Victims of Revenge Porn Mount Class Action Suit Against GoDaddy and Texxxan.com
betabeat.com
betabeat.com
In Texas, they might have more standing against GoDaddy than Texxxan.
Adult websites however are bound by federal law (18 USC 2257) requiring signed releases by all "models". Websites like Texxxan.com are in obvious violation of this, and bordering on organized crime.
The problem is suing both may cause the entire thing to be dismissed. (IANAL)
For example, if this requirement were enforceable against user-posted content, online adult personals wouldn't be legal. A little quick Googling finds me the Stranger's adult personals disclaimer: http://thestranger.selectalternatives.com/gyrobase/adult. According to 18 USC section 2257, you aren't considered a producer if you are limited to things like photo or film processing, digitization, distribution, an ISP, etc. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257). Similarly, IANAL, but it seems that adult sites have a certain amount of protection for user-posted content similar to YouTube's copyright safe harbor.
As for Texxxan, if their business model was encouraging users to upload pictures of people in compromising positions without their consent and then charging for the takedown, it's just a shame the charges against them aren't criminal.
A valid DMCA take-down notice, may only be made by a rights holder.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/controlling-th...
There you go. Also as another commenter you need model release forms. You are the rights holder of any likenesses of yourself.
See also: Texas patent troll lawsuits
Once they started playing content cop, they lost that defense.
Amateur produced, "self shot" and "ex-girlfriend" are the fastest growing and most profitable niches of porn right now. Just like HN has a huge population that comes out to defend content piracy, you'll likely see the fans of this fetish out in full force to defend it.
And I have to agree with them on this -- exactly as much as I agree that the real people behind this are guilty and should be punished.
But at least we can see once again how well the Streisand effect works:
> TEXXXAN.COM has currently been placed into MEMBERS ONLY MAINTENANCE MODE due to scheduled maintenance and updates. Normally this would be unnecessary but unfortunately the extremely large amounts of traffic to TEXXXAN.COM has caused overloads when performing scheduled maintenance.
The suit makes sense but for godaddy. What is this war on the service providers lately.
It is up to the courts to decide what content is legal, not the corporation.
If the site is legal, there is no reason to take it down. If the appropriate institutions decide that it is illegal they should take it down the moment the court order arrive and not a nanosecond earlier.
I don't think that a world in which corporations are allowed to be gatekeepers on their own is a good one.
That is why we have court system and rule of law.
I'm not saying that you should be able to hold hosting providers liable for content they aren't aware of. I'm saying that hosting providers have a right to control the content that they host, and at the same time if they know about illegal content they have an obligation to address the problem.
My hunch is that the law firm behind the class action suit has added GoDaddy to potentially be able to reap more money from the case.
That said, I hope they find something to nail these guys for.
If it doesn't, the subject of videos and the extras in the background have the same standing. I don't know what standing that is. I'm just flailing my metaphorical arms hoping for a real lawyer to show up.
Last time I looked, the only apparent source of revenue for their entire network of sites was ads on cheaterville.com for various companies offering to remove your profile in return for thousands of dollars. Looking at the source code, the ads were inhouse and I couldn't find any information on how to place ads with them - so they've obviously come to some kind of private deal with the takedown extortion sites.
It's probably in their interests to get the porn extortion sites taken down too. They've managed to pick something profitable but not heinous enough to get negative media attention, and the porn extortionists are a potential threat to them.
Edit: Also, digitized nude pictures of yourself are basically always a bad idea.
We shouldn't be able to prosecute revenge porn on the annoyed ex's blog (as long as he's hosting it himself, I imagine porn would violate public blog sites TOSs)
But we should be able to go after for profit, privacy invading sites that allow anonymous uploading.
This reminds me, why did Google Maps remove the faces from their street view? Only public outrage? or was there a law behind?
That it would be inconvenient for big companies that host lots of photos doesn't really bother me any.
However, there are no laws involved (at least in the UK). The people involved are not the subject of the work nor do they have any reasonable expectation to privacy on the street. Windows were another issue and I do remember some outrage over it. Google said they were trying to blur it and people went "Okay" and then it died down.
If the pictures were not taken with consent, then it's a law enforcement issue. Voyeurism, hacking, etc. are already illegal.
It's a law-enforcement issue with the boyfriend. There's nothing in place to force a website to take these photos down is the problem. Perhaps there should be.
See: http://blog.internetcases.com/2012/05/21/social-media-legal-...
Specifically: http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/10/07/group-sex-photos-ca...
Disclaimer: this is not a legal opinion.
What crime? I can't think of one that would apply.
> Acting in concert with someone else to violate someone's rights makes you liable...
This might be where our opinions diverge. To what rights do you refer? I think your right to privacy may be waived when you consent to have the pictures taken and sent to a third party without a written contract.
This is common sense stuff.
Ms. Toups said she was “in a straight panic” for days after discovering the photos, and emailed the site’s owner to try to get them taken down. “They replied and said they would be happy to remove the pictures for me if I would enter my credit card information.”
Sounds like that sort of behaviour ought to be illegal to me...
It IS the story. This is their entire business model.
"their takedown request system needs to be fixed"
You are under the mistaken conclusion that these are legitimate businesses.
This is happening because such requests are ignored.
I agree, it's shitty and an asshole thing to do, but is it, and should it be, illegal? Don't share nude photos of yourself and they won't be shared with anybody else. Share them once and you must assume, like everything else online, that it's public. Assuming these are adults, does nudity matter? Should I be charged for posting pictures of that party the other night on facebook and not getting a release from each and every attendee?
Now people who are stealing private photos off of hard drives are another thing entirely and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And of course ISPs, registrars, and web hosts shouldn't be implicated in either scenario. The people who post pictures of people against their wishes are the issue here.
Flame away.
1. This is a vile and cruel "revenge" - I can easily see the term cyberrape resonating with some of the victims
2. Whilst there is talk of criminalising this behaviour the current action is civil and I suspect that is where it should stay.
3. DCMA is not effective here - the victims probably do not have copyright to the images, and presumably gave consent for the image to be taken. There is probably a lot of wriggle room here.
4. Suing go Daddy (as a hoster not a DNS provider) is pretty much par for the course - hosters regularly get hosed with DCMA takedown requests as well as sites that are obviously criminal, godaddy probably has a whole department for just this sort of thing. All UK hosters I know do. It is unlikely goDaddy will be held liable but if the site was criminal they would be obliged to suspend hosting - so it is reasonable to include them in the case.
5. horrible stuff - the most likely outcome is some form of damages is found to exist for these victims, that means the whole "industry" can be sued based on case law, one site at a time. As for GoDaddy - quite likely they will not be held liable. I would not want them to be obliged to take it down unless it is criminal behavoiour. I would however not want to host with them
OK, that said, here's something I know I am going to catch rounds for, but I think it has to be said:
I learned a long time ago that you should treat everything you do with the idea that a million people are going to see it. This includes "private" emails, boards, newsgroups, site comments and, yes, pictures you take and post. Before you take a picture take a second to answer this question: Would I mind if a million people saw this picture tomorrow? If the answer is "yes", don't take it and don't allow anyone to take it.
I really don't get the idea of young women taking compromising, nude, partially nude or provocative pictures of themselves. Or worst, allowing someone else to take these pictures. Do they really expect them to remain private forever?
The woman who is the subject of this article is, at least on first inspection, a victim of something very cruel. Someone needs to pay for that transgression. However, she holds significant responsibility for having allowed these pictures to be taken in the first place. Unless she was completely unaware of the pictures being taken, she, at some point, became an active participant --and the enabler-- in the sequence of events that led to this embarrassing situation.
I talk to my kids about these issues whenever they come up. The message is exactly as I stated above: If you don't think a million people should see your picture or read that angry or compromising email you wrote, don't take the picture and don't write the email. In this day and age being stupid can seriously affect the rest of your life and end careers. It's not something to take lightly.
At one point we have to assume responsibility for our actions.
These women are victims of something very cruel. Someone needs to pay for that transgression. However, they hold signifigant responsibility for having allowed to be raped. Unless she was completely unconcious, she, at some point, became an active participant -- and the enable -- in the sequence of events that led to her rape.
I talk to my kids about these issues whenever they come up. The message is exactly as I stated above: if you don't want to get raped, don't go out, stay at home, and wear clothes that cover your legs, shoulders, and forearms. In this day and age being stupid can seriously affect the rest of your life and end careers. It's not something to take lightly.
At one point we have to assume responsibility for our actions.
(seriously, how does victim blaming bullshit like this not get buried instantly)
POINTING OUT THAT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS AN IMPORTANT HABIT OR VIRTUE IS NOT, IN ANY IMAGINABLE WAY, AND EXPRESSION OF APPROVAL FOR SOMEONE BECOMING A VICTIM.
THE TWO ARE SEPARABLE.
In most parts of the world, if I walk into certain neighborhoods while wearing a sign that openly insults a large segment of the ethnic population in that neighborhood it is highly likely that I will suffer serious harm or even be killed. Such an attack on my person is and will always be a despicable crime.
However, I had a choice to make and it was my action that provoked the attack. And, while I would not, for even a second, excuse or justify the attack on my person, in retrospect an intelligent person can only conclude that the decision was the catalyst and it was an absolutely moronic decision at that.
Now, you and other can go on believing that you are free to act as you wish, do and say as you want and that there should be no consequences to your actions. And that's fine. Go ahead and do it. Let's see how long you last. What I am talking about here isn't some kind of a higher moral ground. This is about the real world. Reality. And reality works like this: You do something stupid and you pay the consequences. Plain, simple, cruel and very fucking real.
The new way of thinking seems to be that you ought to be able to be a complete moron and not suffer any consequences for your actions. Nice thought. Not reality.
AGAIN: NONE OF THIS IS TO SAY THAT A CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST SOMEONE MAKING A DUMB MOVE IS EXCUSABLE. IT IS NOT. BUT IT IS OK TO LOOK AT THAT PERSON AND SAY: "YOU MORON. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT WOULD HAPPEN?"
Yes, I am yelling at you. Snap out of it. Reality, in most parts of the world, is as I have painted it.
So if you have a little girl: Would you tell your little girl to go ahead and allow nude pictures of herself to be taken? And then, would you say: "Don't worry, they are not going to be published all over the internet no matter what".
Right
So what's the point of making these observations? At best you may get a few head nods, but at worst you come across sounding a lot like the guy who says "I know she got raped, but hey, she was wearing a short skirt...".
And nowhere did I bring-up horrible crimes such as rape. Other's made that up. Not me.
I focused on this issue of young one's taking compromising videos or photos of themselves and then crying foul when, through twists and turns, they end-up posted online to cause them grief. Let's not go one millimeter past that. I did not say anything whatsoever that has anything to do with rape or any other crime.
That's it.
Every situation is different. I know nothing about the details of the case. For all I know the boyfriend took pictures while she was sleeping. How could she be blamed for that? If that were the case though, he would have to be charged criminally as well.
I think what I said was that one has to assume that anything you say or do today might be seen by a million people. So long as you are comfortable with that outcome, then, by all means, do as you please. If you are not, then don't.
With regards to this serving no purpose. Well, if only one kid reads this and thinks twice before posting a dumb picture on Facebook or something of that nature the outcome is good.
That's the way you're going with it? It was their own damn fault? They were asking for it? They got drunk (yes it was stupid), had a one night stand (yes, stupid when drunk), so they totally had rape and humiliation coming to them (non-sequitur).
> if you don't want to get raped, don't go out, stay at home, and wear clothes that cover your legs, shoulders, and forearms
Oggie boggie, fear everyone.
Hate to break it to you dumbass, but dressing provocatively doesn't have anything to do with it. You can be raped on the street in your business casual cloths. You can be raped at home without going out. You can be raped stopping for gas.
Women aren't asking for it, they don't do anything that allows it, they shouldn't ever expect it.
> (seriously, how does victim blaming bullshit like this not get buried instantly)
I don't know, why hasn't your post been relegated to oblivion.