When Does It Stop Being 'Sexting' And Start Being Something More Serious?

from the gray-areas dept

The debate about "sexting" rages on, both here at Techdirt and elsewhere. One of the major points of contention has been that child-pornography laws don't make any distinction about who creates child porn, meaning that kids who take nude photos of themselves and send them out can be viewed in the same way -- in the eyes of the law -- as child pornographers who abuse and exploit children for commercial gain or personal titillation. The catch is that "the eyes of the law" are really the eyes of human prosecutors, who hopefully should realize that charging kids with child-porn offenses is an overreaction. CNN's got a story touching on this issue, but they didn't find a particularly good example: instead of talking about kids who took pictures of themselves, they lead with the story of an 18-year-old guy who sent out a nude picture of his 16-year-old girlfriend to "dozens" of friends and family after they'd had a fight. The guy was subsequently prosecuted under child-porn laws and has had to register as a sex offender. While it's clear the guy wasn't a commercial porn producer, it's also clear that he went a lot further than teens who take photos of themselves, send them out, and then find themselves in hot water. His actions, while caused by a moment of stupidity, were intended to hurt his girlfriend -- much different than teens taking and sending photos of themselves as an expression of their sexuality. To compare the two seems pretty disingenuous, and it's hard to imagine the guy will attract a whole lot of sympathy, but the story does illustrate the very black-and-white world of child porn laws, and how they can be applied with little distinction (or perhaps common sense) by some prosecutors.

Meanwhile, over at the WSJ, the "Numbers Guy", Carl Bialik, has taken a look at the survey that has been widely cited in sexting stories, claiming that 20 percent of teens have taken and sent nude photos of themselves. Bialik points out that the survey was conducted online, calling into question just how representative of the wider teen population the sample was. To ask teens about their online behavior, but only ask teens who are online, seems suspect. But hey, the stat sells the story, right?

Filed Under: porn, sexting

When Having Somebody Transfer Your Data From An Old Phone To A New One, Delete Your Self-Porn

from the helpful-reminders dept

A former Miss Britain who posed for Playboy is suing UK mobile phone retailer Carphone Warehouse after one of its employees copied some "very intimate" pictures from her phone and tried to sell them to some newspapers. The woman, Danielle Lloyd, left her phone at the shop so employees could transfer data from it onto a new phone, and is seeking 50,000 pounds in damages for her stupidity the employee's actions. It's slightly ironic that the woman would be upset about the photos getting out, seeing as she once had a flourishing "glamour model" (Britspeak for soft porn) career, but the episode goes to show how easily privacy can be undermined these days. There's a presumption of privacy when people take a picture on their phone, or put something online on their private or semi-private space; but as we capture and share more and more of our lives, the presumption that the content we capture will remain private should probably diminish.

Filed Under: danielle lloyd, phones, porn

After Finding No Joy Elsewhere, SCO Chairman Takes Anti-Porn Fight To ICANN

from the silent-majority dept

A few years ago, Ralph Yarro, the chairman of everybody's favorite tech company, SCO, put forward a plan to ban all internet porn from port 80, the port used by HTTP traffic. He later added that open WiFi should be banned as a means to stop porn. Not surprisingly, his ideas failed to find traction (except with the governor of his home state, Utah) but Yarro and his anti-porn group are pressing on, and are now asking ICANN to set up a "Cybersafety Constituency" to create binding rules on how to deal with net porn. How's this for a binding rule: don't access porn sites, and you won't be bothered with it? The idea that anybody -- let alone ICANN -- should be able to play the role of global web censor is scary, and opens the door to restrictions on all sorts of objectionable, but not illegal, content. As The Register notes, Yarro called for supporters to make comments on the proposal at ICANN's site, and plenty of people from Utah obliged. Wonder what all the people in the state who love net porn think of the proposal...

Filed Under: domains, icann, porn, port 80, ralph yarro
Companies: sco

Group Reveals There Are Ways To Fight Child Porn Other Than Useless Web Filters

from the progress,-perhaps dept

There has been something of a stink made in the UK after some children's charities complained that some ISPs weren't implementing web filters designed to stop people from accessing child pornography. While trying to stop child porn is certainly an admirable cause, the problem here is twofold: first, the filters simply don't work, and often do more to block access to legitimate content than to stop access to undesirable or illegal material. Second, simply thinking filters will solve the problem focuses only on catching consumers, rather than working to stop the producers and distributors of such reprehensible material. Stopping it at the source would seem to be a much more effective way to combat child pornography, rather than to just focus on the point of consumption. With that in mind, it's nice to see that a new pan-European alliance has been formed to go after child-pornography producers by tracking the flow of money around trade in it. The goal is to track the money back to those who are abusing children and making the porn, which would seem a much better way to fight the real problem. By only focusing on stopping consumption through filters, little is done to actually prevent kids from being abused, or to put the dirtbags who make this stuff out of commission.

Filed Under: filters, porn, producers

Agenda For Sunday Morning: Paper, Brunch, Porn

from the moral-decay dept

According to a British video-on-demand site, the most popular time for British people to watch its porn films is 11:16 on Sunday mornings. Meanwhile, Hitwise, which tracks internet traffic, says Sundays' most popular destinations are shopping and social-networking sites. But its most interesting bit of research is a bit buried: it contends that since September, social-networking sites have garnered more web traffic than porn sites. But, as the video-on-demand guy points out, it's possible, or even likely, that a certain amount of adult content has merely shifted onto the social networks.

Filed Under: porn, web traffic

The IPO Market Is Dead... Except For Porn?

from the seems-unlikely dept

The IPO market had almost entirely dried up already, before we reached financial meltdown in the second half of the year -- and the resulting financial crisis certainly hasn't made the IPO market any brighter. So, we certainly weren't expecting to hear of any internet companies trying to go public... but it seems at least one company thinks that now's the right time for an online porn company to go public. Apparently, Adult FriendFinder has filed to go public. The company, which used to be known as Penthouse Media Group until it bought the startup Adult Friendfinder not so long ago, is hoping to raise a bunch of money. I'd be surprised if this actually went anywhere. While some might claim that porn is always a growth market, it's a highly competitive one, and often seen as a bit sketchy on the business side. Plus, the underwriters are a little known Russian investment bank. On top of all that, it's looking to use the money not for expansion, but mostly to pay off debt. In this economic climate, with the current IPO window slammed pretty tightly shut, does anyone actually expect this one to go anywhere?

Filed Under: ipo, porn
Companies: adult friendfinder

Davenport Lyons Reported To Authorities; DigiProtect Insists Its Actions Are Aboveboard

from the the-developing-story dept

It seems things kept getting worse for Davenport Lyons and DigiProtect, who have teamed up to threaten an awful lot of people that they need to pay up to avoid getting sued for file sharing, usually on extremely flimsy evidence. That means, way too often, the letters are received by innocent people who wonder why they should pay £500 to avoid being sued for something they never did. It certainly feels like a good old fashioned protection racket, and a UK consumer group has now complained to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) in the UK, noting that a number of innocent folks have been apparently bullied by Davenport Lyons into paying up just to avoid being sued for something they never did. The group points out:

Davenport Lyons' letters to alleged file sharers: make incorrect assertions about the nature of copyright infringement; ignore the evidence presented in defense; and increase the level of compensation claimed over the period of correspondence. In addition, the letters threaten, incorrectly, that failing to properly secure an internet connection is grounds for legal action.

Meanwhile, last month we talked about a clause in DigiProtect's contract that appeared to say that the firm promised to upload the content to various file sharing networks, which certainly looked like they were going to spread the content more widely in order to be able to send out more of these "pre-settlement" letters. Considering DigiProtect promotes its service as helping companies profit from piracy, it wouldn't be surprising to find out that in order to increase profit, it has every incentive to first increase the "piracy." However, the company (who has been rather quiet during all of this) has granted an interview to xbiz where it refutes the arguments that it's uploading content, saying that the terms of the contract were simply necessary to transfer the legal rights to DigiProtect. Of course, if that were true, why not say they transferred the actual copyrights, rather than say they had obtained the rights to make content available, along with listing out the specific file sharing networks. Oddly, DigiProtect then goes on to claim that any online distribution of porn is illegal online due to laws against distributing porn to minors. That seems like a total nonsequitor.

The company doesn't explain the claims from its only named client, Evil Angel, about the fact they were told the pre-settlement letters would be for more like $50. It also refuses to name any other customers, though points out that it works with companies besides porn movie makers, specifically noting that it works with software companies too, but it refused to name any. Perhaps that's because software firms like Atari have backed away from these tactics after all of the negative publicity.

In the end, the whole thing seems pretty questionable. Trying to force people to pay up with threatening, misleading letters with extremely flimsy evidence (which has been barred in some countries) is hardly a reasonable business model. Hopefully, companies think twice before signing up for such a program -- and perhaps the SRA will sanction Davenport Lyons for its participation in this scheme.

Filed Under: copyright, porn, pre-settlement, solictors regulatory authority
Companies: davenport lyons, digiprotect, evil angel

Australian ISPs Refuse To Censor The Internet

from the thanks,-but-no-thanks dept

It looks like the Australian government's latest plan to censor the internet is running into a few snags. Earlier, one big ISP had agreed to take part, but only to show how stupid the plan was. However, a few readers have sent in the news that both Telstra and Internode have refused to take part in the trials that are starting up. Plus, the government is now claiming that the trials won't involve any actual customers. And, from the sound of things, there is growing opposition to the entire plan, with opposition politicians pushing to scrap the whole thing. Maybe the current government officials pushing this plan should have thought through how this would go before unilaterally announcing the plan, and spending plenty of money on it.

Filed Under: australia, filters, isps, porn, regulations

Porn Company Claims DigiProtect Lied About Davenport Lyons Settlement Letter Fees

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

The saga of UK law firm Davenport Lyons, and its ongoing efforts to extract money from people for a promise not to sue them, for copyright infringement continues. The BBC is the latest publication to pick up on the story, noting an awful lot of upset people are pissed off at bogus claims from Davenport Lyons about downloading porn films which they insist they had nothing to do with. Since Atari backed out of its deal with Davenport Lyons following the negative publicity, it seems that the law firm is focusing on its porn clients -- the same ones that apparently encouraged middleman DigiProtect to upload their content widely, to make sure more people were "pirating" it.

But the really interesting claim comes buried at the end of the article. The BBC contacted the porn company, Evil Angel, which hired DigiProtect, to get their thoughts on the negative reaction to the whole campaign, and the guy in charge claims that DigiProtect misrepresented the details to him, and he believed the pre-settlement demands were much lower than the £500 that is in the pre-settlement letter:

"It's not my understanding that they ask for anything near that. I think the amount was $50 or €50. I would be very surprised and I wouldn't be happy because it would mean it was completely misrepresented to me."

Of course, this probably means that Evil Angel is only getting $50 (or maybe even less) per "settlement" leaving somewhere in the range of $700 (depends on the exchange rate) for Davenport Lyons and DigiProtect to split. For doing what? Getting some IP addresses and sending out auto-generated form letters. Nice margins, but sort of proves that these settlements have nothing to do with compensating the content creator.

Filed Under: copyright, porn, pre-settlement
Companies: davenport lyons, digiprotect, evil angel

Latest Australian Internet Censorship Campaign Begins To Widespread Protests

from the free-the-internet dept

The latest in a long line of attempts by the Australian government to censor the internet is now starting, as ISPs are beginning to filter the internet (sometimes under protest), agreeing to block access to sites on a government blacklist. This plan will cost Austrlian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, on top of the large amounts already spent on earlier plans that failed.

In response to the start of the new filtering, Australian citizens are taking to the streets in protest, though it's unclear how much of an impact that will have. Once these "trials" fail, with both false positives and false negatives, maybe, just maybe someone in power down under will recognize that censorship is just a bad idea.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, filters, porn, protests, regulations