Fiddy confusing scenarios... :(

look at your keyboard and the "U" is 2 letters away from the "O" she used. But yeah call her stupid for that when all of her other words are correct. I love a teen that doesn't write in slang.

I'm still not 100% sure what it is whats happened? Perhaps someone could fill me in?

I've gathered so far that this girl was booked to do X,Y,Z sex acts, on camera with a guy wearing a mask. Let's say she was due to get an agreed $1000 for X Y & Z. Scene is over, guy is still horny, turns off cameras, removes masks and asks the girl to do extra stuff, for his own enjoyment, without the mask and he offers to pay her extra money to do it?

Girl doesn't want to do anything off camera and complains? That's the problem?

But then I hear the cell phone recording, where dude is patronisingly telling her that exchange money for sex is illegal, and that its 'part of the shoot' - Then theres talk of kill fees...

So am I correct in thinking that despite performing the x,y,z on camera (with him in mask as agreed) ie The Scene that she is owed $1000 for, dude is saying that unless you perform extra off camera (non mask) stuff then I will call the shoot a failure and just give you say $300 as a kill fee instead of the agreed $1000 for the stuff that's already 'in the can' and filmed?

Like I say, I don't fully understand it - I do however think the mask is fucking stupid. If you are gonna do porn, do porn. Don't hide behind a fucking mask, cause you think you are 'better' than everyone else, and your 'anonymity' allows you to take the fucking piss. :2 cents:

PLUS - Why turn the cameras off if not for a sketchy reason? If you just wanna get your jollies, but don't want it released online etc, then just don't upload it? Keep it for your own private spank bank collection on a hard drive somewhere. Turning the cameras off implies that there's something gonna happen that you DON'T want ANY record of.

Like I say, Im genuinely confused. I mean the concept of paid 'extras' has been around since porn began... My wife used to get asked all the time... No big deal - Just say no or earn some extra cash... Why is the girl so shocked by it?

The part you are missing is she still had 2 more scenes to film and she said she wasn't doing any more work when she found out that he wasn't recording the peeing on him scene. So the kill fee came into play but the agent was able to get her $300 over the $200 kill fee.

That part where he kept asking her to swallow his pee 4 or 5 times was so cringe :helpme

Got yah :thumbsup I thought they had finished.

Like I said, I just found it genuinely confusing

i didnt call anybody stupid. why you reading into it? i already got a wife guessing what i am thinking all the time :1orglaugh

and there's no space in that word.

everybody should stay in school :winkwink:

#

:uhoh :uhoh

That makes me want to throw up. He absolutely violated her, she should have had someone come and beat the shit out of him immediately, while she was there.

PornDude should file a police report. I'm sure he's contracted for a specific thing, you know legal and binding. If he misrepresented I'm sure there's a case for the business and victim.

Let’s spin this for arguments sake. What if he wanted to he poo’d on, CS? What then? Lol

Then why not just make it the main feature of the shoot? Forget all the pointless boring sex nonsense, and shoot a real turn on video, and not wear a stupid mask?

But if the girl began 'indulging him' BEFORE the agreed shoot had been completed, then more fool her.

From what I understand there's faults on both sides tbh, and again, being honest, having the entire thing play out over twitter doesn't help me understand it at all. I've never been a twitter user, and trying to follow one short tweet to another, when there's other stuff unconnected and replies in the form of screenshots etc, I lose the track of things.

I'd much prefer she had made a full post on a forum, that I could read from start to finish, and understand it, but hey - That's MY fault for not keeping up with twitter - Not her fault for simply using the tools that she understands... :2 cents:

But whatever was agreed / not agreed etc pails into nothing when the element of the cameras being switched off comes into play - At that point, something else could well be happening / about to happen. Thats the real point of my concern...

I was not talking about the crux of her point. I was strictly talking poo lol

Here is the statement:

https://porndudecasting.com/statement-6-20-2021.html

So was I !

The first line / paragraph of my reply :thumbsup

It’s a shitty situation lol

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

it should be easy:
- performer need to know beforehand in detail what is expected from them - and agree to it
- off camera shit has no place in a professional production
- no means no

But I also know there are plenty sketchy producer around who expect sexual favors for more work or even withhold payment until they get what they want.

How you you see yourself in a giant mascot head?

You should hand your production to someone like MaDalton, PD . . .

Let's say I am very camera shy.

And also don't do production for almost 4 years now ;)

https://i.imgflip.com/5dyg6z.jpg

this is what she says? :helpme

Uh oh that's not good at all.

Holy shit man. Your fucked if thats you

:1orglaugh

"Sammy is the only owner. He is pretending to be multiple people. It’s 1 guy running the company"

What she also said

We get unlawful counters (via Google) from some guy claiming to be in Belgium for the main site.

You realize that 2nd link isn't even law and was never passed or anything, right?

It's not him. That producer probably lied to get some ass. :1orglaugh

Producer was a dumb fuck, but this another case of model not knowing what the fuck they're talking about. :2 cents:

You know The Porn Dude?

I know for a fact that the owner doesn't live in the US and he's most certainly not named "Sammy", nor are they interested in being their own stunt cock. :thumbsup

It's the case law that's relevant. Sorry to confuse you :2 cents:

I wasn't confused. That's the text from someone lobbying for that amendment to be added speaking to the Judiciary Committee. In other words, it's very cherry picked by a lobbyist being paid to sway an opinion. The amendment never made it out of the Judiciary Committee (https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-...2560+%28108%29)

If those cherry picked cases were relevant, then there's a lot of big, US based sites with very competent counsel who'd be operating very differently. :2 cents:

To be clear (in case anyone was wondering) I am NOT The Porn DUDE. I am The Porn NERD and therefore have nothing to do with this controversy.

However I will add my :2 cents::

Fucking some "dude" in a suit and giant head costume is bizarre, weird and disturbing to me. It looks like that strange cosplay/fuck some chicks do. You know, screwing a giant panda bear or whatever. How can anyone jack off to that distracting shit? If I was the girl doing the fucking I'd have to stop filming from laughing my ass off. Just sayin'. :helpme

Fixed..
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/464/417
"One who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement. See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)."

I agree. :1orglaugh

I respect the gimmick, though.

Awesome. I don't really care or have a dog in the fight - I was just pointing out that you simply linked to what amounts to nothing more than text from a lobbyist originally. You seem to be just wanting to poke at ThePornDude. Enjoy. :thumbsup

Fair enough :thumbsup

I'm just watching for more information to surface about people involved :2 cents:

Pika Poka (The Porn Dude) is an asshole but I don't think he is an unlawful asshole . . .

Interesting choice of words. Isn't that how this whole thing started? :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

This is golden...and not the thread subject. Thx for this.

I sorta believe this and was going to post that to her but I feel like she believes someone that lives in an apartment owns all this :1orglaugh

Guys, do you know every story has 2 sides?

We all tell the version that makes us look good, and it seems Aliya is no different.

And we kept the version told by our producer for ourselves (recorded), so she can send us a message how she won on social media.

Why would the producer Sammy claim he is the owner of PornDude? Now I am surprised.

Geoffrey even had (attempted to have) a WhatsApp call with Aliya on her request, after he was informed about Aliya's accusations on her Twitter account to get her full story, before having a meeting with Sammy.

Once on the call, Aliya started the conversation saying that she would be capturing the phone call to post on her Twitter account, which he gave permission for.

Aliya claimed Geoffrey to be Sammy, saying he had the worst accent she had ever heard and was using a voice transformer. She demanded that Geoffrey would show his face, but that was denied for obvious reasons.

Aliya continued to insult him, was unable to have a rational conversation, and gave no information about what had happened on set with Sammy.

Why doesn't she publish that call? Why doesn't she take legal actions against any party for whatever reason?

I mean he does say at 7:18 "this is my.. this is how we got started"
https://d1zupexvbp469x.cloudfront.net/Aliya.mp4

8:34 what do you think of my island and goes on to say that's my site in the next 3 sentences. I can see where he was misleding her.

I get there are 2 sides to the story but I really do think Sammy treated her like shit and misled her to think he owned the site just from what he said on this video. I don't deny she was most likely out of control on the call with the owner cause she is naive and really believes Sammy is the owner :1orglaugh

Because she's broke :winkwink: like all the others and lawyers need retaining fee's before anything :1orglaugh ?

Your producer already settled the case by paying the negotiated fees.

:2 cents:

It would take a legal scholar to decide if turning the camera off created a issue other than fees.

:warning

:error

Pro bono.


:2 cents:

I thought in this industry we are in some sort of way connected to each other and obviously help each other. And yet, this whole discussion is full of comments that really show that some people just do not respect the industry women or deserve to work with them in naked settings. The people on the sideline needed to rant and vent, well, here we are. Public to the world we show that we are not capable of acting like adults.

Thank those commentators for making us look incredibly stupid.

100 fucks with their camera off.



You typed that in as if this was a new thing.

:1orglaugh