GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - 'Making money off your mistakes:' Meet the creator of 'stalker porn'

Page 2 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - 'Making money off your mistakes:' Meet the creator of 'stalker porn' (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1045444)

Zoxxa

11-11-2011 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808 (Post 18554391)

And you can babble all you like without backing any of your clueless shit up, but who do you think you're convincing? Yourself? Back that statement up with some evidence. Show me a single case where the CDA has been applied to a server in France.

Edit: Nevermind. Just read the rest of your post and saw your angry, sweary flounce. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I don't give a fuck about CDA. My response never had anything to do with your CDA BS. I replied to your post "What makes you think US laws apply in France then?". Hence my remark about you dip shits being one dimensional.

On the flip side, show me an example of where a judge denied the CDA. Has this ever been brought up in a French court? Honestly, I have no idea. My argument was regarding to applying certain US laws or judgements against a France citizen. Actually, not even that, the original thought was that the owner is American but hosts his site in France. There is no protection AT ALL for him. U.S. law can and would be applied against him in the US., France would have no jurisdiction or value in the case at all.

Since you have challenged me on actual facts and evidence, please feel free to stop being a hypocritical asshole anytime now.

NaughtyVisions

11-11-2011 10:16 PM

You know what's funny? You guys are having this big argument, and Hunter Moore doesn't give a shit about any of it. :2 cents:

Zoxxa

11-11-2011 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions (Post 18554439)

You know what's funny? You guys are having this big argument, and Hunter Moore doesn't give a shit about any of it. :2 cents:

Either do I anymore. I will gladly state right now that helterskelter808 is 100% correct and I retract everything I said, because it's my daughter's 2nd birthday tomorrow, its late right now here, and I need to go to bed because I don't give a fuck about this thread. lol

It's been fun while I sip some beer. Later.

JohnRingo

11-11-2011 10:26 PM

for those of you who think that the US can't do whatever the fuck they want even if you or your site are out of the country

http://www.trending-news.org/wp-cont...0x220poker.jpg

helterskelter808

11-11-2011 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoxxa (Post 18554423)

I don't give a fuck about CDA. My response never had anything to do with your CDA BS. I replied to your post "What makes you think US laws apply in France then?".

Okay, give me one example of any US law being applied to a web server located in France. Any at all. That should keep you occupied on Google for a while.

Quote:

On the flip side, show me an example of where a judge denied the CDA. Has this ever been brought up in a French court? Honestly, I have no idea.

Finally you got something right: you have no fucking idea whatsoever.

Why would an American law be brought up in a French court you unbelievably dumb shit?

DWB	11-11-2011 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoxxa (Post 18554233)

You are not understanding. He is serving content to Americans. If he does not want to comply with 2257, he needs to block American surfers from accessing his website. This applies to ALL countries and their laws, but most will not come after you. The United States think they are the internet police, they will make you pay if you do not comply with their laws ( If you are big enough ).

Here is an example. Let's pretend cocaine is 100% legal in France, you are American, but your corporation and shops are setup in France. In the United States cocaine is very illegal. Do you think you would be legally liable if you opened a shop and started allowing Americans to purchase your Cocaine in the United States? Of course you would be liable.

Cocaine is illegal in America, so you would not sell it to them.

Here is a second example. Let's pretend these girl's having their pics stolen are not people, but big businesses. Let's say you are stealing photos from the new york times and distributing them for free on your website that is much bigger than the new york times. You think you would be legally liable? If you did not remove the content, you would be fucked in court and owe more money than you can afford.

It's all fine and great stealing content, until you steal from the wrong girl who's father has millions in the bank waiting to sue the fuck out of you

These threads are funny.

My Source: Paying over $50,000 to lawyers for internet law.

All of that depends on a big fat IF anything ever comes of it. Unless someone tries to make real problems for the guy and has the loot to do so, nothing will happen. But you are right, all it takes is one person. That said, all it always takes is one person and that hasn't stopped anyone yet.

Regardless of what the law is or is not, I'll bet he gets away with it. Most people do. That's why they do it, odds are in their favor.

DWB	11-11-2011 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnRingo (Post 18554458)

for those of you who think that the US can't do whatever the fuck they want even if you or your site are out of the country

http://www.trending-news.org/wp-cont...0x220poker.jpg

Because at the end of the day, and for a limited time only, the USA owns the internet and most of the world.

However, they are usually more interested into seizing sites selling Gucci knock-offs than they are submitted porn sites where idiots foolishly take nudes of themselves and it somehow ends up online.

Zoxxa

11-11-2011 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808 (Post 18554460)

Okay, give me one example of any US law being applied to a web server located in France. Any at all. That should keep you occupied on Google for a while.

Finally you got something right: you have no fucking idea whatsoever.

Why would an American law be brought up in a French court you unbelievably dumb shit?

You are losing. Each post of yours contains less context than the next.

My posts were words of warning and advice out of experience. It does not matter to me one way or the other if ANYONE believes what I have to say. You are basing your complete theory and "facts" off situations that have not yet been brought up in France. 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. 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.

It's been fun.
Good night.

Frosty

11-11-2011 10:43 PM

The only bad thing about the site is that they provide all info about the person, which pretty much sucks, as having naked pictures of yourself on the Internet is taboo for most (default) people. Especially older people, who might use the Internet just to "Google out" their daughter/son, and find Isanyoneup results.. It would be cool, if those same people knew their pictures would be published there, with their personal info as well. But doing it like this, is just lame...

DVTimes

11-11-2011 10:55 PM

the site looks fake

i bet he has shot or bought the pics.

DVTimes

11-11-2011 10:56 PM

also the bulk is non nude.

http://cache.isanyoneup.com/wp-conte...11/london8.jpg

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 (Post 18553957)

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 (Post 18554499)

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

http://cache.isanyoneup.com/wp-conte...11/11/rye6.gif

helterskelter808

11-12-2011 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoxxa (Post 18554477)

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? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Come back when you're not high.

stocktrader23

11-12-2011 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gleem (Post 18555012)

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 (Post 18555427)

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 (Post 18555445)

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 (Post 18555489)

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. :1orglaugh

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 (Post 18555447)

i'll bump this when he does.

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

http://cache.isanyoneup.com/wp-conte...1/11/done1.jpg

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 (Post 18556020)

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

http://cache.isanyoneup.com/wp-conte...1/11/done1.jpg

Coward ...

DamianJ

11-13-2011 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVTimes (Post 18554501)

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 (Post 18553662)

http://cache.isanyoneup.com/wp-conte...1/11/adny3.jpg

^ amacontent? :helpme

georgeyw

11-13-2011 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle (Post 18555479)

Somebody needs to shank this asshole.

This is a pretty likely scenario :2 cents:

shade001

11-13-2011 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoxxa (Post 18554387)

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 (Post 18560022)

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 (Post 18555012)

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.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:34 PM.

Page 2 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page