'Making money off your mistakes:' Meet the creator of 'stalker porn' - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

DVTimes · 11-11-2011, 10:56 PM

also the bulk is non nude.

so what????

Barry-xlovecam · 11-11-2011, 11:01 PM

Good luck with a US Court's Judgment in a French Court — the rule of exequatur would very likely open re-litigation in the French Courts.

Copyright law is covered by the Berne Convention and is civil law (tort statutes). France is a signatory to the treaty.

But the the French EU Courts do not have any criminal statute like 18 USC §2257 so any US Court Judgment based on that criminal code that would not be honored — period. And that was the point of my comment and it is correct.

Quote:

Thus, the requirement of relitigating claims already tried in foreign countries was continued from the Ancien Regime to the Code Civil. The policy of the Ordinance of 1629 remained in force so that the principle of comity was established only in form, not in fact. Although the rule of exequatur became French law with the Code Civil, that rule was subject to the restriction that the merits leading to the foreign judgment had to be reviewed by a French court. 72 This paradoxical rule is referred to as the principle of revision au fond. 73 Under this rule, French law adopted a policy of full comity, by enforcing foreign judgments, and of no comity, by leaving every issue settled in a foreign trial open to relitigation. ...

lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu

gleem · 11-12-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

I'm not 100% sure about this. You are allowed to moderate some aspects of your website, even if it's user submitted. It's the same reason YouTube isn't liable for the content there even though they will remove it if they don't like it. Service provider status is a bit different in the fact that you can't actively moderate things but that has nothing to do with 2257.

Edit: Unless I'm missing something he just keeps a blog updated. Seems he'd be liable but wtf do I know.

Wrong, you can maintain 2257 exemption removing content after the fact via flags, complaints etc.. but when you are picking what to post, adding editorial content like he does with titles, nifty animated gif commentaries, then he's just full blown editing. My lawyer (Larry Walters / firstammendment.com) told me that would make you 2257 liable no matter where you hosted the content if you were in the US, and couldn't be defended in court.

CaptainHowdy · 11-12-2011, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVTimes

the site looks fake

i bet he has shot or bought the pics.

Never underestimate the stupidity of our youngsters ...

seeandsee · 11-12-2011, 08:57 AM

helterskelter808 · 11-12-2011, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoxxa

My posts were words of warning and advice out of experience.

You are a delusional fantasist playing at having a clue. I've asked you over and over to back up your claim that US law would be used in a French court and you have failed to do so, despite your fictitious "experience" of it, because even the idea of such a thing is absurd.

Quote:

It does not matter to me one way or the other

How many times are you going to post paragraphs about how this doesn't matter to you?

Quote:

You are basing your complete theory and "facts" off situations that have not yet been brought up in France.

Nobody can be as totally fucking stupid as you are acting. It has never happened because it's not possible for a US law to be applied in a French court for reasons that are completely obvious.

Please tell me you're trolling because otherwise you have to be one of the stupidest motherfuckers I have ever seen online.

Quote:

You are so ignorant to the laws and how they work internationally, that you actually believe France has some type of special scumbag protecting laws that would not be upheld if they were reasonable from a US court.

That sentence doesn't even make sense. Here is the point again, since you're having trouble concentrating: I said US laws do not apply in France, which I assumed was self-evident to everyone. You, however, claim otherwise. Instead of rambling on about fuck knows what yet again, just back up your claim, with a shred of evidence, that a US law could be applied in a French court. Or get your imaginary $50k lawyer to do it instead.

Quote:

You are a moron, and your only skill as a human being displayed today is that you are amazing at wasting people's time and trying to get others to prove your unproven facts for you.

US law doesn't apply in France = unproven fact?

Come back when you're not high.

stocktrader23 · 11-12-2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gleem

Wrong, you can maintain 2257 exemption removing content after the fact via flags, complaints etc.. but when you are picking what to post, adding editorial content like he does with titles, nifty animated gif commentaries, then he's just full blown editing. My lawyer (Larry Walters / firstammendment.com) told me that would make you 2257 liable no matter where you hosted the content if you were in the US, and couldn't be defended in court.

As you can see I made an edit after my stupid ass clicked the link and saw what he was doing. I doubt an editorial on a video that was actually published by an end user would matter as much but like you said he's actively picking an image and posting about it. I agree with you and knew about the complaints etc, just didn't want to get too wordy. Silly people.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-12-2011, 01:07 PM

CFR Title 28 § 75.1 Definitions.

(c)(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(vi) Unless the activity or activities are described in section 2257(h)(2)(A), the dissemination of a depiction without having created it or altered its content.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which—

(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content,[1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and
This is at the root of the "editing of content."
1.) This only applies to US citizens
2.) This could in theory be applied to US property in rem e.g.; servers

Not legal advice offered in background discussion.

porno jew · 11-12-2011, 01:13 PM

will they go after him for 2257? very unlikely. will he be sued at some point? very likely.

NaughtyVisions · 11-12-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

will he be sued at some point? very likely.

Not necessarily. Most of what he posts are 18-24 year dumb college kids who don't have the money to sue. Eventually one of them will come from money, but will they care enough? Girls bitch to him about being up there all the time. It usually fades away in a few days.

Also, I don't think he gives a shit either way. He posted a middle aged woman. Tweets later that the Pennsylvania Cyber Crimes division called and wanted them to take her picture down. So in his tweet, he links to her pics again. Kind of a "fuck you" to the authorities.

porno jew · 11-12-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions

Not necessarily. Most of what he posts are 18-24 year dumb college kids who don't have the money to sue. Eventually one of them will come from money, but will they care enough? Girls bitch to him about being up there all the time. It usually fades away in a few days.

Also, I don't think he gives a shit either way. He posted a middle aged woman. Tweets later that the Pennsylvania Cyber Crimes division called and wanted them to take her picture down. So in his tweet, he links to her pics again. Kind of a "fuck you" to the authorities.

i'll bump this when he does.

Ayla_SquareTurtle · 11-12-2011, 01:50 PM

Somebody needs to shank this asshole.

epitome · 11-12-2011, 01:55 PM

Just because the site exists and he has a lawyer does not mean its legal.

He seems to want attention and may end up getting more than he wanted ...

Barry-xlovecam · 11-12-2011, 03:04 PM

Here is the kicker -- I think he is in violation of the EU Data Protection laws and he could be sued in France in a French Court under that statute by any person whose personal data is disseminated without explicit permission by that person.

So, in theory it is a matter of time ...

stocktrader23 · 11-12-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Just because the site exists and he has a lawyer does not mean its legal.

He seems to want attention and may end up getting more than he wanted ...

It always amazes me that people go on these sprees of pissing off people for notoriety so they can keep making their ridiculously HUGE sum of a few thousand per month.

I'm going to have to pull a 12clicks and say "Get a job".

NaughtyVisions · 11-12-2011, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porno jew

i'll bump this when he does.

This is always what happens when someone who has been posted threatens him and the site:

beks001 · 11-12-2011, 10:32 PM

never heard of the site....its prob not okay i would imagine...but...that aside hilarious and ballsy if you ask me to do that shit...geez

CaptainHowdy · 11-13-2011, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions

This is always what happens when someone who has been posted threatens him and the site:

Coward ...

DamianJ · 11-13-2011, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVTimes

so what????

Didn't you get into trouble stalking models in the past?

nudecanada · 11-13-2011, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

^ amacontent?

georgeyw · 11-13-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle

Somebody needs to shank this asshole.

This is a pretty likely scenario

shade001 · 11-13-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoxxa

I am done here.

Smartest thing you could have said, unless you just said nothing at all.

NaughtyVisions · 11-14-2011, 09:31 PM

He posted a cop tonight.......

Konda · 11-14-2011, 10:43 PM

He always verifies that the girls are over 18. If you submit a girl that is not 18 he will post YOUR facebook profile and personal details stating that you are a pedo.

People are afraid to sue him or do anything about it. The harder you try to get something down the more personal info he will post or threaten to post, so eventually everyone gives up.

porno jew · 11-14-2011, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konda

He always verifies that the girls are over 18. If you submit a girl that is not 18 he will post YOUR facebook profile and personal details stating that you are a pedo.

People are afraid to sue him or do anything about it. The harder you try to get something down the more personal info he will post or threaten to post, so eventually everyone gives up.

that's what the dude from the dirty thought. give it time, he will probably have a 11 million dollar judgement against him too. don't be stupid.

raymor · 11-15-2011, 12:11 AM

This thread brought up an interesting issue. Do courts sometimes consider foreign law, and should they do so? Supreme court justices have been arguing with each other about that question. I'm not sure what I think about the latter question.

Rightly or wrongly, US courts have long considered laws from European countries in deciding US cases, including Supreme Court cases deciding on fundamental issues involving the foundation of the republic, our Constitution. Justices Scalia and Breyer debated the appropriateness of this a few years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1352357/posts

Justice OConner explains that the US high court considers not only foreign law, but foreign public opinion:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21551

In another related national debate, the new PROTECT IP Act says while US courts have no jurisdiction over a .fr domain site, in very lspecific cases they can remove a .com registration. When a site contains basically nothing but violations of international copyright law, which this site may, a US court can take the site down if it's within the .com domain. Since apparently NONE of the material is licensed, a US court could, under the new law, kill the domain registration.

Some say PROTECT IP should be more limited than it is. Others say it's already specific enough to limit the new power given to complainants and the attorney general, through the courts. Personally I'll wait and see how the law is actually applied to make up my mind.

raymor · 11-15-2011, 12:20 AM

This thread brought up an interesting issue. Do courts sometimes consider foreign law, and should they do so? Supreme court justices have been arguing with each other about that question. I'm not sure what I think about the latter question.

Rightly or wrongly, US courts have long considered laws from European countries in deciding US cases, including Supreme Court cases deciding on fundamental issues involving the foundation of the republic, our Constitution. Justices Scalia and Breyer debated the appropriateness of this a few years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1352357/posts

Justice OConner explains that the US high court considers not only foreign law, but foreign public opinion:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21551

In another related national debate, the new PROTECT IP Act says while US courts have no jurisdiction over a .fr domain, in very specific circumstamces they can remove a .com registration, even if the registrant isn't in the US. (Technically .com is a US chartered TLD, originally operated by the US department of defense.) When a site contains basically nothing but violations of international copyright law, which this site may, a US court can take the site down if it's within the .com domain. Since apparently NONE of the material is licensed, a US court could, under the new law, kill the domain registration.

Some say PROTECT IP should be more limited than it is. Others say it's already specific enough to limit the new power given to complainants and the attorney general, through the courts. Personally I'll wait and see how the law is actually applied to make up my mind.

JohnRingo · 11-17-2011, 12:17 AM

just spent some time checking out the site... what a total waste of time...

won't make a cent either... fucking college kids on that site will never pay for porn

dev777 · 11-26-2011, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gleem

Wrong, you can maintain 2257 exemption removing content after the fact via flags, complaints etc.. but when you are picking what to post, adding editorial content like he does with titles, nifty animated gif commentaries, then he's just full blown editing. My lawyer (Larry Walters / firstammendment.com) told me that would make you 2257 liable no matter where you hosted the content if you were in the US, and couldn't be defended in court.

This ^

Not only is it common sense, but I consulted with the same lawyer + another. Same verdict.

dev777 · 11-26-2011, 06:11 AM

Also, moving the server over to France and swapping out the whois info with that of a French resident is liken to setting up a shell corp.

It can be a decent deterrent against litigation and prosecution... but that kinda goes out the window when you go on national television and make it clear you're a US citizen.

gleem · 11-26-2011, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev777

but that kinda goes out the window when you go on national television and make it clear you're a US citizen.

exactly, total fucking moron. At the same time just like all the other illegal GF sites I see he's getting away with it, and no one seems to be enforcing the laws anymore, makes me sad.

11-11-2011, 10:56 PM	#51
DVTimes xxx Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: UK Posts: 31,544	also the bulk is non nude. so what???? __________________ The Affiliate Program

11-12-2011, 08:57 AM	#55
seeandsee Check SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe (Skype: gojkoas) Posts: 50,945	__________________ BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year Contact here

11-12-2011, 01:07 PM	#58
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	CFR Title 28 § 75.1 Definitions. (c)(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following: (vi) Unless the activity or activities are described in section 2257(h)(2)(A), the dissemination of a depiction without having created it or altered its content. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257 § 2257. Record keeping requirements (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which— (iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content,[1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and This is at the root of the "editing of content." 1.) This only applies to US citizens 2.) This could in theory be applied to US property in rem e.g.; servers Not legal advice offered in background discussion. Last edited by Barry-xlovecam; 11-12-2011 at 01:09 PM..

11-12-2011, 01:50 PM	#62
Ayla_SquareTurtle Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: 5000 full paysite reviews and counting Posts: 3,550	Somebody needs to shank this asshole. __________________ gone. long gone. aylasquareturtle .."a"t".. gmail dawt com

11-12-2011, 03:04 PM	#64
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Here is the kicker -- I think he is in violation of the EU Data Protection laws and he could be sued in France in a French Court under that statute by any person whose personal data is disseminated without explicit permission by that person. So, in theory it is a matter of time ...

11-12-2011, 01:13 PM	#59
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	will they go after him for 2257? very unlikely. will he be sued at some point? very likely.

11-12-2011, 01:55 PM	#63
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	Just because the site exists and he has a lawyer does not mean its legal. He seems to want attention and may end up getting more than he wanted ...

11-12-2011, 10:32 PM	#67
beks001 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,837	never heard of the site....its prob not okay i would imagine...but...that aside hilarious and ballsy if you ask me to do that shit...geez __________________ [B]341 people reviewed this!?!?! Blogging Thread! Teen Cams Gay Webcam Best Free File Storage

11-14-2011, 09:31 PM	#73
NaughtyVisions Confirmed User Join Date: May 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 4,204	He posted a cop tonight....... __________________ Online strip gaming with sexy gamer girls Best thing I ever signed up for: Quality Razors, Cheap Price

11-14-2011, 10:43 PM	#74
Konda ... Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,280	He always verifies that the girls are over 18. If you submit a girl that is not 18 he will post YOUR facebook profile and personal details stating that you are a pedo. People are afraid to sue him or do anything about it. The harder you try to get something down the more personal info he will post or threaten to post, so eventually everyone gives up.

11-15-2011, 12:11 AM	#76
raymor Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,745	This thread brought up an interesting issue. Do courts sometimes consider foreign law, and should they do so? Supreme court justices have been arguing with each other about that question. I'm not sure what I think about the latter question. Rightly or wrongly, US courts have long considered laws from European countries in deciding US cases, including Supreme Court cases deciding on fundamental issues involving the foundation of the republic, our Constitution. Justices Scalia and Breyer debated the appropriateness of this a few years ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1352357/posts Justice OConner explains that the US high court considers not only foreign law, but foreign public opinion: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21551 In another related national debate, the new PROTECT IP Act says while US courts have no jurisdiction over a .fr domain site, in very lspecific cases they can remove a .com registration. When a site contains basically nothing but violations of international copyright law, which this site may, a US court can take the site down if it's within the .com domain. Since apparently NONE of the material is licensed, a US court could, under the new law, kill the domain registration. Some say PROTECT IP should be more limited than it is. Others say it's already specific enough to limit the new power given to complainants and the attorney general, through the courts. Personally I'll wait and see how the law is actually applied to make up my mind. Last edited by raymor; 11-15-2011 at 12:16 AM..

11-15-2011, 12:20 AM	#77
raymor Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,745	This thread brought up an interesting issue. Do courts sometimes consider foreign law, and should they do so? Supreme court justices have been arguing with each other about that question. I'm not sure what I think about the latter question. Rightly or wrongly, US courts have long considered laws from European countries in deciding US cases, including Supreme Court cases deciding on fundamental issues involving the foundation of the republic, our Constitution. Justices Scalia and Breyer debated the appropriateness of this a few years ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1352357/posts Justice OConner explains that the US high court considers not only foreign law, but foreign public opinion: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21551 In another related national debate, the new PROTECT IP Act says while US courts have no jurisdiction over a .fr domain, in very specific circumstamces they can remove a .com registration, even if the registrant isn't in the US. (Technically .com is a US chartered TLD, originally operated by the US department of defense.) When a site contains basically nothing but violations of international copyright law, which this site may, a US court can take the site down if it's within the .com domain. Since apparently NONE of the material is licensed, a US court could, under the new law, kill the domain registration. Some say PROTECT IP should be more limited than it is. Others say it's already specific enough to limit the new power given to complainants and the attorney general, through the courts. Personally I'll wait and see how the law is actually applied to make up my mind. Last edited by raymor; 11-15-2011 at 12:21 AM..

11-17-2011, 12:17 AM	#78
JohnRingo So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 673	just spent some time checking out the site... what a total waste of time... won't make a cent either... fucking college kids on that site will never pay for porn

11-26-2011, 06:11 AM	#80
dev777 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 366	Also, moving the server over to France and swapping out the whois info with that of a French resident is liken to setting up a shell corp. It can be a decent deterrent against litigation and prosecution... but that kinda goes out the window when you go on national television and make it clear you're a US citizen.