Topic: Revenge Porn
started by: Leisher
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 11 2013,07:24
< California law might be just the first. >
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 21 2013,19:51
Just read this.< http://www.foxnews.com/us....er-rape >
Am I the only person who thinks women should stop being stupid and stop sending nude pics of themselves to boyfriends, and, in her case, also not masturbate on webcam while he watches?
Are we going to pass laws to protect women from their own stupidity?
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing pics of naked chicks. But god damn... the chick in this article said it was "virtual rape," or whatever. Too bad she consented to every part of it by giving the dude the pics of herself in the first place. None of it could have happened without her complete willingness.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 22 2013,05:26
I see her point of view. I think it's pretty clear that the intent was just for each other, and not to be shared. I see no problem with women/men doing porn stuff for each other, and not expecting it to be distributed.I don't think it's e-rape, but I don't think he should be allowed to post them publically.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 22 2013,06:18
Maybe if there's a verbal contract... "Don't share these," or, "If you put these on the internet I will kill you."If she doesn't, it is just another bad decision in what is probably a string of bad life decision.
Posted by thibodeaux on Sep. 22 2013,07:36
(GORDON @ Sep. 21 2013,22:51)
QUOTE
\Am I the only person who thinks women should stop being stupid and stop sending nude pics of themselves to boyfriends, and, in her case, also not masturbate on webcam while he watches?
Yes, I think they should send those to ME.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 22 2013,08:15
(GORDON @ Sep. 22 2013,09:18)
QUOTE
Maybe if there's a verbal contract... "Don't share these," or, "If you put these on the internet I will kill you."
If she doesn't, it is just another bad decision in what is probably a string of bad life decision.
If she doesn't, it is just another bad decision in what is probably a string of bad life decision.
Wholly disagree. There's implicit trust in a relationship. The guys are just showing they are douches.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 22 2013,08:40
< Debate been done before >.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 22 2013,08:47
Women should read this to know that if they send me nude pix and videos, they are safe, whereas if they send them to Gordon they'll end up in the postpix thread.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 22 2013,11:25
What would a woman be doing sending those to Gordon? Maybe a dude. Maybe Cake.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 22 2013,13:07
(TheCatt @ Sep. 22 2013,11:47)
QUOTE
Women should read this to know that if they send me nude pix and videos, they are safe, whereas if they send them to Gordon they'll end up in the postpix thread.
Yeah, yeah.
I am just tired of people being shielded from the need to have any kind of personal responsibility for their actions.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2013,06:36
< The law doesn't cover selfies. >The lady leading the fight wants it to, and I agree with her to a point.
While a guy shouldn't be out there sharing something so private and intimate in a public forum, how about the girls take their share of the responsibility too? It's called a "selfie" for a reason.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 03 2013,06:43
Interesting wrinkle... I think I agree with her. Especially since she would own the copyright as the photographer of the selfie.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 03 2013,06:49
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2013,07:28
(TheCatt @ Oct. 03 2013,09:43)
QUOTE
Interesting wrinkle... I think I agree with her. Especially since she would own the copyright as the photographer of the selfie.
I agree with the copyright law, but doesn't that only apply when someone is making profit? So ex-boyfriends could still post the picture where ever, but the site couldn't make a profit?
However, I think maybe the message she should be pushing is "Don't send naked photos and videos of yourself to guys".
I mean, isn't she trying to cure the symptoms, and not the actual cause?
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 03 2013,07:39
(Leisher @ Oct. 03 2013,10:28)
QUOTE
I agree with the copyright law, but doesn't that only apply when someone is making profit?
Nope.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 03 2013,08:16
Yeah, copyright isn't just about profits,... remember file sharing? That's not about profit for the person infringing.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2013,10:33
Ah yes, file sharing. What happens to copyright when the girl sends the material without explicit instructions regarding its dissemination?
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 03 2013,10:42
As far as I can tell, she would still have the copyright, and still have control over the image and its use. Copyright is automatic, and the owner of the copyright has exclusive rights to:1 Reproduce the copyrighted work;
2 Display the copyrighted work publicly;
3 Prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work; and
4 Distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale, rental or lending, and/or to display the image.
So the person has decided to do #1, but to receiver does not get that right. Additionally, the receiver is the one doing #2, which he/she does not have the right to do.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2013,10:50
If she sends out the picture/video to someone without specifying "don't show this to anyone", she doesn't waive rights to the photo/video?What if she sends it to a mailing list by mistake?
What if she sends it to him, and tells him he can show her off (thinking in her head the photo would stay on the phone, and not be tweeted to the world)?
How is Snapchat getting away with keeping all those photos?
How are twitter feeds posting all these pictures without consequences...or is that now coming thanks to this law?
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2013,10:51
Actually, I know the answer to the last two, I'm just making a point about the gray areas where I think this law is going to find trouble, and how it's like trying to put a genie back in a bottle.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2013,11:52
(Leisher @ Oct. 03 2013,10:28)
QUOTE
I mean, isn't she trying to cure the symptoms, and not the actual cause?
As far as I can tell, she is trying to shed all consequences from making bad decisions, under force of law.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2013,12:24
(GORDON @ Oct. 03 2013,14:52)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Oct. 03 2013,10:28)
QUOTE
I mean, isn't she trying to cure the symptoms, and not the actual cause?
As far as I can tell, she is trying to shed all consequences from making bad decisions, under force of law.
Exactly.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2013,12:49
Just like abortions, heh.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 03 2013,14:47
(Leisher @ Oct. 03 2013,12:50)
QUOTE
If she sends out the picture/video to someone without specifying "don't show this to anyone", she doesn't waive rights to the photo/video?
In fact no, not unless she explicitly says so in her distribution. And even if she does so state she can later revoke that at any time unless there's a signed contract constraining the conditions under which she can do so.
QUOTE
What if she sends it to a mailing list by mistake?
An unfortunate error, but she still owns copyright and all rights to distribution etc etc etc unless she has signed a contract that constrains those rights. No gray areas here, not for copyright law. She can thank uncle Walt for that clarity.
QUOTE
What if she sends it to him, and tells him he can show her off (thinking in her head the photo would stay on the phone, and not be tweeted to the world)?
Same story, of course. She retains all rights etc etc etc.
QUOTE
How is Snapchat getting away with keeping all those photos?
How are twitter feeds posting all these pictures without consequences...or is that now coming thanks to this law?
How are twitter feeds posting all these pictures without consequences...or is that now coming thanks to this law?
As you say, you know the answer to these: Terms of Service. There's that contract I've been mentioning. Although the fact that it's not signed and witnessed and notarized does somewhat limit how binding it might be. A lot of the details of how binding TOS can be haven't been tested in courts just yet. A lot of it is still basically blue-sky wishful thinking by the lawyers drafting them up. I'm sure all of that will be nailed down a bit more firmly in the years to come.
I'll go you one bit further on this, though. Because it's ultimately a copyright issue, if Congress ever does get something like SOPA sneaked into law then in theory she could have him and his whole family tossed off the internet for his infringement, along with anyone else that shared it. Won't that be fun?
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2013,18:17
The minute following when the government cuts off our access to porn and other things found on the internet to distract us, is the minute our government is removed from power by a very pissed off population.
Posted by Paul on Dec. 11 2013,09:48
< Dude arrested in California for running a revenge porn site. >
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 11 2013,09:53
< F1R5T!!11! >
Posted by Paul on Dec. 11 2013,11:25
I'd have been F1R5T had I not tracked down the appropriate threat to post it in.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 09 2014,18:14
< Revenge Porn hides behind Tor >
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2014,18:17
QUOTE
It's almost a philosophical question: if you create a product used to commit a crime, are you as guilty as the criminal who wields it?
No it's not, and no you're not. Do you hold the gasoline and lighter dudes responsible for arson? If someone hits you with their car, do you sue Honda?
QUOTE
The plaintiff argues that Tor's own descriptions of its services reveal that it knowingly assists websites like Pinkmeth in creating illegal services, similar to how some gun control advocates place responsibility on firearm manufactures for creating weapons that can be used for crime.
Tor lets you anonymously publish content. They're pretty up front about that.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 09 2014,18:22
(Malcolm @ Jul. 09 2014,21:17)
QUOTE
QUOTE
It's almost a philosophical question: if you create a product used to commit a crime, are you as guilty as the criminal who wields it?
No it's not, and no you're not. Do you hold the gasoline and lighter dudes responsible for arson? If someone hits you with their car, do you sue Honda?
The fact the same question keeps coming up over and over in different situations makes me think assholes are just trying and trying until they finally get a judgement they want and then they can cite that for eternity and just fuck everyone over.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 09 2014,18:36
It's attributing responsibility to inanimate objects or processes so that the people themselves don't bear it as they should. The cowardice is astonishing. Then there's the hubris that you're in the right to punish everyone along the chain of events. How about going after the camera makers? How about going after Tim Berners-Lee? How about the ISP? How about the name service that handed out the website's DNS address?
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 09 2014,18:40
The power company that gave you power to run the PC with which you committed the crime.I mean, just fuck these people so hard.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 10 2014,07:57
(GORDON @ Jul. 09 2014,20:40)
QUOTE
The power company that gave you power to run the PC with which you committed the crime.
I mean, just fuck these people so hard.
I mean, just fuck these people so hard.
What about those bastards who discovered fire to turn water into steam and make those turbines spin? Fuck fire.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 13 2014,21:48
(GORDON @ Jul. 09 2014,20:22)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Jul. 09 2014,21:17)
QUOTE
QUOTE
It's almost a philosophical question: if you create a product used to commit a crime, are you as guilty as the criminal who wields it?
No it's not, and no you're not. Do you hold the gasoline and lighter dudes responsible for arson? If someone hits you with their car, do you sue Honda?
The fact the same question keeps coming up over and over in different situations makes me think assholes are just trying and trying until they finally get a judgement they want and then they can cite that for eternity and just fuck everyone over.
< Hmm >.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 21 2014,11:30
Ha, and a woman is the first one convicted for posting revenge porn (first in Virginia?):< http://www.aol.com/article....0981337 >
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 21 2014,11:51
QUOTE
The act was considered a crime because of the harm caused when others saw it, according to the station.
Fucking wow. That's the justification?
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 21 2014,11:54
I swear to jeebus, if I can only teach my son one thing about life, it will be to NEVER write down stupid teenage love/angst stuff, especially on the internet. He WILL regret it.QUOTE
Craig posted to Facebook last month: "I wish you could fall outta [sic] love with someone as fast as u [sic] fell in love with them."
Posted by Vince on Oct. 21 2014,14:14
Or he could reform linkon park
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 21 2014,14:39
(Vince @ Oct. 21 2014,16:14)
QUOTE
Or he could reform linkon park
They have to split up first. God willing.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 21 2014,16:04
(Vince @ Oct. 21 2014,17:14)
QUOTE
Or he could reform linkon park
One should always make an exception if one will get rich doing it.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 21 2014,16:41
(GORDON @ Oct. 21 2014,18:04)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Oct. 21 2014,17:14)
QUOTE
Or he could reform linkon park
One should always make an exception if one will get rich doing it.
Said George Lucas.