and some states that have no idea WTF course of justice is.
Re: (Score:2)
(I suppose the method of thinking behind passing these laws and seeing them upheld in a COJ is that a woman would not go out of her way to bring a man to trial with no evidence except her testimony that he raped her, or perhaps they simply never considered the possibility that a woman would simply lie on the stand as an act of revenge against a man who failed to provide her with enough drugs and money, or maybe just because she's crazy and has a vendetta against mankind and found herself comfortable in a st
Re: (Score:2)
There has to be proof of rape, or else it will get thrown out.
This may be *mostly* the way the criminal justice system works now, but if you follow the nonsense that has been happening on college campuses, you might have cause to worry.
Activists are vigorously pushing to have colleges' investigate and punish rape accusations internally, with their own investigations and their own "tribunals". Naturally these all lack any standard of due process rights for the accused, including no standard of proof, no ab
Re: (Score:2)
Do you read an entire comment before you barge in with a rebuttle? I was offering a counter-point not to support it but to shoot it down in later sentences. Sheesh!
Re: (Score:2)
This is for cases where you have some evidence.
The same as all the other laws.
Strange rabbit-hole to fall down, considering that.
Re: Odd bedfellows. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Great research. I'm thinking that the MPAA is using this to set up lawsuits for celebrity stalkers and paparazzi.
Not useful for paparazzi. A "reasonable person" would not know or understand that a picture they took at work, from a public place, that has a history of being legal, "was to remain private."
It might be useful for leaked or stolen sex tapes, though. But those already have a clear cause of action. But that probably is their PR motive; PR aimed at the actors themselves who feel violated.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't assume they're competent, so I'm not placing much value in the actual effect telling us anything about their motives. I'm assuming that they got involved to try to make the law "stronger" because of people like Jennifer Lawrence. I'm assuming they had some conversation with a celeb that went like, "Will you help us make statements against pirating?" "My pictures were pirated, and they were very personal and their release caused me harm, what are you doing about my problem? Why should I want to help
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What Grade Do We Teach The Kiddo's About This Law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it just me... (Score:3)
...or does the MPAA get more and more batshit insane with every passing year?
Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not insane. They are just acting as any company is expected to: Every action they take is towards the goal of maximising their profitability. They oppose this law, not out of free speech concerns, but because it could get in the way of exploiting celebrity scandals for money in future.
Re:Is it just me... [anti-paparazzi law] (Score:3, Interesting)
I see it, now. I was trying to figure out what their angle was, but you put it rather plainly.
This law would basically guarantee that there would never be another paparazzi photo of some starlet skinny dipping or sun tanning, ever, ever again.
It doesn't matter that there's no intent to do emotional harm to the subject of the rag photo. They did not give consent and obviously since they are celebrities, and since that means they can make a lot of money from every picture taken of them, they would never in a
Re: (Score:3)
It's a badly-written law, one driven by good intentions but sure to have unintended consequences. The MPAA may be doing the right thing on this occasion, but only because it happens to be in their self-interest.
Personally I think the world just needs to get over this ridiculous obsession with catching a glimpse of someone naked. Yes, it's a breast. Plenty of those on the internet already, nothing special about yours.
Re: (Score:2)
And that would mean the end of civilization as we know it.
I mean, is that what it takes to get you off? Has no one told you about PornHub? I mean, what the fuck, dude? Your stressing over the possibility that you may never see another nude starlet paparazzi photo. Don't you realize that now most starlets post naked selfies on Twitter? Or is it a special pl
Re: (Score:2)
This law would basically guarantee that there would never be another paparazzi photo of some starlet skinny dipping or sun tanning, ever, ever again.
I think you missed the part where it said Minnesota, which is eclipsed, if you'll pardon the pun, by only the moon in terms of either celebrity population, or paparazzi waiting there to take photos of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, their interest is a bit baffling. They're not the ones who capitalize off of those scandals, at least not directly, and there are already exemptions from privacy expectations for public figures anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't. The ones giving in to them are.
It's much like when you have a spoiled child. At first, the child's demands are simple and maybe even reasonable. If the child sees it gets away with them, they mount until they reach the point where the average, sane person can only shake his head and wonder how the fuck that spoiled little brat thinks he can get away with asking that.
It's not the child that is insane. It's the parents.
Or, to get back from the analogy, the law makers caving in to those bullshit d
The law does need to change (Score:3)
Copyright law is already too biased towards producers. They are behaving like spoilt little children and need their toys to be taken away. Seriously, they get enough (more than enough) already.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not just the bigcreators. There is a whole industry of false copyright claiming companies that steal popular videos on Youtube, allowing them to remove the video from the original channel, monitize it, collect revenue, all before the original owner eventually gets it back after spending weeks fighting the corporate piss-taker. Once they win their own content back, they never any monies made by the thief, even though google know exactly what was paid over what period; and google never penalise these cro
Re: (Score:2)
"If there is a bias towards producers, that's only logical because copyright law is there to protect them."
No, it is not.
I'll take that you are American because the USA Copyright Act owns a very clear wording, but it doesn't matter if not, since the principle stays.
Copyrights are there "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". See? It's not there to "protect producers". And then it adds "...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
Re: (Score:2)
As has already been pointed out, according to the US Constitution, copyright law exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Similarly, the first modern copyright law, the Statute of Anne, justified it "for the Encouragement of Learning". Perhaps you could argue that the purpose of copyright law has changed, and it has become an ends unto itself, but even so, this wouldn't establish th
Is this law redundant? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, what's the real reason? (Score:2)
MPAA wanting something because of free speech. That's like Facebook claiming a change is over privacy concerns, Republicans claiming that they want it to protect the poor, Democrats claiming it is to save taxpayer money or Comcast claiming it's to spur healthy competition.
In other words, an enough transparent blatant lie to ask for the real agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, an enough transparent blatant lie to ask for the real agenda.
That should be obvious. With the way the law is currently written, any actor could claim after a movie is made that they changed their mind and no longer want to be depicted (either in that way, or even at all) and once that change of mind is stated publicly, the MPAA just broke this law and will be held accountable to it.
They want their actor contracts to stay just as one sided and enforceable as they are right now.
They do not want the actor to have the ability to simply claim "I changed my mind" to turn
Re: (Score:2)
what's so hard to understand? any law that impedes the shekel flow to the MPAA is bad; any law that protects or increases it is good
Why does intent suddenly matter, MPAA? (Score:2)
It's most unexpected that MPAA has suddenly flipped to a mens-rea-matters position on speech issues. This is the same organization that purchased DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, where zero fucks are given as to the reasons for breaking DRM: it was considered intolerably bad, no matter why you'd be doing it.
Unexpected and very late, but nevertheless encouraging. We can all assume that this drastic 180-degree change of heart by MPAA is going to be accompanied by them purchasing a DMCA repeal.
Kim Phuc (Score:2)
"Napalm Girl" ? Her name is Kim Phuc, she lives in Vancouver (Canada). Apparently the role of "Editor" has devolved to that of "Janitor" at modern news-related media.
Re: (Score:2)
photograph entitled 'Napalm Girl'
They were referring to the photo, not the girl herself.
All about protecting paparazzi (Score:2)
My interpretation (Score:2)