Revenge Porn

[Leisher]

California law might be just the first.

[GORDON]

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.



Edited By GORDON on 1379818285

[TheCatt]

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.

[GORDON]

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.

[thibodeaux]

\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.

[TheCatt]

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.

Wholly disagree. There's implicit trust in a relationship. The guys are just showing they are douches.

[Malcolm]

Debate been done before.

[TheCatt]

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.



Edited By TheCatt on 1379864878

[Malcolm]

What would a woman be doing sending those to Gordon? Maybe a dude. Maybe Cake.

[GORDON]

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.

[Leisher]

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.

[TheCatt]

Interesting wrinkle... I think I agree with her. Especially since she would own the copyright as the photographer of the selfie.

[thibodeaux]

[Leisher]

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?

[thibodeaux]

I agree with the copyright law, but doesn't that only apply when someone is making profit?

Nope.

[TheCatt]

Yeah, copyright isn't just about profits,... remember file sharing? That's not about profit for the person infringing.

[Leisher]

Ah yes, file sharing.

What happens to copyright when the girl sends the material without explicit instructions regarding its dissemination?

[TheCatt]

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.

[Leisher]

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?

[Leisher]

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.