Virginia Candidate does Internet Porn, Upset People Found it.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
Someone found it on Recurbate, which to my understanding she did not upload it to, as they had been livestreaming on Chaturbate. Someone else recorded it and uploaded it to Recurbate, which is a paid service (which she presumably did not consent to). If they can show that someone was publicizing it with the intent to harass her politically, presumably that would be the person who gets charged. Possibly the person who provided the screenshots to the Associated Press? Maybe the person who uploaded it to Recurbate? They showed up on Recurbate a month after she announced her candidacy.

Apparently it's a thing...

Yes, this is how internet porn works, once it has been released to the internet, it will be there forever. It's one thing for a 15 year-old to not know that when they are sending pics on snap chat, but 40 year-old adults should understand this. This is a copyright issue, not a revenge porn issue. Although I wouldn't be surprised if buried deep in the chaturbate TOS it says that your live streams can be recorded and shared on other sites.

Did they, though? I'm not so sure that's the case.

The website they posted it on is a public website that requires no log in to view the content. So yes, they consented to release their porn to the public.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
60,244
15,190
136
Do you have no idea how internet porn works? Live streams are archived and shared all over the internet. The republican operative just pointed the media to a public website with publicly available content on it.
They just sent screenshots to the media, with the intent to harass the candidate... hm, that sounds like it might fit the criteria for revenge porn per the VA law?

"Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
Your argument that it's already on "a public website with publicly available content" (which she presumably did not consent to have her content hosted on) wouldn't seem to be a realistic defense. Whoever sent it to the AP knows they weren't licensed or authorized to disseminate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
They just sent screenshots to the media, with the intent to harass the candidate... hm, that sounds like it might fit the criteria for revenge porn per the VA law?

"Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
Your argument that it's already on "a public website with publicly available content" (which she presumably did not consent to have her content hosted on) wouldn't seem to be a realistic defense. Whoever sent it to the AP knows they weren't licensed or authorized to disseminate it.
By your definition, if I send you any naked picture from a porno mag or website, it would be revenge porn, because the actress didn't give me specific permission to send it to you. I personally think once the subject has personally authorized the public release the cat is out of the bag and the assumption is you can further disseminate under fair use laws.

To me, the law as written might cover what you are saying it does, but no court with enforce it that way and if they did it would almost definitely be overturned. In the mean time, don't ever share publicly available porn links/pics with anyone.

Also, the screenshots were of videos already in the public sphere. If this was the only chaturbate video ever reposted online and it was don't by a GOP operative, maybe you'd have a point. But this is one of millions of streaming videos archived on the internet and right now there is no evidence it was posted by anyone with political motives.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
60,244
15,190
136
By your definition, if I send you any naked picture from a porno mag or website, it would be revenge porn, because the actress didn't give me specific permission to send it to you. I personally think once the subject has personally authorized the public release the cat is out of the bag and the assumption is you can further disseminate under fair use laws.
Why are you ignoring intent? Intent is an important component of the revenge porn law.
To me, the law as written might cover what you are saying it does, but no court with enforce it that way and if they did it would almost definitely be overturned. In the mean time, don't ever share publicly available porn links/pics with anyone.

Also, the screenshots were of videos already in the public sphere. If this was the only chaturbate video ever reposted online and it was don't by a GOP operative, maybe you'd have a point. But this is one of millions of streaming videos archived on the internet and right now there is no evidence it was posted by anyone with political motives.
The person who provided the screenshots to the AP almost certainly had political motives. I find your standards ridiculously permissive. Consent was only given to those who were there for the initial livestream. The unauthorized duplication of this content on a paid website (is it public if you have to pay for access?) doesn't negate that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

eelw

Lifer
Dec 4, 1999
10,058
5,160
136
Stop repeating it was already online. It's being reposted with her name in the tags to be easily found
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,671
17,176
136
I feel a simple summary for this would be “If you don’t want naked photos of you floating around the internet best practice would be to not load naked photos of yourself on the internet. Particularly to a porn site.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
37,490
29,972
136
Did she use her real name when doing porn online? Seems fake credentials would have prevented this. That way if someone recognized her she could just deny it.

Again, not well thought out.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
Why are you ignoring intent? Intent is an important component of the revenge porn law.

The person who provided the screenshots to the AP almost certainly had political motives. I find your standards ridiculously permissive. Consent was only given to those who were there for the initial livestream. The unauthorized duplication of this content on a paid website (is it public if you have to pay for access?) doesn't negate that.
Chaturbate does not require you to pay or have an account to watch. I did my own research there last night.

The law requires you to disseminate, but it was already disseminated. Someone found it and pointed it to someone else. How is this different than if some celebrity did porn before she was famous, and someone found it on a public website after she was famous?

I agree the intent of whoever sent it to the media was wrong, however, it had already been disseminated by the original parties. Also the media is who ran with it, and notified the world, so should they all be charged too?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
Stop repeating it was already online. It's being reposted with her name in the tags to be easily found
Is that illegal? Facebook automatically adds my name to posts I don't want it on.

ETA: I agree it's shitty, but not illegal.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
60,244
15,190
136
Chaturbate does not require you to pay or have an account to watch. I did my own research there last night.

The law requires you to disseminate, but it was already disseminated. Someone found it and pointed it to someone else. How is this different than if some celebrity did porn before she was famous, and someone found it on a public website after she was famous?

I agree the intent of whoever sent it to the media was wrong, however, it had already been disseminated by the original parties. Also the media is who ran with it, and notified the world, so should they all be charged too?
It didn't resurface until it was on Recurbate, which is my understanding is where the screenshots came from. Again, they only consented for the initial livestream, not for Recurbate, which apparently has a 1 free video per day limit. The media isn't recirculating the nude images, are they?

You have such a weird take on this, based on my understanding of your take: anything you livestream (via a public site) once on the internet becomes public domain and available for fair use.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
It didn't resurface until it was on Recurbate, which is my understanding is where the screenshots came from. Again, they only consented for the initial livestream, not for Recurbate, which apparently has a 1 free video per day limit. The media isn't recirculating the nude images, are they?

You have such a weird take on this, based on my understanding of your take: anything you livestream (via a public site) once on the internet becomes public domain and available for fair use.
My take is once porn is on the Internet it's there for life. This is kinda how the Internet has always worked. I also feel that if you fuck in public you loss your right to keeping it private.

It is further my take that the only protection here is copyright.

If you don't want porn of yourself online don't fucking post it online. If you don't want to be identified in the porn you post online, make at least some attempt to disguise your identity. Anyone that thinks a live stream on a public website, being viewed by thousands, just disappears when it's over is a moron.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
This is from that Chaturbate TOS:

Warning Regarding Streaming Content. The Platform providesfunctionality allowing Community Members to stream/broadcast using their webcams. It is possible thatother Community Members might, without your permission, unlawfully record, make copies of, store,re-broadcast, distribute, publish or otherwise share your broadcast online or through other media forms.You assume all risk for your broadcasts and hereby release and agree to indemnify and hold us harmlessus for all actions arising out of such activities, including without limitation invasion of privacy,defamation, and/or intellectual property infringement. As noted in our Privacy Policy, all informationand content you determine to share or stream through the Platform, including in "private" and/orpassword protected situations, is considered public information.

There are other statements about other members accessing anything you post in the future. They were told it was public and they posted anyways.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
60,244
15,190
136
This is from that Chaturbate TOS:



There are other statements about other members accessing anything you post in the future. They were told it was public and they posted anyways.
And yet, that's still irrelevant for the purposes of the revenge porn law.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
Further they granted full rights for their content to be reproduced.

Content Submitted to the Platform. All materials submitted and/orstreamed by Community Members through the Platform, including Member Content, and created by suchCommunity Member ("Community Member Content") is andshall remain the property of the Community Member or Independent Broadcaster who created it. CommunityMember Content shall also include any chats, or other materials that are transmitted through thePlatform when you use the Platform. When you broadcast or upload Community Member Content to thePlatform, you hereby grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferablelicense to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, and perform the Community MemberContent in connection with delivering the Platform and for marketing and advertising the availability ofthe Platform in any media format we choose.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
And yet, that's still irrelevant for the purposes of the revenge porn law.
So if I send you a picture from a porno mag of a politician, is that revenge porn?

They knowingly created public porn, they further granted a lifetime license for it to be reproduced. It can't be illegal for someone to notice and tell others. Tell others about public content is free speech, not revenge porn.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
60,244
15,190
136
Well, that's great and all, but...

"Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
60,244
15,190
136
So if I send you a picture from a porno mag of a politician, is that revenge porn?
I probably need more context to be able to answer that.
They knowingly created public porn, they further granted a lifetime license for it to be reproduced. It can't be illegal for someone to notice and tell others. Tell others about public content is free speech, not revenge porn.
That license is specific to Chaturbate, I would presume.
I didn't write the revenge porn law, I just read it.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
Well, that's great and all, but...

"Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
It's in the public, it was not disseminated by the GOP operative. I think most people assume they do have a license to share content from publicly available sites.

Further, freedom of speech trumps that law. I have the right to notify others of publicly available content. I have the right to share a screenshot of a video (BTW, the screenshots don't show those things).
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
60,244
15,190
136
It's in the public, it was not disseminated by the GOP operative. I think most people assume they do have a license to share content from publicly available sites.

Further, freedom of speech trumps that law. I have the right to notify others of publicly available content. I have the right to share a screenshot of a video (BTW, the screenshots don't show those things).
Well, I guess we're done here, you're not going to convince me you're right, and vice versa.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
I probably need more context to be able to answer that.

That license is specific to Chaturbate, I would presume.
I didn't write the revenge porn law, I just read it.
You're moving the goalposts, you were saying they only authorized a stream, but reproduction. They did however clearly authorize reproduction.

If you think there is any context my sharing a picture from a legal porno mag is illegal, this is really a pointless conversation we'll never agree.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
60,244
15,190
136
You're moving the goalposts, you were saying they only authorized a stream, but reproduction. They did however clearly authorize reproduction.

If you think there is any context my sharing a picture from a legal porno mag is illegal, this is really a pointless conversation we'll never agree.
I didn't move any goalposts, I'm not nearly invested enough to read the fucking TOS on a porn site, dude :p
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Zorba

DaaQ

Golden Member
Dec 8, 2018
1,725
1,213
136
This is from that Chaturbate TOS:



There are other statements about other members accessing anything you post in the future. They were told it was public and they posted anyways.
The point you are whitewashing over, is the pay for tokens or pay for private viewings.

Yes the platform reserved the right to redistribute, question would be who owns it. I also would be certain, that they did not use their respective legal names under the platform.
They used it to make money, or to fulfill a kink, fetish whatever. Were either of them wearing masks? Alot do.

And as others have said, there is usually DMCA notices plastered all over individuals specific "rooms"

I think your missing the point of "State Law"

Sure she could have handled it differently, but it would be very interesting if this content was made somewhere Oh in second half of 2020.

But to TLDR, generally if said couple is trying to make income off the platform, then viewer must pay to be able to view said content. Otherwise it's mostly just a big tease trying to suck "suckers" dry of their money.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,254
136
The point you are whitewashing over, is the pay for tokens or pay for private viewings.

Yes the platform reserved the right to redistribute, question would be who owns it. I also would be certain, that they did not use their respective legal names under the platform.
They used it to make money, or to fulfill a kink, fetish whatever. Were either of them wearing masks? Alot do.

And as others have said, there is usually DMCA notices plastered all over individuals specific "rooms"

I think your missing the point of "State Law"

Sure she could have handled it differently, but it would be very interesting if this content was made somewhere Oh in second half of 2020.

But to TLDR, generally if said couple is trying to make income off the platform, then viewer must pay to be able to view said content. Otherwise it's mostly just a big tease trying to suck "suckers" dry of their money.
How am I whitewashing it? The terms say anything posted or streamed is considered public. Neither of them made any attempt to hide their identities.

DCMA is copyright, as I've said, nothing to do with revenge porn.

State law can not trump my right to tell you about a porn video I saw or send you a link to porn video.

I am personally not into streaming at all, had never even heard of Chaturbate until this story came out, but I looked at it last night and there was a lot of hardcore content being shown in public rooms without even a need to register an account. Based on how they were talking in the videos, I assume these were public shows for tips not "private" shows.