GirlsDoPorn: Young Women Win Legal Battle Over Video Con 215
A U.S. judge has awarded $12.8 million to 22 unnamed women, ruling that they were tricked into appearing in widely distributed online porn videos. The BBC reports: Some of the models duped by the owners and operators of the GirlsDoPorn website had become suicidal, he said. They were told the videos were for a private collector or overseas DVDs, according to the 181-page judgement. The women -- aged 18-23 when they shot the videos -- were also assured the videos would never appear online. But they were uploaded to GirlsDoPorn's subscription-based amateur porn website, and clips were shared on some of the world's most popular free-to-view adult websites.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright ordered GirlsDoPorn chief executive Michael Pratt, 36, videographer Matthew Wolfe, 37, and porn actor Ruben Garcia, 31, to take the videos down from GirlsDoPorn and take steps to get them removed from other sites too. GirlsDoPorn markets itself on the premise that the women in the videos are not professional porn stars.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright ordered GirlsDoPorn chief executive Michael Pratt, 36, videographer Matthew Wolfe, 37, and porn actor Ruben Garcia, 31, to take the videos down from GirlsDoPorn and take steps to get them removed from other sites too. GirlsDoPorn markets itself on the premise that the women in the videos are not professional porn stars.
Where do I find these girls? (Score:4, Funny)
Where do I find stupid women that are so easy to get naked?
They were told the videos were for a private collector or overseas DVDs... were also assured the videos would never appear online
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where do I find these girls? (Score:5, Informative)
If someone is stupid because they trusted a contract then we have bigger problems than your lack of sexual attention.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What an ignorant comment to make. These women were given legally binding assurances that they would have limited exposure in this process as evidenced by the fact that they won the suit.
If someone is stupid because they trusted a contract then we have bigger problems than your lack of sexual attention.
They agreed to make porn for overseas DVD sales -- no one of that age group should have been surprised that their videos ended up online. It's widely known that even sexts sent to your boyfriend are likely to end up posted online, so even if the claims of "They'll only be sold as foreign DVD's" were true, it's pretty likely that the videos would have ended up online anyway.
If you don't want your naked videos to end up online, then don't make naked videos.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want your naked videos to end up online, then don't make naked videos.
End thread.
Re:Where do I find these girls? (Score:5, Informative)
It's still, essentially, fraud, because the producer and distributor of the videos lied about the method of distribution. Like a photographer licensing their work out to use in a print ad, but not online. It's basic contract law.
Now, what happens -after-, well, that's something else. If these porn videos had been distributed by DVD in Taiwan or something as promised, and someone bought it and uploaded it to pornhub or something, there wouldn't be a case against the producer. I agree with your ultimate point, but the fact that the producer was bullshitting from the beginning is what makes this scummy and legally actionable.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your ultimate point, but the fact that the producer was bullshitting from the beginning is what makes this scummy and legally actionable.
Oh, I completely agree -- it was a scummy thing to do, but that doesn't mean that the girls weren't stupid to fall for it -- if you sell porn you have to expect it to end up online.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your ultimate point, but the fact that the producer was bullshitting from the beginning is what makes this scummy and legally actionable.
Oh, I completely agree -- it was a scummy thing to do, but that doesn't mean that the girls weren't stupid to fall for it -- if you sell porn you have to expect it to end up online.
That applies to any digitized commodity.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if someone else uploaded it they could be expected to enforce their copyright in defence of their contact with the model.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn’t matter if that’s true and you could get a jury that would agree that it would be a reasonable assumption that a person should be expected to have made because the defendants were the ones who breached the contract by putting the videos online. They did something that they contractually said they would not do. The rest doesn’t matter because at that point they breached the contract and they’re liable for damages. It doesn’t even come to the point you raise so there’s no reason to argue the merits of your reasoning.
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to someone else, but I never said it wasn't a scam and I'm glad that the producers got caught..... but that doesn't mean that the girls weren't stupid to fall for it -- this isn't the 1990's when online streaming was new and porn was hard to find online, if you sell porn today, you have to expect it to end up online.
Re: (Score:2)
no one of that age group should have been surprised that their videos ended up online
There's a difference between a bootleg being shared online, and the person who recorded the video distributing it online against the terms of the very contract they got you to sign.
This isn't stupid. You'd have to be an absolute moron *not* to take the guy to court. It's like a second payday.
It's widely known that even sexts sent to your boyfriend are likely to end up posted online
Incidentally if you then have something against that boyfriend he wouldn't stand much of a chance if you took him to court. In many countries now he'd be criminally liable. e.g. Australia or in the UK that (ex)boyfriend
Re: (Score:2)
It was a joke. I support the court damages award because these girls contracts was violated, but let's not go all prude either. Porn is kind of funny as a subject.
Re:Where do I find these girls? (Score:5, Informative)
More than just fraud. The women agreed to things like modelling only, were flown out a long way from home and told that if they didn't do the porn videos they were not getting a ticket home. Many were doing it because they needed money in the first place.
The lies and pressure were continual. What was supposed to be a 5 minute photo shoot turned into a 5 hour porn shoot. At ever step the pressure and threat of abandonment far from home was used on women who were barely out of childhood.
These guys are professional scumbags and were expert at manipulating people.
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta admit I'm on the fence on this one. My "you were stupid" is fighting with "we've been doing this for a while and we're getting good at it", not sure who should come out on top (heh)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, find a friendly mid-range escort. Cheaper and you get to have sex as well. While porn does not pay that much, it still pays quite a bit per session. You will not be allowed to film this though.
As to the statement itself, so overseas DVDs never get ripped and uploaded? How naive to you have to be to believe that? Seriously, do porn, expect it to be on the Internet not a long time later. That is how things are. Of course this company stepped way over the line by lying to them and uploading themselves, a
Re: (Score:2)
Where do I find stupid women that are so easy to get naked?
They were told the videos were for a private collector or overseas DVDs... were also assured the videos would never appear online
I don't agree with your "stupid" characterization except as applied to you for not knowing how to go to the site.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yeah, exactly correct, pretty but stupid. Now I know younger geeks and nerds (and of course harridan bitches) are really jealous of women getting easy rides being well, sluts but be fucking reasonable. As a society we do quite actively and aggressively denigrate and exploit the less intellectually endowed anyone pretty much sub90IQ let alone sub80IQ. I mean the exploitation and abuse of them is pretty disgusting, oh yeah those poor fuckers if you work hard you can be rich too, yep sure uhhuh (absolutel
Re: (Score:2)
Very intelligent women like being objectified as well. IQ has very little to do with that aspect, and it's all down to personal tastes.
But yes, the lower IQ in general have a very rough time of it on average. I think we could take a leaf out of the Japanese working book on that one, and going back to your word being worth something, and acting dishonourably is something that's likely to see you getting severe penalties.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously they were assured this in a legally binding way giving them $500000 on average upon winning the lawsuit. Maybe you should be careful what you wish for.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do I find stupid women that are so easy to get naked?
Err any street corner? Literally look for someone in a skirt and offer them a few hundred dollars to take their cloths of. There's nothing stupid about it, it's an actual profession.
Incidentally it works on men too if you're into that.
And if you look around you may also find a mix, woman on the top, man on the bottom if you're into that.
Re: Where do I find these girls? (Score:2)
Great, now everybody's going to do it. There's going to be a small change in Craigslist, compared to a sudden spike in ads that were flagged for unspecified reasons
This just in (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends. Vivid entertainment has 4.5 star average rating [glassdoor.com] at Glassdoor, better than most tech companies. It's like any career, there are decent employers and there are assholes. Except you get to see assholes more directly I guess. A lot of couples also freelance from home as a side income.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it turns out guys are complete slimeballs. Whoda thunk it?
FTFY.
You get naked in front of a camera and this is what can happen. Even if you have a contract and the producers honor the terms, stuff on subscription services get ripped and reposted by third parties.
Judge ordered ... take the videos down from GirlsDoPorn and take steps to get them removed from other sites too.
Yeah. Good luck with that. Stuff gets posted, people download it and repost it on image boards after a time. Rinse and repeat. If there's a camera in the room, it will live on in perpetuity.
A woman acquaintance I know was at a party and decided to 'get busy' with three guys. Two of them got started and th
Re:This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it turns out porn producers are complete slimeballs. Whoda thunk it? The last time I said this, I got slammed with feminist propaganda. Maybe porn is bad for our society, and it's not just the pieces of shit who exploit women to make it.
The complete lack of respect for porn is the reason porn producers are complete slimeballs.
When you offer your body to an employer and he uses you to deliver packages, build a house, cook meals, write code, sell products, etc... in exchange for money, you are a respected worker. And employers who abuse you get no sympathy, as it should be. But when a girl offers her body to be shown for the sexual pleasure of others, she is a whore, a dishonor, and if she is tricked, she got what she deserves, bitch. What did she do wrong? She didn't steal anything, didn't hurt anyone, she just helped produce something enjoyable. She deserves all the respect a worker can get. Maybe once society starts respecting porn, slimeballs will be forced out of the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes this, exactly. Wish I had mod points for you, but I don't so just voicing my agreement. Some of the comments in this thread have been truly revolting.
Re: (Score:3)
So.... we need a Seamstresses Guild ?
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Most porn producers are actually reliable in their word. There are enough people who are willing to engage in it to keep the sector running, and keep your word. Hell, keeping your word is pretty important for a long term studio; if you have a reputation for completely breaking promises to your models, you'll likely run out of models, and some other studio will get the business. Keeping your word is good business.
What you can actually say is "Some companies will lie on contract to get you to d
Do not want in on the Internet? Do not film it! (Score:3, Insightful)
While lying to the performers from the beginning is a new low, basically anything filmed that anybody could be interested in ends up on the Internet. This is not a secret in any way and should surprise absolutely nobody. These women need to learn that actions have consequences and that they cannot trust everything people tell them. I mean, they are not children, right? Time to behave like it.
Re:Do not want in on the Internet? Do not film it! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right, they can't trust everything people tell them. You are supposed to trust a signed contract though. You know, when you buy a house you get a told a lot of things. You shouldn't trust them, but you should trust the contract you sign. If someone breaks that contract, are you just going to tell the person "Sorry, you shouldn't believe what people tell you? Your actions have consequences." The amount of misogyny around this subject is just mind boggling. For some reason, women who do porn should expect to be exploited and when they are it is their own fault according to way too many people.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, they can't trust everything people tell them. You are supposed to trust a signed contract though. You know, when you buy a house you get a told a lot of things. You shouldn't trust them, but you should trust the contract you sign. If someone breaks that contract, are you just going to tell the person "Sorry, you shouldn't believe what people tell you? Your actions have consequences." The amount of misogyny around this subject is just mind boggling. For some reason, women who do porn should expect to be exploited and when they are it is their own fault according to way too many people.
Yep.
I expected the "women" part to attract way more attention than the "contract" part.
It's to misogyny do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the lawsuit they weren't even allowed to read the contract properly. It was a case of "sign now and do the porn in the next couple of hours or make your own way home from 1000+ miles away".
Re: (Score:2)
These women need to learn that actions have consequences and that they cannot trust everything people tell them.
I think that lesson was imparted on the owners of GirlsDoPorn.
All of you guys who are calling the girls dumb for falling for this scam may be looking at things backwards. They might be smart for signing a contract knowing that it's likely that the contract will be violated, thus entitling them to compensation.
As you said, actions have consequences. Signing a contract and then willfully violating that contract results in consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
You assume they had an opportunity to read and then freely agree to the contract. They didn't.
These guys MO was to fly them out far from home, delay and delay and then spring the contract and porn on them. Agree now, no time to read it all we don't have much time today and everyone is getting paid by the hour. If you don't want to you can make your own way home.
No sympathy (Score:2)
Don't film anything you don't want people to see.
I won't even send a dick pic to my goddamn wife because I'm not retarded and know it could wind up being seen by anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes one should take reasonable precautions to protect oneself, but the world is not just and it's a comforting lie - though a common fallacy - to believe that people "deserve" the bad things that happen to them. Just world fallacy. Google it.
So you think that these 3 men shouldn't be held accountable? That's strange.
Re: (Score:2)
If your bank account gets hacked you'll inevitably get your money back via insurance, etc.
If your nudes get out they're out forever.
It's also absolutely a false equivalence because "getting hacked" implies you were attacked and you had no control over it, whereas in the case of nudes you had full control over it in 99% of cases (lets be real, most unauthorized nudes online weren't put there by hackers, they were put there by people who YOU GAVE the nudes to).
A more apt equivalence wou
More details from the SD Union-Tribune: (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/story/2020-01-02/22-women-win-9m-in-suit-against-girlsdoporn-videos [sandiegouniontribune.com]:
As a San Diegan, this case has been making big news locally. People do modeling, and sometimes people do more than modeling. But contract law is contract law, and when you add the intentional infliction of emotional distress and generally scumminess of those involved (all with malice aforethought), they deserved fines this big and more.
I hope the criminal case succeeds as well and they get the book thrown at them.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not rape. The sex was consensual.
It is a breach of contract law with added damages due to personal harm. You only water down the term 'rape' by overusing it.
I would seriously hope that GirlsDoPorn is reputationally damaged to the extent that they can't have their content taken at face value, and effectively become barred from distribution channels over this.
I've no problem with porn, or the actors (I actually think they're pretty brave to do it), but I consider that they should be given an honest
Re: (Score:2)
Sex under false pretences is rape. For example not intending to honour a contract that you already violated with other contractors.
Sex under coercion is rape. For example saying you won't honour your promise to pay for an expensive airfare home if she doesn't do it.
There are legal cases I can cite but this isn't just a legal point, it's a moral one too.
They must be running out of ideas (Score:2)
I know no one watches it for the plot, but come on. TFS doesn't sound hot at all. And that title, WTF?
Also, submitter forgot the link to the video. Meh.
don't feel sorry (Score:2)
anyone with any common sense would know any porn created will find its way online. Nobody can promise it won't.
Mmmh (Score:2, Funny)
"and take steps to get them removed from other sites too"
They judge should really call Streisand to get some hints.
Second, they fucked on camera and now get millions, how on earth are they not pornstars then?
Re: (Score:3)
I think 'take steps' is a reasonable demand. While it may well be impossible to have the material entirely leave the public domain it is very much possible to contact any site hosting it and demand its removal.
The popular commercial sites will be handling a lot of such requests already, and have a fairly streamlined process. That alone will greatly reduce the audience for these videos, purely because those sites are popular because they're where people go to view videos.
Second, they fucked on camera and now get millions, how on earth are they not pornstars then?
Sex trafficking victims are not porn
Not professional? (Score:2)
There are also criminal charges (Score:3)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-s... [justice.gov]
They GDP crew was also arrested and charged for federal sex trafficking by fraud & coercion. The women were victims.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think that the Girls Do Porn performers were actually not porn stars. I mean how are you not a porn star if you are literally in a porno movie.
But I guess I was wrong.. Slow golf clap Girls Do Porn.. I hope your executives executives enjoy some big black cock during their upcoming prison stay.
Wolfe and Garcia are currently in federal custody. Pratt is a fugitive believed to be in New Zealand, his home country.
Well one of them was smart enough to avoid the big black cock...
Re: (Score:2)
Federal prisons are mostly people convicted of financial crimes like money laundering, tax evasion, counterfeiting, wire fraud, and online crimes.
I hate sounding racist, but federal offenses are mostly white-guy crimes.
The BBCs are in state prisons.
Re: (Score:2)
Joke's on him - New Zealand is the home of the Black Cocks [nzherald.co.nz].
Re: (Score:2)
even at 18... if you're dumb enough to trust PORN PRODUCERS with your modesty (and no written contract)... well life... life is going to be much harder than that.
It claims to feature women filming their first and only porn videos, and many of the women on the site are students in need of extra money, according to court documents.
They just wanted the $$$ with no consequences... Karma...
Re: (Score:2)
They wanted money by doing work - which they did. I hope your karma hits you in the ass someday.
Re:I'm sorry but... (Score:5, Informative)
There were written contracts but none of the agreements were honored. For example saying that the videos would only be sold to DVD in markets such as New Zealand and Australia. Instead videos were immediately uploaded to various porn sites and also allowed their real identities to be exposed.
I don't know what your link is supposed to prove. None of these videos were stolen or "leaked". The judge apparently felt the lawsuit had merit. The head of the company has also fled the country oddly enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what this company did was obviously way over the line and the punishment and compensation seems appropriate. But expecting videos that are sold anywhere on the world to not eventually end up on the Internet is naive on the level of a child. Somebody somewhere will rip them and upload them and it is not hard to find out that this will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between a niche video being uploaded onto a few sites (this happens, viewings are low, in the order of thousands worldwide due to the volume of available content, so is not likely to be picked up by the majority viewer), and have a commercial entity with advertising backing actively pushing a video, which happened. This would put it in the "likely" category for viewers in a given locality.
It's a balancing of risk. Given the contract, the girls in question were content with the "extrem
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal charges are pending the outcome of this civil suit.
Re: (Score:3)
Like, if a bunch of dudes had their dick pix shared online without their permission
If someone posted a picture of my dick, I don't think I would care very much.
The social and psychological repercussions are very different for women.
Re: (Score:3)
So much for equality.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone posted a picture of my dick, I don't think I would care very much. The social and psychological repercussions are very different for women.
I actually think I'd be kinda meta-offended at how much men would be expected to take it on the chin as opposed to women. If it's really equal rights and not women's rights, shouldn't I get to be equally offended and have the law work equally hard to prosecute those spreading my nudes? It's not about the porn value - that's into the negative where you'd pay to not watch - but my male body is not worth less than a female body. Even though I'd get over it pretty quick in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
The equivalent of a dick pic would be a vulva pic, and equally as unidentifiable. A vulva pic wouldn't be a problem for gals that would be likely to send it (same as guys, they could turn round and say "Ha ha, this is actually someone else; fooled you!").
If someone chose to post a pic of my dick, I'd wonder why, but wouldn't overly care. Now if they did a full body nude, especially of me "in action", I'd think very differently and would almost certainly be after a snapshot of their genitalia; preserved in
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't muster up sympathy (Score:5, Informative)
The girls were never told about the "GirlsDoPorn" website.
And sure the girls worked for money, so what? We all do. The fact it is sex work doesn't give employers the right to scam their employees. They lied to them, they made them signed unenforceable contracts, going as far as involving former models in their con. It is an offence in any kind of work.
Re:Can't muster up sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. And yes, they *are* victims. Reputation is valuable, and that was stolen, not paid for.
Re: Can't muster up sympathy (Score:2)
This just in: the internet is global. People mediashift stuff all the time and upload it. People share stuff.
Theyâ(TM)re dumb.
Re: Can't muster up sympathy (Score:3)
Re: Can't muster up sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
how could they possibly believe they were doing
You could have read the article, but apparently you're "Way Smarter Than" that, yeah?
They were continuously lied to by the operators of this swindle.
They were given contracts which appeared to say so.
They were called/texted by former "models" who told them so.
Etc, etc, etc.
Then the porn was released to a large audience. This shit is nearly indistinguishable from revenge porn, except it is premeditated and serial revenge-porn-like behavior, and the stiff punishment is proper.
Re: (Score:3)
Then the porn was released to a large audience. This shit is nearly indistinguishable from revenge porn, except it is premeditated and serial revenge-porn-like behavior, and the stiff punishment is proper.
What does it change a large or small audience? Revenge porn is exactly porn for a very small audience (usually some boyfriend/girlfriend/wannabe boyfriend/wannabe girlfriend) and we know that the web and the snowball effect can make it a global sensation. The idea, living in the XXI century, that a small (starting) audience means secrecy is just plain stupid. The GDP crew lied, that is clear, but they're like a guy trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge: you must be beyond gullible to believe that.
Re: Can't muster up sympathy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you say victim.
They had their contractual rights breached, and that's highly illegal. The courts determined that these rights were breached and that recompense was due.
The fact that it's left some in an extremely bad way psychologically probably added a small percentage on top of the figure, but the main bulk of the case is that they agreed to geographical zoning (like the movie industry in general does) and the GirlsDoPorn company breached that agreement. That breach was illegal under establ
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they are victims you coward asshole. There are plenty of legal (which this was/is) types of work some people don't want others to know about for some reason. Here one of the reasons is other people being prejudiced against people doing porn, something the actors can't influence and something that can lead to problems both professionally and personally.
But you of course understand this given your cowardice.
Re:Can't muster up sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
Specific promises about media distribution are difficult to enforce, but what appears to be purposeful lying is still definitely not okay. Fraud is still fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Specific promises about media distribution are difficult to enforce
Let's say impossible. Even top secret military videos can leak online, you know.
Fraud is still fraud.
That is obvious, but we are not a court. We do not care just about the legal point of view. In this case, there is a stupidity problem, which is social not legal, that is appalling. It is not victim shaming, it is recognizing that this level of gullibility is actually a problem for our society. In this case it is just the "reputation" of a bunch of girls trying to test the power of the Streisand effect (I never heard of GDP and
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, just because people are stupid doesn't give you the right to con them.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how that statement refutes anything in the post you responded to.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, this has nothing to do with the post you responded to. He didn't mention shame or career paths.
People fall for dumb scams all the time when they should know better. They're still entitled to seek justice in court, though, because the crime is committed by the con artist, not the victim. It's legal to be stupid. While it's sometimes legal to take advantage of the stupidity of others, in this case it wasn't. The thing is, these guys could have probably gotten away with this (and others probably do so)
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't ashamed of doing pornography.
Same as having a crap in a bathroom stall. Everyone does it, you just don't want it to be the next internet sensation after being promised privacy, but someone decided to post videos online.
It's about it not getting in the way of your life. DVD only for foreign market (and being promised that) means you have the expectation that your neighbours and friends (and parents perhaps) won't likely be seeing you "in action". Even though you may not be ashamed of it, other
Re: (Score:2)
The girls were aware however they were making pornography. Maybe, perhaps, people should think before they act.
And? That's like saying cheating on your partner is okay because your partner knows you have a penis and therefore are capable of having sex with others. The girls were aware of one thing and one thing only: They were recording a pornographic video for a private customer, not for an online subscription service for everyone.
Not quite unlike you sending a nude to someone and them selling that picture of you online. Incidentally an act that would also land them in legal trouble unless they have an enforceable
Re: (Score:3)
The girls were aware however they were making pornography. Maybe, perhaps, people should think before they act.
I'm assuming the people responsible specifically went after the gullible ones.
Which is wrong and actionable.
Re: Can't muster up sympathy (Score:5, Informative)
It's most certainly not. It's a violation of basic contract law. Effectively, these girls conditioned their performance on the fact that the licensed distribution would be limited. Like a photographer selling an image to be used in a print ad, but withholding the right to use it online. Or DVD zoning. It's not a new law or anything special.
Re: (Score:3)
A man in the same position would have exactly the same case as a girl does. It's a violation of contract, with well-defined terms. In cases like that, sexism doesn't usually enter into court decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's anecdotal evidence, which is inadmissible as a metric.
Yes, there will be cases when the letter of the law allows for bias in this direction, and it will likely occur (so your stories are likely correct, but in a small area, and cherry picked).
The same will also be true in the opposite of what you assert, with women having the worst of it.
The main body will be quite neutral, and well within the letter of the law.
Main think with prenups is to know how binding they are in your area (in the UK, they're n
Re: (Score:2)
Since their lawyer wrote the contract
I've heard of those lawyer things before. Apparently they are some kind of machine that is never wrong, never makes a mistake, completely ethically and emotionally detached for what they are working on, and never ever attempt to in any way breach a law or the most upstanding moral code.
If everyone in the world were a lawyer there would be world peace right?
Re: (Score:2)
If society consisted of only men there would be no concept of revenge porn
You're a fucking moron if you don't think gay men do this to each other as well.
and a man filing a lawsuit over this would be laughed out of court
I've filed a lawsuit over this. And by "this" I mean general breach of contract, which is what this actually is, no more, no less. I'm a man, the dependent was female. I won. How's that fit with you moronic gender narrative?
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Now we know... (Score:2)
What is going on here? All I know is, if I had the same name as "Ruben Garcia" I'd have a hard time explaining to the interviewer why I didn't include these, ahem, extra curricular activities in my resume
Re:Shit or Get off the Pot (Score:5, Insightful)
I think in this case women are being treated as strong, independent and entitled to civil court enforcement of contracts voluntarily signed by the pornographer? If I go to photographer to take a family portrait, he is not automatically entitled to sell it as stock art. GirlsDoPorn should have paid more to distribute content publicly and now have to pay up the damages.
Re: Shit or Get off the Pot (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, let's see how the story was actually "framed". The BBC headline+first sentence, which also appear above:
GirlsDoPorn: Young women win legal battle over video con. A US judge has awarded $12.8m (£9.8m) to 22 unnamed women, ruling that they were tricked into appearing in widely distributed online porn videos.
Yep, it is "framed" exactly as you hoped it would be, girls winning against a porn producer who violated their contracts. What were you complaining about?
Re: (Score:2)
If I go to photographer to take a family portrait, he is not automatically entitled to sell it as stock art.
In Australia at least, it seems pretty normal for commercial photographers to own the copyright on the photos they take. (Not disagreeing with your points at all but - again, at least in Australia - many people are surprised when they find out they don't own the copyright on the photos they get taken at their own wedding :)
Re: (Score:2)
There are both types of women: Those that are actually adult, take responsibility for their actions and decisions and just want equal opportunity. These mostly get their wishes today and that is decidedly a good thing. But there are also those that just want a free ride and want power without responsibility and basically everything for free.
What can be seen nicely is that while women are not worse than men, they are not better either: A majority are idiots (just like the men), many are lazy (same with the m
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the little problem that availability of porn (and decriminalizing prostitution) is reliably known to _decrease_ sexual violence. While I am not aware of any systematic studies, porn is not known to further misogyny in any way either. Hence quite a few of these people will shamelessly lie or state things as facts without ever having verified them.
Now, I am not sure whether it is currently known whether the positive effect of porn being available and prostitution being legal or tolerated is a di
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a study that said "By providing people with a possibility of having realistic blood spurting dummies, we have a statistically significant reduction in the number of murders committed", then I would say that clearly, as a society we would definitely be obligated to provide realistic blood spurting dummies for people that had an urge to commit acts of violence. This would, after all, reduce the number of murders occurring, which is the whole point. It doesn't help the murdered, or their familie
Re: (Score:2)
How are people suing a producer for a violation of contract a cause for an MRA screed?
If I took pictures for someone on the condition that they were only to be used in print ads, and suddenly those photos started showing up online, you bet your ass there'd be a lawsuit, because a larger audience demands larger licensing fees.
This is essentially no different -- except the photographer would have claims both for violation of contact and for violation of copyright law.
Re: Shit or Get off the Pot (Score:2)
Male actors would be just as right to sue in these exact same circumstances, that isn't even up for debate, and ZERO people are arguing about that.
So why are you dragging some gender disparity angle into this?
Re: Shit or Get off the Pot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading the article dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently shaving pubes is pretty common for under 30-year-old women in US/Canada.