40 Girls Do Porn Victims Are Suing Pornhub For $1 Million Each (vice.com) 313
samleecole shares a report from Motherbard: Forty victims of sex trafficking operation Girls Do Porn have filed a lawsuit against Mindgeek, Pornhub's parent company, for a litany of accusations, including knowingly benefiting from Girls Do Porn videos on Pornhub and failing to moderate the images circulating rampantly on its network of tube sites. In total, the lawsuit is demanding more than $40 million in damages -- at least $1 million per plaintiff -- as well as the money Mindgeek earned from hosting and promoting their videos and legal fees. "As a proximate result of MindGeek's knowing financial benefit and participation in GirlsDoPorn's sex trafficking venture, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including, but not limited to, severe emotional distress, significant trauma, attempted suicide, and social and familial ostracization," the complaint states.
Filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on December 15 by attorneys Brian Holm and John O'Brien, the 43-page complaint details the suffering of these alleged victims of Girls Do Porn, and claims that each of the 40 plaintiffs became suicidal because of the harassment they endured when their videos spread non-consensually across the internet, including across Mindgeek's network of porn sites. Girls Do Porn was a sex trafficking operation that forced and coerced dozens of women as young as 18 into sex on camera, and lied to them about where and how the videos would be distributed. The women were told by everyone involved, from cast and crew to the owner, that the videos would not appear online. After filming, their videos were uploaded to Girls Do Porn's own site, as well as Pornhub, where the Girls Do Porn monetized its videos as a Pornhub "content partner." Pornhub also promoted Girls Do Porn as a content partner even after women in Girls Do Porn videos came forward about abuse and sued it. Last week, following a report from The New York Times about allegations of child sexual abuse imagery on the site, Pornhub changed its police to only allow verified uploads and downloads. Soon after, Mastercard and Visa stopped processing payments for Pornhub.
Filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on December 15 by attorneys Brian Holm and John O'Brien, the 43-page complaint details the suffering of these alleged victims of Girls Do Porn, and claims that each of the 40 plaintiffs became suicidal because of the harassment they endured when their videos spread non-consensually across the internet, including across Mindgeek's network of porn sites. Girls Do Porn was a sex trafficking operation that forced and coerced dozens of women as young as 18 into sex on camera, and lied to them about where and how the videos would be distributed. The women were told by everyone involved, from cast and crew to the owner, that the videos would not appear online. After filming, their videos were uploaded to Girls Do Porn's own site, as well as Pornhub, where the Girls Do Porn monetized its videos as a Pornhub "content partner." Pornhub also promoted Girls Do Porn as a content partner even after women in Girls Do Porn videos came forward about abuse and sued it. Last week, following a report from The New York Times about allegations of child sexual abuse imagery on the site, Pornhub changed its police to only allow verified uploads and downloads. Soon after, Mastercard and Visa stopped processing payments for Pornhub.
PornHub Police? (Score:5, Funny)
>Pornhub changed its police
The typo has me wondering what a PornHub police force would look like, and I can only conclude that it would be a much more explicit version of "Hot Cops" from Arrested Development...
Re: (Score:2)
They arrest you on suspicion of being good in bed and then drop the charges due to lack of evidence.
Re:PornHub Police? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, there are cases of women with no money being sent on "modeling gigs" across the country. When they got there they were told to fuck on camera. And if not, they can walk. If they fucked, they got a ticket home and some cash.
So, they kinda got screwed ... twice.
It's not always as simple as saying no.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not always as simple as saying no.
Yeah it fucking is. If that kind of shit happens and you are too damn stupid to contact the authorities that deal with sex trafficking you are a fucking moron. Or if you are in a different country at least contact the U.S. Embassy.... They kinda take that shit seriously.
Re:PornHub Police? (Score:5, Informative)
Your advice to not "allow yourself to be filmed having sex" kind of runs into the point that a court already ruled that these 40 girls did NOT in fact consent.
A previous court found that Girls Do Porn used coercive methods and awarded $13 million in *criminal* damages. One of the owners for Girls Do Port fled the country and is a fugitive. Part of that court ruling VOIDED all contracts signed by these girls as obtained via duress and fraud and thereby not representing valid legal consent. So I'd turn this around... the easiest way to ensure that you don't get your ass sued for illegally distributing someone else's "nekkid body" and "sex acts" is to make sure you have a really good valid legal contract that says you can.
I think this lawsuit should turn on how PornHub responded in the aftermath of those findings. Once they had notice the 3rd party content lacks contractual support, they have to take it down really quickly. If the plaintiffs want to bust PornHub for generally profiting before they got notice, I think they should have to show some kind of willful participation in the business model. PornHub will distance themselves and say they aren't liable for Girls Do Porn's criminal acts. They'll say the nature of their business requires content producers to police content creation. There are lots of protections for internet companies who take 3rd party content.
Re: PornHub Police? (Score:5, Informative)
The original terms and contracts stated it would be for VHS tapes sold exclusively in far a at lands and not put on the internet.
Girls Do Porn never put anything on VHS and immediately dropped it on their US based sites where friends/family/aquatintenses found them.
Girls Do Porn - while doing exactly what we all expected them to do - lied and said they wouldn't - with full premeditated intentions to breach the contract.
I agree, don't have sex in front of a camera if you don't want people to see it - however GirldDoPorn violated it's verbal and written contracts for EVERY SINGLE GIRL IT RECORDED.
That's a little different.
Re: PornHub Police? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two different things are being argued here. These two concepts are not exclusive and co-exist just fine.
1. The company in question broke contract. This is heinous and worthy of legal action.
2. The victims didn't conceive of a future where the product would be massively available to the entire internet. This is ridiculously naive.
Generalized:
A. Idiocy on part of the victim doesn't absolve the offender of guilt/liability/faulty. And...
B. Actions of the offender do not absolve the victim of the need to practice common sense in daily life.
Re: PornHub Police? (Score:4, Insightful)
ethics and legality aren't always the same thing, but these girls are fucking retarded =/
Maybe, but it's not okay to scam and take advantage of retarded people. I have been scammed before out of a lot of money. Yes, I am retarded. That was still not okay for the scumbags to do. Calling people stupid is not helpful either. We are all stupid in our own ways, and it is easy for us to judge, until it is our time to be stupid again.
Re: PornHub Police? (Score:4, Informative)
but these girls are fucking retarded =/
Dude, read the complaint. Don't just scroll to it, but read it. It's disgusting what they did.
But, to spare you the time, I'll summarize it for you. They:
- Placed an ad for a regular modeling gig (clothed), aimed at 18-22 yr old girls;
- Flew girls over to San Diego;
- Once in the hotel room, provided them with booze and pot;
- Then had them sign agreements they were not able to properly read;
- Had everyone else be silent about the real purpose of the shoot;
- And finally offer shit-tons of money for a porn shoot while promising not to put it on the internet, and often not even paying it all;
It' just revolting. Sure, I agree, the girls have some amount of culpability. But that culpability is limited to being gullible and (in those case where they were under 21) drinking underage.
The girlsdoporn dudes are criminals, have been convicted for it, and now Pornhub is being made liable for the illegal content on their platform.
That's the risk of being in the porn industry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These guys are scumbags, but at every. step. of. the. way. I have to ask myself how this works in the real world.
1) Success rate generally for recruiting 18-22 year old girls willing to do modeling. How many girls not already involved in modeling or performing will actually respond to a random ad to be models? How many are so naÃve that random solicitations modeling doesn't automatically equal "nude modeling"? I think right here is a built-in selection bias for exhibitionists and women who are very
Re: PornHub Police? (Score:5, Informative)
All of the answers to your questions can be found in the criminal complaint United States of America v.s. Pratt, Wolfe, Garcia & Moser [courthousenews.com].
For convenience I'll answer a few questions but I do recommend you read the complaint, as FBI agent Sabata goes into great detail about 4 specific cases in the sworn statement.
2) Who gets on a plane by themselves to some other city to get their big start in modeling from the ad they found? Like it's the beginning of a very bad horror/thriller story we've all seen 100 times. Most girls won't go to the fucking public restroom without taking 3 friends along.
6) This "shit tons of money for porn without anyone finding out, honest" seems kind of compressed and honestly the point where I would expect a huge amount of failures in this scheme.
One of the tactics they used was hiring other women to recruit these girls. They were paid to lie and tell them that they themselves had done shoots for the company, that everything was safe and above board, that their anonymity would be protected and that the videos were for private collectors and would never be posted online. The girls were in regular contact with these female "recruiters" via phone and text message and often expressed uncertainty about committing whereby various con tactics were used to gain trust and build a false sense of comfort and security.
Girls Do Porn shot over 100 girls in total and 1/5th of them were involved the civil complaint IIRC. Now there are 40 suing PornHub. Other performers were actually repeat performers for GDP and some even went on to do shoots with other porn companies. So not every girl who shot with them had no interest in performing. But the four case studies cited in the criminal complaint do speak to the motives of these girls: they were broke. One had recently lost their job, another needed to pay for college. I've never entertained the notion of being a sex worker but I remember being 20 years-old and not knowing how to pay my bills. If someone offered me a way to clear my debts and all I had to do was screw a stranger one time... a person I could be comfortable was STD-free ... and I was promised no one in my circle / network would ever see the video by people who claimed they had been in my exact position and were better off for the experience? I can't say I wouldn't be tempted.
4) Lots of people sign shit they don't understand, even responsible adults.
The problem is that the girls were coerced into signing the contracts. They were refused their own copies. If they asked questions about the content of the contracts they were given lies for answers. They were pressured and rushed to sign and they signed while impaired and, at least in some cases, under duress. If they expressed any doubt about signing or moving forward with the sexual activities they were threatened with financial penalties. The contracts were presented in person on the day of shooting in intentionally intimidating situation. They had no personal advocate or ability to seek independent legal advice and every potential "exit strategy" was blocked by threat of consequence if they chose to walk.
5) Who is "everyone else" in this tale? Is the "model" being continuously being handed off to different people?
In a manner of speaking, yes. Read the criminal complaint. There are 4 key people involved and they each interacted with the girls at different stages and are each culpable in what the FBI is charging as a "conspiracy."
So by the time she's in a hotel room with a joint in her mouth, she's gone from friendly Bob the guy with the ad, to friendly Steve the guy with the travel arrangements, to sneaky Sam at the hotel plying her with booze and pot for nudity and sex?
Yeah, actually, that's pretty close to what is being alleged in the criminal compl
Re:PornHub Police? (Score:5, Informative)
They were effectively held captive with no money in a city they had no contacts in, and no way home. They were threatened to basically be dropped off on the street with nowhere to go, WHILE being promised terms that effectively said "nobody will ever know you did this". Don't victim shame here, this has gone to court, and it was upheld that they were doing something illegal.
Re: PornHub Police? (Score:3)
They were being held captive ... and threatened to let go?
Wat.
Error: Does not compute.
Also, how the hell do you even manage to get to a foreign city with no money to get back?
I personally have been in shittier situations.
And I did get home.
I'd tell them: Yeah, goodbye then, let them "kick me out" (oh noes), walk to the police, barefoot and naked if necessary, and if they offered me nothing, I'd ride the train home without paying. (They'll just kick you off if they check your ticket on the train, like they d
Re: (Score:3)
And then what? Does 'making a report' get you back home? No. Does it get you money? No. A place to stay? No.
Re: (Score:3)
Better sue now (Score:4, Insightful)
When they still have money left in the bank. Now that EMV cut them off their network, it might not last.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Better sue now (Score:2)
Sure but do we see visa etc threatening the same to google despite thousands of indie bands and creators stuff being distributed on youtube?
Same logic really, it's just not porn.
Now how anyone could be assured though that porn they make wouldn't appear online? That would basically mean that it wouldn't be distributed at all. The actual plaintiffs in the case clearly didn't make much money or reachable money from the crimes though and thats why they're suing pornhub. And why pornhub and not xvideos or xnxx o
Re: (Score:2)
Making the change now is dumb, as it helps these plaintiffs case.
In most (if not all) jurisdictions in the United States, changing something for the better cannot be used as evidence of prior guilt. Doing so would encourage detrimental behaviour to continue until after a judgement, years or decades after the initial problem could have been corrected.
Silence breeds evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
One lesson to take away from this is the example that, yet again, tragic problems go un-acted upon for a long time because people who dare to criticize the porn industry in a forum like /. -- even to condemn its ties to real, objectively terrible things like sex trafficking, rape, child exploitation, etc. -- get hit with a strawman argument for supposedly being anti-sex, or fundamentalist or dogmatic, or anti-feminist, or closed-minded, etc.
Evil gets a free pass when moderate voices who would speak against those evils are silenced.
But I'm sure that won't happen with other fundamental rights, like free speech or religion or legal firearms ownership ...
Re: (Score:2)
One lesson to take away from this is the example that, yet again, tragic problems go un-acted upon for a long time because people who dare to criticize the porn industry in a forum like /. -- even to condemn its ties to real, objectively terrible things like sex trafficking, rape, child exploitation, etc. -- get hit with a strawman argument for supposedly being anti-sex, or fundamentalist or dogmatic, or anti-feminist, or closed-minded, etc.
Evil gets a free pass when moderate voices who would speak against those evils are silenced.
But I'm sure that won't happen with other fundamental rights, like free speech or religion or legal firearms ownership ...
Ironic much?
"I'm gonna make a strawman argument to accuse others of making a strawman argument."
Your circular reasoning has given me the spins and I have to go puke in the toilet now.
Re: (Score:2)
Evil gets a free pass when moderate voices who would speak against those evils are silenced.
Quite right. However I don't think that in the real world people generally leap to defend the porn industry. And for that reason, many porn studios go to extreme lengths to ensure that they do everything exactly by the book, just so they won't get lumped in with people doing "sex trafficking, rape, child exploitation, etc.", and get shut down. By all means speak out against these evils, and against any systematic wrongdoing or bad practices in the industry, but don't condemn the industry as a whole, with
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, we have to ban porn because of the obvious abuses, and people who condemn me yelling about this are horrible people. Now, don't you dare try to regulate my free (hate) speech or my guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Guns are a wedge issue, and a stupid one. The left is so focused on gun policy theater they are alienating voters over nothing. They seem to focus on evil looking "assault rifles", which kill on the order of a few hundred people a year in the US. Meanwhile, a THOUSAND fucking plus people are dying a DAY of Covid and Biden almost lost the election. If the left settled down over shit that's in the noise they would have gotten a few million more votes for Biden.
I still voted for Biden though I had to hold my n
Copyright (Score:2, Interesting)
So in other words this is just a copyright claim? They agreed to have sex, for money, while being videoed from multiple angles, and knowing that the videos would be on the internet on specific website(s). Of course the public in general then copied those videos (illegally, in breach of copyright law) and spread them to other pornography websites. The girls did not suffer damages financially, because (I assume) they were paid as agreed for their services. They also did not hold the copyright to those video
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to correct myself:
knowing that the videos would be on the internet on specific website(s).
That should be "knowing that the videos would be distributed on DVD in other countries." Again, they agreed to making pornography, knowing it would be sold and distributed, but not in the area(s) or through the mechanisms they expected it to be. If they have documentation to that affect, and the parties that they were in contract with did financially benefit from the distribution in areas they did not agree in, then it is breech of contract and they could sue for damages or a shar
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, I read on the Wikipedia page about this case that the judge awarded the plaintiffs ownership of the videos. So depending on when these videos were (knowingly) distributed by PornHub, these women do have a copyright case against them, in addition to their other claims. They claim (rightly) that because the distribution was far more widespread than agreed, they suffered reputation damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep correcting.
After filming, their videos were uploaded to Girls Do Porn's own site, as well as Pornhub, where the Girls Do Porn monetized its videos as a Pornhub "content partner." Pornhub also promoted Girls Do Porn as a content partner even after women in Girls Do Porn videos came forward about abuse and sued it.
There is no DMCA claim, Girls Do Porn uploaded the videos themselves and PH continued to allow them to upload and monetize videos from these women while court cases were in play.
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
They agreed to have sex, for money, while being videoed from multiple angles, and knowing that the videos would be on the internet on specific website(s).
No. First they were lied to about the nature of the work, told it was modelling, later that it was porn but only to be sold on DVD overseas with little chance of anyone in the US seeing it. Then they were coerced, with heavy pressure put on them with the threat of abandonment or debt. There were lied to some more, fake testimony from women who claimed to vouch for those guys having previously worked for the site.
So no, it's not just copyright. Sex under false pretences is sexual assault, it's rape. Pornhub was notified and did little to remove the videos in question, which makes them accessories to the crime as they profited off it.
Re: (Score:2)
The videos were purportedly made using 'fraud, coercion, intimidation, and false pretenses'. That is indeed quite illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This was long after the women involved won their lawsuit against Girls Do Porn and criminal charges had been filed against the operators. The Department of Justice said that "some were sexually assaulted and in at least one case raped". The founder is on the FBI's most wanted list, and is facing charges of sex trafficking and child pornography.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been tested in court, initially civil but with criminal charges pending. The main guy behind it fled the country and they are trying to extradite him.
There are too many similar stories and too much supporting evidence for this to be a fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
So? Penalties for fraud can be pretty harsh. Enough people did run away when they faced fraud charges. Also because it is actually one of the crimes where you have a real chance to not get extradited. On rape charges, not so much.
Also, there are almost no similar stories. Except the made-up ones, obviously. As soon as you insist on actual evidence, almost all of these stories go away.
Re: (Score:3)
Your anecdote above does not show that there is no sex trafficking. It only shows that some sex traffickers (presumably the less competent ones) were caught.
There could be many, many sex traffickers who don't get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint says "...used fraud, coercion, and intimidation to get the women to film pornographic videos under the false pretenses...". Doesn't really sound like they 'agreed' to do it. And it doesn't say 'the public in general' copied the videos and put them online. It says Girls Do Porn did the coercing, intimidating, lying, and filming. And it says Mindgeek contracted with Girls Do Porn to put them online.
The suit further states how the principals in Girls Do Porn have been indicted on federal sex
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You do understand that you can write anything into a complaint, right?
Re:Copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Shy of literally holding a gun to their heads, what exactly did they threaten them with if they didn't strip and fuck/suck?
Not getting paid?
If I recall correctly from when I read about the case a while back, they told the young women that the studio would demand repayment for the cost of airfare and accommodation, which they obviously couldn't afford.
Someone can be coerced without a threat of violence.
Re: (Score:3)
At which case, you walk out the door, and walk to the nearest policeman or police station...I"m sure they would like to hear about these threats.
Re:Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
At which case, you walk out the door, and walk to the nearest policeman or police station...I"m sure they would like to hear about these threats.
Not if those police are anything like you. They would just tell the girls they got what they deserved. And the girls probably expected exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words this is just a copyright claim?
Nope. It's far dumber than that. They have no claim against Pornhub what so ever because they don't own copyright to the videos, and if they had Pornhub has a DMCA process.
They are claiming that Pornhub in hosting a video uploaded by others who may or may not be breaching copyright of GirlsDoPorn, a company they successfully persuade a fraud claim against, .... they care claiming Pornhub is now somehow liable.
I wanted to prepare a car analogy but I couldn't think of something stupid enough to rival this. It
Re: (Score:2)
Where are people getting this stupid copyright idea from? They are not 'claiming that Pornhub in hosting a video uploaded by others who may or may not be breaching copyright of GirlsDoPorn', they are claiming Pornhub contracted with Girls Do Porn to put the videos online. Pornhub was directly profitting from the sex trafficing operation.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
1) Girls Do Porn is not a "sex trafficking operation". It is a porn producer that committed fraud. The production of the porn was legit. The distribution was not.
2) By the principles of equity and good faith Pornhub could rightfully assume whatever they got from Girls Do Porn was legit.
Seriously, stop losing all rationality just because sex is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Sex trafficking = moving people across borders to do sex work with coercion. Coercion need not be violent, it can be withholding passports, or -- as here -- threatening people with financial harm ("you have to reimburse us for the plane tickets" "but you told us they were free" "only if you do the film" "but that's not what you told me before" "we're telling you now")
2. Nope. Businesses have duties of care in relation to their supply chains. Supply chain management and assurance is a whole thing, you kn
Re: (Score:3)
Girls Do Porn is a sex trafficking operation, that's what it's called when someone is transported long distances to an unfamiliar place where they don't know anyone and have little means to get home, and are thus reliant on the person who transported them to avoid being stranded.
Sex trafficking usually does not involve physical restraints or captivity, the same as modern slavery usually doesn't. It uses money and psychology instead.
PornHub was doubtless aware of the lawsuit that Girls Do Porn lost and the c
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree. They have a DMCA take-down right but that is it. What happened to them is that they were defrauded. Because of "Sex!" they now think they (or rather their lawyers who will get most of the money) can blow that all out of proportion and earn a huge payoff.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong and you're doing a good job of underplaying just about everything that was bad about GirlsDoPorn including rape and sex trafficking. This is a long long way from just being about copyright, GDP leaders are a bunch of nasty scumbags.
https://www.georgiacrime.com/B... [georgiacrime.com]
https://www.justice.gov/usao-s... [justice.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
According to the complaint, the circumstances were not at all what was promised. Some of the women were pressured into signing documents without reviewing them and then threatened with legal action or outing if they failed to perform; some were not permitted to leave the shooting locations until the videos were made; family and friends and the general public eventually saw the videos online; some victims were harassed and ridiculed and estranged from their families as a result; and some were sexually assaulted and in at least one case raped. Some were forced to perform certain sex acts they had declined to do, or they would not be paid or allowed to leave.
These are all claims that may don't seem to have any evidence. While the GBI and DoJ can investigate, they will have a hard time proving any of this. What will be very important will be the contents of the documents and whether they can prove the women signed under duress.
Re: (Score:2)
And what do you think is likely?
A) Dozens of women are lying, they just made it all up.
B) Rape and sex trafficking did occur and the police and FBI are not complete idiots, they charged people with these crimes because they have good reason to believe these crimes happened.
Anyone would think you are on the side of GirlsDoPorn and don't want them investigated and tried.
Whether or not GDP lied is likely going to be judged based on witness testimony.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, (A) is statistically much more likely than (B) and that is just a fact, which is not part of the feminist jurisprudence and hence not taken into account by the police and FBI.
Seriously - I have actually done my research here. I am 100% sure you have not.
Having said that, there has been conviction so I will say GirlsDoPorn did something wrong. At the end of the day, copyright was assigned to the women and they have the choice to use DMCA, and they can press further if DMCA was not honored. So it is
Re: (Score:2)
Link the evidence for this claim because I find that to be highly unlikely that this is simply a case of dozens of women lying about the same thing at the same time, that comes across as misogynistic.
Re: (Score:2)
From
you derived:
Ah yes - the last refuge of a loser.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you called it a copyright issue, not the same as rape is it.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately under the statute 17 USC 201(e) the victims cannot be assigned the copyrights of the videos in question, even if the defendants lost in court, because copyright was not meant to be a tool of censorship.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There was no rape or sex trafficking. There was fraud. Of course, some women think that when their consensual sexual activities come to light, they are morally allowed to cry "rape" to restore their honor. Some others are just greedy. This despicable behavior damages every real victim.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem pretty certain of this, maybe you should look a little deeper at the claims instead of jumping to conclusions. The rapes are claimed to have happened at a different time to when the porn was filmed BTW. One of the rapes for instance, they guy was giving the woman a lift, then he stopped, locked all the vehicle doors and windows and then forcibly raped the woman. And mostly by one guy so far as I have read in the articles.
Re: (Score:2)
I have looked. I have looked for a long time now. Almost all of these stories are made up. A lot of the rest is misrepresented.
In the case at hand, we are talking about Girls Do Porn here, i.e. what the _company_ did, not about some other crimes that were done in some other contexts. Sure, rape is unfortunately a fact. Human sexuality is screwed up and some people are unable to compensate intellectually. Some people believe they have a right to take what they want. (Had a line-jumper at the post-office toda
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of the issue is they lured the girls in on false pretenses, plied them with drink, lied about what they were doing, they lied about the distribution format and location and then sometimes the girls were raped after all that.
So do you not think these people are complete scumbags who should be thrown in prison?
Where would the videos appear you think? (Score:2)
"The women were told ... that the videos would not appear online". And where would they appear? On VHS?
Crooks and gullible people, killer combination, made for exploitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Still fraud. But decidedly not "sex trafficking" or "rape".
Girls Do Porn was a sex trafficking operation... (Score:2)
Like it or not ... (Score:5, Interesting)
You may agree or disagree but like it or not the internet is going to become a lot more regulated in the next couple of decades. Some actions will benefit people and consumers like the GDPR did for personal privacy, some will favour commerce like the upcoming EU internet commercial and services directives.
In the beginning, and I was there, the internet was seen as force for good, information, empowerment and progress. We all sighed at eternal september [wikipedia.org] but did little except complain.
We can add to the cacophony or we can be part of the solution. We accept restrictions IRL, speeding, drunk driving, etc is illegal. There are restrictions on alcohol and recreational drugs. We need to focus on what restrictions are desirable or reasonable and which are not, choose the right battles for the right reasons. This case strikes me as entirely reasonable and the underlying situation one that is far closer to criminal than legitimate enterprise.
Europe's Plans to take on Big Tech from TLDR News [youtube.com]
I'm not expecting regulation I'm expecting control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What we are going to see the turning of the wheel back to its starting point. Instead of a world which has a lot of information about everyone everywhere populated by a generation which doesn't care about what something happened in history, we will go back the full circle and have:
- a world where everything will be hidden behind a paywall and lack of knowledge will remain a form of discrimination
- a generation which will lust for blood and form lynch mobs asking for pacification
- run by ~kings~ corporate ow
Press Release (Score:2)
This article, along with it's extensive use of hyperbole, seems like an attempt by the attorneys to try their case in public before it gets to the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
This article, along with it's extensive use of hyperbole, seems like an attempt by the attorneys to try their case in public before it gets to the courts.
Given that said lawyers are the ones that stand to profit the most, this is obviously what is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
They already won this case once. Why would they need the court of public opinion to win it again?
Higher settlements. This is all about money, nothing else.
No offence but... (Score:2)
Better read the releases (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230? (Score:2)
Isn't Pornhub protected just like Facebook and Twitter in this respect? Is this a back door to strip the protections from these sites?
Re: (Score:3)
No, they also need to follow 2257 [eff.org].
Re: (Score:3)
To quote from the earlier link: "federal regulations apply the 2257 record-keeping requirement to these secondary producers" and Pornhub is a secondary producer. The Adam Walsh act made it law.
Really (Score:2)
coercion (Score:3)
If the coercion aspect is true, it doesn't matter what the contracts said. Coerced contracts are generally not enforcable.
So that's the key point in these cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If Pornhub isn't keeping their 2257 records, they should be shut down.
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: "Only DVD in Australia" (Score:2)
Death held out a hand. I WANT, he said, A BOOK ABOUT THE DANGEROUS CREATURES OF FOURECKS-
Albert looked up and dived for cover, receiving only mild bruising because he had the foresight to curl into a ball.
After a while Death, his voice a little muffled, said: ALBERT, I WOULD BE SO GRATEFUL IF YOU COULD GIVE ME A HAND HERE.
Albert scrambled up and pulled at some of the huge volumes, finally dislodging enough of them for his master to clamber free.
HMM... Death picked up a book at random and read the cover. "DA
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:4, Insightful)
But you can't sue them for putting it online if it leaks online at some point downstream.
If that point where it got online were the actual producers, that's a different case. But a case against the producers.
I'd bet a larger sum that any platform who does "content partner" contracts has a clasue in it that the "partner" has all neccessary rights to distribute the material, including model releases.
But in a world where even Disney tries to claim they bought only the distribution rights for books but not tthe liability to pay the authors, everything has gone wild....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are trying to screw over enough people already for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Willingly doing porn" doesn't mean that you suddenly lose your rights
Indeed, but unfortunately for them they already sued the only company they had any legal relationship with. Whether Girls Do Porn videos end up on Pornhub or not is a copyright claim to discuss between Pornhub and Girls Do Porn. They didn't get screwed in any way by Pornhub.
The only rights these girls have is the right to a Streisand Effect.
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If PornHub knowingly helped spread these videos far beyond the agreed-upon scope of distribution, they can be sued for the resulting damages.
"Knowingly" is the keyword.
Is there any clue that pornhub knew about their "content partner" lying about the distribution rights agreed on with the actresses/models?
Aquiring distribution rights is their job. I'm sure they have a compliance departtment. And I'm espescially sure that they had Girls do porn confirm that they own all neccessary rights for distribution.
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:4, Informative)
They are suing for what amounts to reputation damage. Sure, they ought to have expected that their videos would appear online at some point, but there's a difference between ending up on some obscure site or playlist, and ending up on a public site like PornHub, especially if PornHub actively promoted this content as well (which TFS suggests they did). If PornHub knowingly helped spread these videos far beyond the agreed-upon scope of distribution, they can be sued for the resulting damages.
Mindgeek had a legal contract with the abusers.
From at least 2011 until the end of 2019, MindGeek contracted with GirlsDoPorn to be partners in MindGeek’s Content Partner Program and Viewshare Program. In so doing, MindGeek created dedicated channels for GirlsDoPorn’s videos on MindGeek’s Tubesites containing trailer versions of the victim’s videos.
Source: https://assets.documentcloud.o... [documentcloud.org]
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:5, Interesting)
Fraud is fraud, even if it is perpetrated against inexperienced and gullible people.
There are so many ethically dodgy money making schemes that exploit gullible people yet are completely legal. Just look at the dietary supplement industry. Or all the BS health gear that contains magical copper -- sometimes it's just copperish-colored *paint*. It's become normal that people tend to view the stupidity of the targets as somehow making this OK, even legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Fraud is fraud, even if it is perpetrated against inexperienced and gullible people.
Indeed, but as Pornhub committed no fraud this lawsuit is 100% frivolous. These girls have neither copyright claims to the videos, nor did they file DMCA claims, nor do they have any contractual relationship with Pornhub.
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on the complaint, it sounds like this is exactly what happens.
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:5, Interesting)
Pornhub had a contractual relationship with the studio that defrauded them, and also hosted the videos and in many cases has refused to remove videos when requested — don't know if that specifically applies here, but I would be shocked if it didn't given that they typically ignore removal requests... which is how they got in trouble with their payment processors over revenge porn and CP. Pornhub is a known bad actor, so it's not surprising if they have done illegal things related to this case.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to be a party to a contract in order to order to sue for damages in tort law. Being harmed in some way by a party that had some sort of duty-of-care gives you the legal standing to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
But they have to prove that they didn't execute that duty-of-care. And I'm sceptic about that.
Re:"Only DVD in Australia" (Score:5, Informative)
OK, reading about these guys, they were abusive etc (so deserve jail and everything) but the victims did willingly do porn, the main problem is that they were verbally told they would only appear on "DVDs in Australia". WTF. Stupidity like that can get you killed in other places, they were lucky.
You should read the complaint again. According to the complaint, they did not "willingly do porn". They were tricked and coerced, oftentimes while under the influence of alcohol and/or marijuana. They were initially told it would be for modeling, even signed a contract that said "beginmodeling" at the top of the contract. They were repeatedly lied to and exploited. They were bought tickets to fly to the location and then were told they would have to reimburse the flight and hotel rooms (when they obviously didn't have money in the first place). They were told the videos they shot would not be made publicly available and it was posted online in multiple locations. The company that lied to the women and abused them (to the point there are criminal charges against them) even purchased a website which was dedicated to doxxing them, which led to harassment and stalking. And Mindgeek actively courted a relationship with the abusers and even looked to purchase the company (and backed out when they learned just how much abuse was happening).
The women may be lucky in the sense they are not dead, but to say they are "lucky" is just untrue.
Re: (Score:3)
Chances you are a prude to the public, but a pervert in private.
This dichotomy is a big problem with the porn industry. It creates a Gray Market in which while it is a legal service, it is also very detrimental for people to publicly argue or bring to court abuse or misuse of the industry. So it creates an industry ripe for abuse.
Banning porn will only turn it into a Black Market industry, which will create much more abuse. As human beings are Sexual Animals and pornography will have demand, as we as an
Re: (Score:2)
Chances you are a prude to the public, but a pervert in private.
Indeed. And probably a dangerous pervert, not one that makes sure nobody gets harmed and everybody gives informed consent.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't go that far out of context for a few word post.
This is part of the problem of the Taboo nature of sexuality, where we see people who have different sexual preferences as immediately dangerous. Even Public Prudishness as a preference.
The danger isn't in the sexual preference but the implementation behind it. The big line that isn't suppose to be crossed is that it will need to be mutually consensual. Unfortunately they are some sexual preferences that rely on crossing that line. Which makes th