MPAA Opposes Proposed Minnesota Revenge Porn Law, Saying It Limits Speech (arstechnica.com)

New Minnesota legislation is "attempting to penalize those who post explicit photos or videos of ex-lovers on the Internet without permission," reports the Associated Press. But while 27 states across America have already passed laws against "revenge porn", Hollywood's lobbying arm, the MPAA, argues that Minnesota's bill doesn't specifically require an intent to harass in their definition of the crime, which "could limit the distribution of a wide array of mainstream, Constitutionally protected material, including items of legitimate news, commentary, and historical interest," according to Ars Technica. The MPAA adds that "images of Holocaust victims, or prisoners at Abu Ghraib, or the Pulitzer-Prize winning photograph entitled 'Napalm Girl' -- which shows a young girl running screaming from her village, naked, following a Napalm attack -- could be prohibited under the terms of this legislation."

"This is the same MPAA that fiercely supported the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2012," notes Ars Technica, though "many claimed that legislation would also curtail free speech because SOPA could lead to the removal of domains that host infringing material." But the state's ACLU chapter is also opposing Minnesota's bill, according to the Associated Press, pointing out that it doesn't require an offender to be aware that they're invading someone's privacy, and arguing that "We're not doing victims of revenge porn any service by passing a law that can't be upheld in court, that will let people go free."

Comments

Odd bedfellows.

[tacarat]

And, strangely enough, both are valid points. Is the MPAA trying to justify it's existence outside of file sharing or something?

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[VVelox]

I believe the old saying is even a stuck clock is right twice a day.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

Sec. 2. [604.31] CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL
DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES; SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
Subdivision 1. Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. (a) A
cause of action against a person for the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual
images exists when:
(1) a person has threatened to disseminate an image or has intentionally disseminated
an image without the consent of the person depicted in the image;
(2) the image is of an individual engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are
exposed in whole or in part; and
(3) the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which a reasonable
person would know or understand that the image was to remain private.
(b) The fact that the individual depicted in the image consented to the creation of the
image or to the voluntary private transmission of the image is not a defense to liability for
a person who has disseminated the image without consent.

Or not.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[meerling]

I seem to recall it's a 'broken clock', but of course, that whole statement is pre-digital.
Speaking of which, I don't think a digital clock can get stuck, unless you are implying something involving body cavities. If so, can I direct you to some politicians and the housewares department?

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[meerling]

I like that "...or whose intimate parts are exposed in whole or in part..." section. So any little side boob or butt cheek could get you sued. Maybe even an ankle if they wear a burka religiously or something. Wow, talk about open to abuse!

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[mukinrestak]

I always heard it as "broken clock" myself.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that somebody took nude pictures with consent and it was published for all to see without consent. The intent of the law is very simple - don't publish other people's nude pictures without consent.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Calydor]

Then the law should say that instead of blanket statements that are open to interpretation as required.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

If it is a private, partially nude picture that was intended for personal use only then you have no legit right to post it anywhere.

Get consent.

I've always gotten consent. It is always the same conditions too... "you can show your friends but if you post it on the internet I'll kill you."

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Anonymous Coward]

A digital clock can get stuck. It's just a bit rarer since almost any problem with an analog clock will give the same symptom.
Anyway an LCD display will retain its view if the controller chip stops updating it. A broken crystal or connection to the crystal would do that. (Unless the LCD requires a higher voltage level that is created by a switching circuit that is clocked from the crystal.)
There are a few more things that could lead to a stuck display, but they are pretty unlikely.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or partially nude.

Where do you draw the line? It starts to sound really close to the "right to be forgotten" law.
"I'm visible in a photo where I'm doing something I don't want other people to see. Better forbid distribution of that photo."

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[nukenerd]

Or partially nude.

Where do you draw the line?

Why do you people have such problems with the concept of judgement? "Drawing the line" is something that comes up all the time in law courts, even in murder cases. That is why you have judges - experienced and intelligent people - to judge where to draw the line rather than clerks with rule books presiding over courts.

That is how the legal system works in the UK anyway. Perhaps you problem is just an American problem.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not a broken clock, its not a stuck clock. It is a stopped clock.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stopped_clock
Although broken is an alternative. The most popular phrasing is "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Ol Olsoc]

Why do you people have such problems with the concept of judgement? "Drawing the line" is something that comes up all the time in law courts, even in murder cases. That is why you have judges - experienced and intelligent people - to judge where to draw the line rather than clerks with rule books presiding over courts.

While it's all jolly good fun to spend weeks in court, having your bank account drained by your lawyer, some folks might not want to be taken to court over a photo of their soon to be divorced wife in a bikini perhaps with the famous camel's to or erect nipples, posted on Facebook. That "private parts" provision is so broad you could drive the Costa Concordia though it.

Who knows, perhaps legal counsel doesn't cost anything on your side of the pond.

But over here, where the courts are used to bankrupt people - and yes, that might be a 'murrican problem - the law can be made a lot more specific. Harassment by publishing private pics depicting sexual activity without consent of the person in the photo.

And some times that might be a fully clothed person.

Even moreso, let's take feet. For some reason unknown to me, some folks find feet to be sexually stimulating. Harmless for certain. But if you took a photo of your wife or husband's naked feet, and published it without their consent, would you want to go in front of a judge who happens to share that same peccadillo?

"Guilty as charged, Mr. Broadstreet! And Mrs. Broadstreet, do you mind if we keep those photos in case we need to look up the evidence in this case again?" Some times it's hard under those robes.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a broken digital clock stuck on 88:88, so it is right zero times a day - more like RIAA than MPAA.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a photo taken in public and the subject was seen doing something inappropriate and just don't want this to be public knowledge?

It is seldom the stated justification for the law that is the problem. The problem is the edge cases when the law is abused.
The concern isn't when the law is used to get someone nudes off the internet. It's when it is used as an enabler of censorship.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[ceoyoyo]

Did you miss the "while engaged in a sexual act" part?

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Anonymous Coward]

>judges - experienced and intelligent people
Ahhhahahahah! Impartial and neutral and above private opinion and influence!

"Justice is what the judge had for breakfast" isn't just a silly blurb, there was a study that showed increased parole rates for cases after lunch hours. Granted, it was probably American courts, but I doubt UK courts are equipped with enough checks and balances to avoid the fallibility of arbitrary law.

Re: Odd bedfellows.

[tacarat]

Great research. I'm thinking that the MPAA is using this to set up lawsuits for celebrity stalkers and paparazzi. The law is for individuals involved in a relationship, of sorts, and the MPAA link refers to the celebs having their pics circulated, but not for revenge purposes. Hmmm.

Re: Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

Great research. I'm thinking that the MPAA is using this to set up lawsuits for celebrity stalkers and paparazzi.

Not useful for paparazzi. A "reasonable person" would not know or understand that a picture they took at work, from a public place, that has a history of being legal, "was to remain private."

It might be useful for leaked or stolen sex tapes, though. But those already have a clear cause of action. But that probably is their PR motive; PR aimed at the actors themselves who feel violated.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[the_povinator]

You are right, I think it is an American problem (I'm British, living in the USA). A lot of US prosecutors are quite conservative people who tend to interpret the laws way beyond their intended meaning-- for instance, charging kids who sext images of themselves with laws intended to be used against child pornographers.

Re: Odd bedfellows.

[tacarat]

You're right. I misreadTFA. "The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a group dedicated to combating online abuse and harassment, said the MPAA's position is a "callous disregard for the victims of this gratuitous and unjustifiable form of voyeurism." "Adding an “intent to harass” requirement would mean that the people who distributed the private, intimate photos of celebrities, including Hollywood star Jennifer Lawrence, would be free to do so with impunity because they were merely providing “entertainment.” It would mean that revenge porn site operators would be free to destroy the lives, careers, reputations, and personal relationships of thousands of people, mostly women, because they are not motived by a desire to harass but by a desire to make money. It would mean that rapists who distribute the recordings they made of their sexual assaults on social media in order to brag about their exploits would be free to continue to do so." They're the ones wanting it left vague. And I need more coffee.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Phronesis]

"Justice is what the judge had for breakfast" isn't just a silly blurb, there was a study that showed increased parole rates for cases after lunch hours. Granted, it was probably American courts, but I doubt UK courts are equipped with enough checks and balances to avoid the fallibility of arbitrary law.

It was Israeli courts. http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Phronesis]

You are right, I think it is an American problem (I'm British, living in the USA).

The British libel laws seem to be a lot farther from common sense and to threaten free expression far more than anything the US courts do.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

Here in the US, if it a totally bogus case like "bikini pics of your wife" or "blah blah ... feet" then you don't actually need a lawyer. You can just show up and speak normal words to the judge, and the case gets thrown out. You might even get some money... paid by the other party's lawyer for bringing a case without cause.

If it is a patent case or something, you'd have to know what words to say. But a typical case of accusations between individuals? No.

For example, landlord rental disputes are handled by the courts, and typically neither side has a lawyer. A landlord can absolutely represent themselves as either plaintiff or defendant; especially if they have a basic understanding of the rules they're supposed to follow. You don't need to know all the details of the rules that the Judge will be following.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

That is the law's "intended meaning" in those cases. It doesn't have exceptions, or "only when so-and-so thinks it was bad." It is true that the prosecutor could defer prosecuting those cases, if he didn't think it would serve justice; but that is frowned upon, because of abuse of power. Abuses that we know very well, from English History.

It may simply be that the law is unpopular with some people. How many, who knows. But it was never the intent of the law to allow a person under 18 to engage in child porn legally. If that was a real exception, you'd see older pedos hiring younger pedos to do the photography, to limit their sentencing potential. It would potentially add another layer of abuse. And furthermore, a pedo at 17 can easily victimize a much younger child. It happens a lot, actually. Child molesters are that way from puberty; it doesn't start at 30 or something.

If you want to change some details of the law, you should advocate for it. You might find out a lot of people don't want to tinker with it that much. Or, as with the rape laws, you might be able to carve out exceptions where both parties are within 3 years of age.

Re: Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

I don't assume they're competent, so I'm not placing much value in the actual effect telling us anything about their motives. I'm assuming that they got involved to try to make the law "stronger" because of people like Jennifer Lawrence. I'm assuming they had some conversation with a celeb that went like, "Will you help us make statements against pirating?" "My pictures were pirated, and they were very personal and their release caused me harm, what are you doing about my problem? Why should I want to help you with your similar but merely financial problem?" "Yeah, we'll do some stuff on that for you!" "I'll believe it when I see it." And then they go off and hire some lawyers and lobbyists to go "make teh laws stronger," and out popped this effort.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Ol Olsoc]

Here in the US, if it a totally bogus case like "bikini pics of your wife" or "blah blah ... feet" then you don't actually need a lawyer.

You knpw what they call a guy in a divorce case who doesn't think he needs a lawyer?

flat assed broke.

You might even get some money... paid by the other party's lawyer for bringing a case without cause.

You do know that many people in divorce cases do every damn thing they can do to fuck with each other, and not in the fun sorta way. You think that say, in an arena where it is typical for one spouse to completely untruthfully declare that the other was sexually abusing the children wouldn't just love to say that the blah blah facebook post wasn't done without consent? That's kinda sweet, but doesn't appreciate the bitter unbridled vindictiveness of some people.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[JazzLad]

Is it really broken or do you just need someone to show you how to set your VCR again? :)

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[david_thornley]

I'm pretty sure you could find a legal definition of "intimate parts" somewhere in Minnesota law, so it's not quite as bad as you say.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[david_thornley]

Here in the US, if it a totally bogus case like "bikini pics of your wife" or "blah blah ... feet" then you don't actually need a lawyer. You can just show up and speak normal words to the judge, and the case gets thrown out.

The problem is that you only have one chance to do it right. If it's a civil case, the risk is more limited, but if you're trying to avoid having a criminal record you do need to talk to a lawyer at the very minimum.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

You cannot get a criminal record out of a lawsuit. Impossible.

You sound like you should go out and buy some unicorn impalement insurance or something. I'm sure existing legal insurance companies would be happy to give you a policy covering removal of "criminal" records created accidentally during a civil process.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

Live in a better State. Fix your laws. There is no reason for a lawyer unless you have kids; if your state laws are reasonable.

In my State, everything is equally owned 50/50 unless you have evidence otherwise. Unless there are kids involved, the lawyers are mostly being paid to show up so you don't have to.

The reason you "need" a divorce lawyer is because most of the time the person controlling the money wants to try to cheat the other person, and so they hire a lawyer. But in that case, then the other person hires a lawyer too and the money comes from the same source in the end.

If your State has simple, no-fault divorce rules, you just divide things up, and hire a paralegal company to draft the paperwork. If there are kids, did you come to a mutual agreement, or not? It is not automatic that you can't agree on what system is going to be good for the kids. A lot of people can still work that out even during a divorce.

In my State there isn't that much you can do to mess with the other party without just looking like an ass and having the numbers rounded away from you. People hire a lawyer to try, of course. And lawyers are happy to tell you that is what they're doing, even when there isn't anything like that they can do.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Coren22]

Did you actually read what he wrote? IF you're trying to avoid having a criminal record, so not civil but criminal.

This particular law we are discussing is a criminal law, and the incident being talked about would result in criminal charges against the man, which would allow the woman to take him to the cleaners in the meantime.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[david_thornley]

Who said a civil lawsuit? The statutes generally define criminal law, and if you fail to defend yourself adequately against a criminal charge you can indeed wind up with a criminal record and a prison term. If you fail to defend yourself adequately against a civil lawsuit, you can wind up bankrupt, which isn't really desirable either. In this case, publishing a photo with a little sideboob could indeed be construed as against the law, prompting a criminal charge and a civil lawsuit.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

No, this one is about creating a "cause of action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Aighearach]

Look up near the top of the thread where I quoted the proposed law.

See the words, "cause of action?"

Sec. 2. [604.31] CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL
DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES; SEXUAL SOLICITATION.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[mrxak]

Quite correct. A broken clock might be broken in any number of ways that would invalidate the "broken clock is right twice a day" saying. For example, the hands could have fallen off.

MPAA's stake in all this

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing them, they're probably worried that it would undermine the copyright holders of the revenge porn...

Re: MPAA's stake in all this

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone will rape some MPAA people and post the movies online. They are not making themselves popular...

Re:Qualities from the China

[zenlessyank]

All your china are belong to business

What Grade Do We Teach The Kiddo's About This Law?

[zenlessyank]

Stick figures good enough for illustrations? Also, playing atheists advocate, shouldn't the camera know when it's going to be party to a crime??

Re:Qualities from the China

[ArylAkamov]

We get signal

Is it just me...

[kuzb]

...or does the MPAA get more and more batshit insane with every passing year?

Re:Is it just me...

[SuricouRaven]

They are not insane. They are just acting as any company is expected to: Every action they take is towards the goal of maximising their profitability. They oppose this law, not out of free speech concerns, but because it could get in the way of exploiting celebrity scandals for money in future.

Re:Is it just me...

[Opportunist]

They aren't. The ones giving in to them are.

It's much like when you have a spoiled child. At first, the child's demands are simple and maybe even reasonable. If the child sees it gets away with them, they mount until they reach the point where the average, sane person can only shake his head and wonder how the fuck that spoiled little brat thinks he can get away with asking that.

It's not the child that is insane. It's the parents.

Or, to get back from the analogy, the law makers caving in to those bullshit demands.

Re:Is it just me...

[StikyPad]

Actually, their interest is a bit baffling. They're not the ones who capitalize off of those scandals, at least not directly, and there are already exemptions from privacy expectations for public figures anyway.

Re:Qualities from the China

[Anonymous Coward]

Make your time? Ha ha ha?

Re:Odd bedfellows never boils

[Anonymous Coward]

I always heard it as a "watched pot".

The law does need to change

[John Allsup]

Copyright law is already too biased towards producers. They are behaving like spoilt little children and need their toys to be taken away. Seriously, they get enough (more than enough) already.

Re:The law does need to change

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the bigcreators. There is a whole industry of false copyright claiming companies that steal popular videos on Youtube, allowing them to remove the video from the original channel, monitize it, collect revenue, all before the original owner eventually gets it back after spending weeks fighting the corporate piss-taker. Once they win their own content back, they never any monies made by the thief, even though google know exactly what was paid over what period; and google never penalise these crooks, despite it being trivial to clock how many false claims they make and how much money they make from stealing others' content.

It's not even plagiarism, or aggregators showing other stuff, or even showing a copy, they claim the videos are their own and ensure they are removed from the source.

Re:The law does need to change

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a bias towards producers, that's only logical because copyright law is there to protect them. It's a good thing that people who create something have some legally protected say in how their creations can be used. This is not just about money, it's about the freedom to create something on your own terms.

Re:The law does need to change

[turbidostato]

"If there is a bias towards producers, that's only logical because copyright law is there to protect them."

No, it is not.

I'll take that you are American because the USA Copyright Act owns a very clear wording, but it doesn't matter if not, since the principle stays.

Copyrights are there "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". See? It's not there to "protect producers". And then it adds "...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." See? Securing this or that to authors and inventors is a means to an end, not an end by itself (and then, see it doesn't include distributors nor collections' managers? Just authors and inventors).

"it's about the freedom to create something on your own terms."

It is not. It is about granting excessive privileges to some class of citizens in order to obtain what is perceived to be a greater benefit for society at whole. The moment society changes its mind about what needs to be privileged or the means (the privileges) show not to be the best path of action for the end (the promotion of Science and useful Arts) it is the moment the privileges need to be reconsidered or even revoked.

Re:The law does need to change

[james_gnz]

If there is a bias towards producers, that's only logical because copyright law is there to protect them.

As has already been pointed out, according to the US Constitution, copyright law exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Similarly, the first modern copyright law, the Statute of Anne, justified it "for the Encouragement of Learning". Perhaps you could argue that the purpose of copyright law has changed, and it has become an ends unto itself, but even so, this wouldn't establish that to be a valid purpose.

It's a good thing that people who create something have some legally protected say in how their creations can be used. This is not just about money, it's about the freedom to create something on your own terms.

I think you've conflated freedom to create a work with a right to control how others use it if it's published. I can't argue with the former, but I think the latter is something different. I'll ask you to consider the following thought experiment. (It's in the style of Robert Nozick's Tale of the Slave, which I don't entirely buy into the content of, but that's another matter.)

1. Unbeknownst to us, Martians exist, and are copying our broadcasts via radio telescopes. For the sake of argument, they live in bio-domes, or similar, and have laws and institutions comparable to those of Western democracies, but no copyright laws. (For the sake of tradition, they're little, compared to us, and green, and have antennae, if you like.)

2. We become aware of them. We can see them through our telescopes, but have no interaction with them.

3. We begin to communicate with them.

4. On principle, we recognise them as people under our laws, and they recognise us as people under theirs.

5. We begin to trade with them (during close approaches of the two planets, which are about every two years). They retain their laws and we retain ours.

6. People begin to migrate between the two planets, but still, they retain their laws and we retain ours.

At what stage can we claim to have suffered harm from their copying? At what stage do we have a right, on principle, to forcibly prevent this harm, and/or take compensation for it?

Re:The law does need to change

[Anonymous Coward]

"If there is a bias towards producers, that's only logical because copyright law is there to protect them."

No, it is not.

I'll take that you are American because the USA Copyright Act owns a very clear wording, but it doesn't matter if not, since the principle stays.

Copyrights are there "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". See? It's not there to "protect producers". And then it adds "...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." See? Securing this or that to authors and inventors is a means to an end, not an end by itself (and then, see it doesn't include distributors nor collections' managers? Just authors and inventors).

"it's about the freedom to create something on your own terms."

It is not. It is about granting excessive privileges to some class of citizens in order to obtain what is perceived to be a greater benefit for society at whole. The moment society changes its mind about what needs to be privileged or the means (the privileges) show not to be the best path of action for the end (the promotion of Science and useful Arts) it is the moment the privileges need to be reconsidered or even revoked.

Re:Odd bedfellows never boils

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no, that's a different proverb.
A watched pot never boils. = Waiting for something makes it seem to take forever.
Interestingly, the quantum mechanical watched pot effect is named after this proverb.
(And this has got nothing to do with broken clocks being right twice a day whatsoever.)

Is this law redundant?

[loonycyborg]

Isn't harassment already illegal? Whether it happens via internet or via newspapers is irrelevant..

Fucking pedos

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a picture of a naked child running in the streets should be able to be published in every news paper in the world?
I'd be pissed off too if I got bombed and then some asshole reporter took the opportunity to take a pic of my dick and post in for all the world to see.

Re:Fucking pedos

[Locke2005]

A picture of your dick? Nobody makes telephoto lenses that powerful, my friend!

feminazism has corrupted USA

[Anonymous Coward]

just like stupid software patent law of USA has made only stupid patents and patent trolls flourish all around.

in the same way this law, will allow anybody even clicked buttcheek glimpse of them, also as vulnerable to get sued.

Re:Qualities from the China

[Anonymous Coward]

Main screen turn on.

Re:Is it just me... [anti-paparazzi law]

[eyenot]

I see it, now. I was trying to figure out what their angle was, but you put it rather plainly.

This law would basically guarantee that there would never be another paparazzi photo of some starlet skinny dipping or sun tanning, ever, ever again.

It doesn't matter that there's no intent to do emotional harm to the subject of the rag photo. They did not give consent and obviously since they are celebrities, and since that means they can make a lot of money from every picture taken of them, they would never in a million years let anyone take a picture of them without their permission. Wow, even at that point, I guess you would not have to show an attempt to directly cause emotional harm -- if it's a celebrity, ANY paparazzi photo or even any fan photo that shows ANYTHING more than bare arms will harm that celeb's income and would be like stealing from them, and theft is emotionally distressing and voila, emotional harm.

Hell, I'm glad the MPAA is fighting against this thing.

Free speech??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why someone should have right to harass somebody (at least for serious crimes mere attempt trying to do something is a crime)..

Proving dissemination of the insemination

[swb]

(Sorry for the title, I couldn't help myself).

How will they prove dissemination? I would guess in 98.3% of all the cases, the person who does it is logged enough to prove they did it, because stupid people.

But because we're talking the murky depths of human revenge, at least some people will be clever about it and go to enough effort to create reasonable doubt about who disseminated the image.

I wonder if they will argue that possession of the image (home computer, etc) is prima facie evidence you were responsible for its dissemination.

I'd also be curious to know if "reverse revenge" based on this law could be controlled -- X and Y take sex pictures, Y breaks up with X, X is unhappy and surreptitiously disseminates the pictures. X accuses Y of revenge porn. Y's PC is searched and is found to have the images and is tried for the crime.

Even if Y is found not guilty, X has gotten a lot of revenge and possibly even the backing of the state to have the pictures taken down, early enough at least that they didn't get duplicated too widely and faces a minimal risk associated with the dissemination.

It makes me wonder if the law should create a liability for false accusations beyond the existing claims associated with perjury or filing a false police report.

Re:Proving dissemination of the insemination

[eyenot]

Hmm. Interesting point.

You could stick to simple pathology (i.e. "a led to b led to c") and say that if only two known people were supposed to have the data (the insemination video, in your example, presumably only to be owned by the egg-bearer and the sperm-donor) and if one of those people is charging illegal dissemination of the data, then it must be the other person who did the deed.

So even if the charged person used darkwebz, deleted the logs of the logs of the LOGGING of logging's log log, and found a free e-mail server that can't be hacked and which has an absentee sysop, and telnetted the mainframe through the satellite uplink, you could still say "yeah, but, it was you."

HOWEVER -- which I think is really what you're getting at -- it could be made to show that it's impossible to prove which of the two originally consenting parties with-drew the line of consent at the dissemination of the data. Charged party B could claim that infuriated party A was actually the culprit, and there would be no way at all whatsoever to prove whodunit.

Laws like this always, always, always ignore that data which is created has every possible eventuality of becoming shared. They create these artificial boundaries where sharing is supposed to "not happen", but hell these days the data itself can share itself.

Let's say that the happily fluid-swapping couple recorded and stored the video of the conception of tomorrow's tyrannical pirate using software based entirely on Flash. It was a Flash application and it stored the video also as Flash.

Knowing the vulnerabilities of Flash, any weirdo on the internet could have been the one to distribute the video and even to make it look like one or both parties were the ones to blame.

Re:Proving dissemination of the insemination

[Anonymous Coward]

You could stick to simple pathology (i.e. "a led to b led to c") and say that if only two known people were supposed to have the data (the insemination video, in your example, presumably only to be owned by the egg-bearer and the sperm-donor) and if one of those people is charging illegal dissemination of the data, then it must be the other person who did the deed.

You misread or missed the point. In GP's example, the person disseminating the images is the same person that brought charges. So, not only does your above idea fly in the face of "innocent until proven guilty", it also facilitates exactly the revenge scenario envisioned by the GP.

Re:Proving dissemination of the insemination

[swb]

You could stick to simple pathology (i.e. "a led to b led to c") and say that if only two known people were supposed to have the data

And only Jennifer Lawrence and her boyfriend were supposed to have her selfies, too.

And not a day goes buy where there isn't a story on Slashdot where there isn't some new security vulnerability on PCs, whether its Lenovo exploiting firmware to install their spyware, phone-home vulnerabilities, you name it. And none of this counts the hacking of services which might automatically back up data you didn't even *want* to disseminate into the ye olde cloud.

And then there's anybody else with physical access, the guy at Best Buy, your kids, your kid's friends, the babysitter, the cleaning woman, the plumber, anybody with five minutes and a thumb drive.

Basically, there are a thousand and one ways that someone could take images from your computer or phone.

I would kind of prefer that the burden of proof be on the state to prove dissemination rather than on the accused to prove they didn't "because private pictures".

I think it's pretty shitty for people to use homemade porn as a weapon, but I think it's shittier to create a law that can be exploited as a tool of revenge that forces someone to prove their innocence.

A big reason for this is you just know how this works. Jack and Jill are dating. To please Jack, Jill consents to nudies and a home made sex video. Jack decides he's had enough and breaks it off. Jilted Jill is enraged that despite submitting to Jack's sexual debasement, he has forsaken her. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. So distribute the pics and get Jack in trouble with the cops.

Re:Proving dissemination of the insemination

[Aighearach]

This is for cases where you have some evidence.

The same as all the other laws.

Strange rabbit-hole to fall down, considering that.

Re: Proving dissemination of the insemination

[Anonymous Coward]

Women already have an avenue for revenge that is irrifutable. They can just claim rape and there is no proff that a man can provide to get it dismissed.

Re: Proving dissemination of the insemination

[Coren22]

Except that what you said is actually not true. There has to be proof of rape, or else it will get thrown out. The courts don't send men to prison automatically on accusation of rape.

Re: Proving dissemination of the insemination

[Anonymous Coward]

When the man's name and often picture is put in the news all over the place, and his reputation is destroyed forever by just the accusation, I'd say she's still getting plenty of revenge even without a conviction and the sex offender registration that goes along with it.

And really, what passes for proof in these cases isn't that stringent. If there's any evidence of sexual activity, even without any semen, even without it being rough sex, that's considered evidence and all she has to do is just cry on the witness stand.

Re:Proving dissemination of the insemination

[eyenot]

Do you read an entire comment before you barge in with a rebuttle? I was offering a counter-point not to support it but to shoot it down in later sentences. Sheesh!

Re: Proving dissemination of the insemination

[eyenot]

In some states, Michigan included, a woman's testimony *is* evidence, and it does stand in a court of law.

I've known some men who've gone to prison for false rape accusations, and I've sometimes known the women who made the accusations as well. There are some women who are simply scourges and some states that have no idea WTF course of justice is.

Re: Proving dissemination of the insemination

[eyenot]

(I suppose the method of thinking behind passing these laws and seeing them upheld in a COJ is that a woman would not go out of her way to bring a man to trial with no evidence except her testimony that he raped her, or perhaps they simply never considered the possibility that a woman would simply lie on the stand as an act of revenge against a man who failed to provide her with enough drugs and money, or maybe just because she's crazy and has a vendetta against mankind and found herself comfortable in a state with a law on the books that conforms to her wild delusions.

One such woman I met ended up badly -- she fell from a third story window and escaped only with permanent waist-down paralysis. Apparently it was entirely an accident caused by her recklessness during a party, with numerous witnesses accounting for her stupid behaviour. The one good thing to come out of it is that it's very unlikely she'll be putting any more men in prison for rape accusations ever again, what with the loss of control of her pelvic muscles and all.)

Re: Proving dissemination of the insemination

[swb]

There has to be proof of rape, or else it will get thrown out.

This may be *mostly* the way the criminal justice system works now, but if you follow the nonsense that has been happening on college campuses, you might have cause to worry.

Activists are vigorously pushing to have colleges' investigate and punish rape accusations internally, with their own investigations and their own "tribunals". Naturally these all lack any standard of due process rights for the accused, including no standard of proof, no ability to confront accusers, and "verdicts" are rendered in secret by college administrators.

Naturally, activists are asking for this because they want the ability to make one-sided accusations without any evidence, often for "crimes" committed months ago that they only now have recognized as rape. Why the Minneapolis paper today has an article about one such case:

http://www.startribune.com/st-...

"Raped" in May, accusation made to the college in October and a police report filed only in December. Really? What is she expecting? I think she's even quoted as "not realizing" it was rape until the middle of the summer. To me this sounds like reckless behavior coupled with regret.

If colleges get away with extrajudicial criminal proceedings for this, it will only serve to condition the public and ultimately the legislature to reduce standards of evidence for sexual assault to whatever accusation the victim wants to make, whenever she wants to make it.

I honestly don't quite understand what's driving this on campus. My only guess is that among freshmen, there's a culture of extreme promiscuity and heavy drinking and some of these people honestly don't know what they're doing until months later, and that a large part of this is regret. I don't doubt many of these women have been treated poorly, but I question how many of them meet any but a women's studies definition of sexual assault.

Re:Is it just me... [anti-paparazzi law]

[SuricouRaven]

It's a badly-written law, one driven by good intentions but sure to have unintended consequences. The MPAA may be doing the right thing on this occasion, but only because it happens to be in their self-interest.

Personally I think the world just needs to get over this ridiculous obsession with catching a glimpse of someone naked. Yes, it's a breast. Plenty of those on the internet already, nothing special about yours.

Re:Is it just me... [anti-paparazzi law]

[Anonymous Coward]

I see it, now. I was trying to figure out what their angle was, but you put it rather plainly.

This law would basically guarantee that there would never be another paparazzi photo of some starlet skinny dipping or sun tanning, ever, ever again.

And this is a problem why?
I think it will help stop the voyeuristic tendencies of the public. The public may be interested in the photos... but it is most likely not in the public interest for people to see these photo's.

Re:Is it just me... [anti-paparazzi law]

[PopeRatzo]

This law would basically guarantee that there would never be another paparazzi photo of some starlet skinny dipping or sun tanning, ever, ever again.

And that would mean the end of civilization as we know it.

I mean, is that what it takes to get you off? Has no one told you about PornHub? I mean, what the fuck, dude? Your stressing over the possibility that you may never see another nude starlet paparazzi photo. Don't you realize that now most starlets post naked selfies on Twitter? Or is it a special pleasure for you to think that their privacy is being invaded? Are you the guy who sits on the train trying to get upskirt photos of girls?

Ok, what's the real reason?

[Opportunist]

MPAA wanting something because of free speech. That's like Facebook claiming a change is over privacy concerns, Republicans claiming that they want it to protect the poor, Democrats claiming it is to save taxpayer money or Comcast claiming it's to spur healthy competition.

In other words, an enough transparent blatant lie to ask for the real agenda.

Re:Ok, what's the real reason?

[dissy]

In other words, an enough transparent blatant lie to ask for the real agenda.

That should be obvious. With the way the law is currently written, any actor could claim after a movie is made that they changed their mind and no longer want to be depicted (either in that way, or even at all) and once that change of mind is stated publicly, the MPAA just broke this law and will be held accountable to it.

They want their actor contracts to stay just as one sided and enforceable as they are right now.

They do not want the actor to have the ability to simply claim "I changed my mind" to turn the legal action of making a movie depicting them as an actor in it, into a crime with no other evidence required.

If such a law was made to work the other way around (IE the MPAA could simply state some words to turn another persons actions in the past from legal to criminal) they wouldn't likely complain about the law.

Re:Ok, what's the real reason?

[iggymanz]

what's so hard to understand? any law that impedes the shekel flow to the MPAA is bad; any law that protects or increases it is good

Such strange verbiage

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not doing victims of revenge porn any service by passing a law that can't be upheld in court, that will let people go free.

Emphasis mine. I'm not positive what it is about this phrasing that gets me. They could have left out this thought entirely and its meaning would be clear - but they didn't. In fact, adding it introduces ambiguity.

Are they suggesting that the purpose of a justice system is to imprison rather than to find justice? Does it matter if the people are guilty? Why use the term "people" if it matters if these people are guilty? Is it because they're arguing that this shouldn't be a crime, so in such a context, people wouldn't be guilty of a crime? Are they suggesting that if you could craft a law against revenge porn specifically without potentially being applied to paparazzi etc., they would support that? Maybe all of the above?

I have no idea what the intended meaning of that is.

Re: Qualities from the China

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone set us up the bomb!

Why does intent suddenly matter, MPAA?

[Sloppy]

It's most unexpected that MPAA has suddenly flipped to a mens-rea-matters position on speech issues. This is the same organization that purchased DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, where zero fucks are given as to the reasons for breaking DRM: it was considered intolerably bad, no matter why you'd be doing it.

Unexpected and very late, but nevertheless encouraging. We can all assume that this drastic 180-degree change of heart by MPAA is going to be accompanied by them purchasing a DMCA repeal.

Kim Phuc

[gordguide]

"Napalm Girl" ? Her name is Kim Phuc, she lives in Vancouver (Canada). Apparently the role of "Editor" has devolved to that of "Janitor" at modern news-related media.

Re:Kim Phuc

[rhazz]

photograph entitled 'Napalm Girl'

They were referring to the photo, not the girl herself.

All about protecting paparazzi

[Stan92057]

This is all about the scum paparazzi who take snapshots of actresses or famous women as they get out of cars or swimming its a huge business and i am sure the MPAA represents the trolls paparazzi. That is my theory why they are doing what they are doing.

Re:Is it just me... [anti-paparazzi law]

[Anonymous Coward]

Projecting much? The guy pointed out what the ramifications of the law would be. He didn't argue in favor of paparazzi photos and surely didn't say he got off to them. You're the only one whose mind seems to have gone down that road, and in a very loud manner reminiscent of people like Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, who also doth protest too much.

Come again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPAA adds that ... Pultzer-Prize winning photograph entitled 'Napalm Girl' -- which shows a young girl running screaming from her village, naked, following a Napalm attack -- could be prohibited under the terms of this legislation."

Is the MPAA suggesting that an ex-lover of "Napalm Girl" is posting "explicit photos or videos of ex-lovers on the Internet without permission"?

My interpretation

[Locke2005]

The MPAA is saying, "Hey, don't outlaw this... we can make money selling this shit!"

Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Whomever owns the copyright should be able to do as they please.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whoever." It's the subject of the sentence.

Re:Is it just me... [anti-paparazzi law]

[StikyPad]

This law would basically guarantee that there would never be another paparazzi photo of some starlet skinny dipping or sun tanning, ever, ever again.

I think you missed the part where it said Minnesota, which is eclipsed, if you'll pardon the pun, by only the moon in terms of either celebrity population, or paparazzi waiting there to take photos of them.

Money for Nudity

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to see why the MPAA is on this side. The optimum strategy for an exceptional good looking and attractive actresses is to refuse to do nude scenes on camera (off camera or sleeping around to get ahead are optional), then build up her resume and demand higher pay until the looks start wearing off. When that dip in popularity starts, she then "reluctantly" does the nude scenes required and maintain the high pay rate. In essence, her nudes are a way to extend her earning potential.

When leaked nudes go around, those assets cannot be captured. Why pay for a ticket to see "Shlock Movie 2" when Jennifer Lawrence eventually exposes her breasts when you can just see the leaks?

For this reason that nude scene resuscitation gets defused and she can no longer extend a period of high pay. It's in the MPAAs interests to keep actress pay down, so there's a financial incentive to encourage tabloid style leaks.

Re:Is it just me... [anti-paparazzi law]

[AK Marc]

Yeah, like the porn maker who was extradited from CA to FL because the porn he made in CA and sold it in CA and it violated FL law, so they extradited him to FL to prosecute him? It doesn't matter where the law is, all 50 states laws apply to someone who never leaves his home. So say the states and the feds. But because it was "porn" the conservatives were happy to see the law applied poorly.