Thot____Patroller said:
Obligatory
Girlsdoporn.com lawsuit/declaring bankruptcy
- Thread starter The Wire
- Start date
Obligatory
InXile said:
One of Max Hardcore's methods was to do one vanilla scene where he respected her boundaries, get her to go on camera with an "exit interview" talking about what a good time she had, and then another scene at a later date where he absolutely shellacked her.
Dirtyblueshirt
Robin
Whether they have a case or not, it's hard for me to have sympathy for these girls. They knew what they were there for. The first line they all say in each episode: "I'm here to make my first porn video"
About the girl in the reddit AMA (asian girl, science major), she did 2 videos. If the experience was so horrible and you were "duped", why would you come back for a second video? The $$$ of course.
If I had to guess, I would say that the biggest reason for these lawsuits is that some of these girls have very rich parents, who in turn hire some high-powered lawyers to get the videos taken down. Just a hunch. Years ago, Joe Francis and his company Girls Gone Wild probably had the same problems and were attacked in a similar way, but he had the revenue and his own team of lawyers to combat this.
About the girl in the reddit AMA (asian girl, science major), she did 2 videos. If the experience was so horrible and you were "duped", why would you come back for a second video? The $$$ of course.
If I had to guess, I would say that the biggest reason for these lawsuits is that some of these girls have very rich parents, who in turn hire some high-powered lawyers to get the videos taken down. Just a hunch. Years ago, Joe Francis and his company Girls Gone Wild probably had the same problems and were attacked in a similar way, but he had the revenue and his own team of lawyers to combat this.
Wutang said:
Took 2 seconds from duckduckgo
https://reddit.olanola.com/blog/43363848216/IamA-girl-from-GirlsDoPorn.com-AMA!
https://www.reddit.com/r/NSFWIAMA/comments/58art0/iama_20_year_old_who_shot_a_scene_for_girlsdoporn/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMAAggrega..._engineering_student_who_featured_in_a_girls/
Caduceus
Pelican
If a girl is truly traumatized by a porn movie gone wrong and/or made public, then she won't go on reddit and do an "ask me anything".
That's just pure attention whoring.
It smells like something else is going on here...like these girls are being paid by someone else to say they were fooled and file a class action lawsuit. Who's paying them to do this now ?
My best guess:
The people behind the mainstream porn industry and their (((financial backers))) who don't want any competition. No alternative source of porn that isn't under their control, will be allowed to exist. The porn indusry in the USA is essentially almost a monopoly/oligopoly operation.
From what I understand the guys running "girlsdoporn" were independents, who didn't have to pay agency fees, commissions, and all the other assorted costs that come with hiring mainstream porn stars and using the mainstream porn channels. They had exclusive contracts with their girls who didn't appear anywhere else...and that made them very profitable and free of studio controls. Hence they need to be stopped.
Just a theory on my part.
That's just pure attention whoring.
It smells like something else is going on here...like these girls are being paid by someone else to say they were fooled and file a class action lawsuit. Who's paying them to do this now ?
My best guess:
The people behind the mainstream porn industry and their (((financial backers))) who don't want any competition. No alternative source of porn that isn't under their control, will be allowed to exist. The porn indusry in the USA is essentially almost a monopoly/oligopoly operation.
From what I understand the guys running "girlsdoporn" were independents, who didn't have to pay agency fees, commissions, and all the other assorted costs that come with hiring mainstream porn stars and using the mainstream porn channels. They had exclusive contracts with their girls who didn't appear anywhere else...and that made them very profitable and free of studio controls. Hence they need to be stopped.
Just a theory on my part.
SlickyBoy
Hummingbird
The Wire said:
Unfortunately, the way it works is the exact opposite - it's what is in the contract that counts, not what you may say during the negotiations. Even if these girls "win" their lawsuit, the Internet never forgets. But yeah, I'm betting many of their claims are exaggerated. I wouldn't expect a judge to be anti-porno either, since after all they are the ones who legalized it every step of the way in the first place - why do you think we are where we are these days? Even if it is presided by a feminist, all any judge will be concerned about are contract law violations and civil liability burdens.
As for how stupid could people be in the age of the Internet, consider how many foolish Eastern European women wind up being sex trafficked after they get scammed into a job where they think they will be doing admin work then they show up at the airport, stuffed into a van and their passport taken away by their "sponsor." People are stubbornly naive.
Even military guys are no exception. When I was on active duty in the late 90s, there was a local sleazebag photographer who was always trying to con young soldiers into posing nude, doing swimsuit shots, etc.
One day I saw an acquaintance talking to this guy at an area coffee shop. Later on I gave him a heads up, asking if he knew what the guy was trying to pull.
"Oh yeah, I know the guy is gay but no biggie, it's just some swimsuit modelling stuff, gonna pay me a couple of hundred - easy money what the heck." I reminded him that once he signs that release, the word "release" is exactly what will happen to his right to those pics. They could wind up promoting some gay web site even if he himself isn't actually doing anything X rated. His face went blank.
A few days later he told me "Hey man, uh, I took your advice - I declined that guy's offer. Thanks." Good decision, I said.
A few short years later, this happened. Yes, it was the same photographer involved. Even if the stupid privates who participated were lied to, that didn't matter. One of them went to prison for being a prostitute and recruiting other soldiers into participating.
SlickyBoy
Hummingbird
jeffreyjerpp said:
They are not "teenagers," as in minors. They are young women who can do it all, how dare you stop us, pussy hats, vote blue, etc. Can't have it both ways. Even if a judge were sympathetic and ignored their age of majority status and legal capacity to contract, any verdict dismissing the basics of contract law would be easily overturned.
Imagine the credit card companies being told they could not hold those same young girls accountable to the bills they rang up shopping in advance of their porno careers because they did not read their cc contracts, got pressured by the sales staff, etc. Uh huh. Nope.
SlickyBoy said:
The law is usually the law whatever a judge says the law is. When cases like these get put in front of a judge and you have the local San Diego press covering this from the perspective of the girls don't be surprised the judge is going to be anti-porno here. If I were a betting man I wouldn't be giving good odds on GDP's defense.
SlickyBoy
Hummingbird
Yeah, well, if they lose it won't be because the judge feels sympathy. This isn't a sexual assault case, it's a contract case. Nobody is going to jail and even monetary awards are doubtful since the company is declaring bankruptcy. Since the bulk of the case is about what shortcomings in pay (peanuts) and punitive damages (most of the monetary claim), this thing is dead before it even starts, in terms of remedies.
You forget that Cali-pornia is the same place that produces the industry itself. They supposedly sympathetic courts and legislators don't even legally require STD testing of, the uh... "actors" (prostitutes). Barring adequate, admissible evidence of unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendants, it's going nowhere.
You forget that Cali-pornia is the same place that produces the industry itself. They supposedly sympathetic courts and legislators don't even legally require STD testing of, the uh... "actors" (prostitutes). Barring adequate, admissible evidence of unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendants, it's going nowhere.
dicknixon72
Pelican
If claims are true, they were chatting up 17 year-olds on the cusp of turning 18. I don't want to die on that hill in court, sorry.
Hard to feel sorry for either side. Porn is filth.
They clearly made enemies everywhere lol.Caduceus said:
Haven't seen those vids in a long time, fired up pornhub and had a wank to some of the best.
People are so autistic and disconnected from common sense that the idea that "porn makers are sleazy people" comes as a shock to them. Look these porno guys should be penalized if they were deceptive and broke the law but having a hustle and fast talk is not illegal.
Aurini
Ostrich
Porn is full of sleazy people.
You accepted money in exchange for getting fucked on camera.
What strikes me is how well this illustrates how women think in social perceptions, primarily. For these girls what matters is justifying the videos. If they can play being the victim - regardless of whether or not they were a victim to some degree, or fully informed of what was happening - the ends justify the means.
They've got eggs to fertilize, and if lying about what happened will achieve that end, so be it. Responsibility? That's for people without eggs that desperately need fertilizing.
Bigger problem? Men who treat women like perfectly rational, trustworthy creatures, at one moment - and then incompetent children who need to be protected from exploitation. Have it one way or the other, but not both.
You accepted money in exchange for getting fucked on camera.
What strikes me is how well this illustrates how women think in social perceptions, primarily. For these girls what matters is justifying the videos. If they can play being the victim - regardless of whether or not they were a victim to some degree, or fully informed of what was happening - the ends justify the means.
They've got eggs to fertilize, and if lying about what happened will achieve that end, so be it. Responsibility? That's for people without eggs that desperately need fertilizing.
Bigger problem? Men who treat women like perfectly rational, trustworthy creatures, at one moment - and then incompetent children who need to be protected from exploitation. Have it one way or the other, but not both.
I worked with a girl who did part time modeling/softcore porn. After a trip to California she told our manager and me how the director talked her into fingering herself on camera. When all was said and done, she made the director promise not to share the video despite signing contracts that all property were his to do as he wished. My manager and I looked at each other and rolled our eyes. I could pick up on her doubts and shame for doing the shoot. This was 2010ish. I felt zero sympathy for her because she was a massive slut who left a college basketball player crying and begging her to quit modeling, so she could continue her career in whoredom. I wish I knew what happened to her and how far down she fell in the rabbit hole. My guess is she did anal on camera within the year.
As a former litigator I don't like GDP's chances from the evidence I've seen.
You have to understand something that people not in litigation don't understand. The law in cases like these will likely have precedents (although not necessarily on point) that support both sides. This leaves the judge to effectively make a decision based on whats fair and whats just.
Who do you think a judge is likely to have more sympathy for. Guys who lied to young girls about the usage of their tape and had them sign contracts that weren't in line with what they were told? Absolutely not.
There were cases like this I read in law school but of a different nature where a door to door salesman comes in and gets older people to sign contracts based on his verbal representations. Of course the contract ripped off the older people and didn't line up with the verbal representations. The older people got their money back.
My understanding is that GDP verbally told these girls it would be given to private individuals in countries like Brazil and not online. I.e. like a dvd. I may be off on these assertions as I haven't reviewed the case in a long time. The judge isn't likely going to have sympathy for a bunch of older males manipulating young females. How much they are ultimately awarded in damages is going to vary widely based on who the judge is and any expert / medical opinions given at court.
If I were arguing the case I'd argue that all profits should be disgorged and given back to the girls. This isn't a case of fast speak its blatant misrepresentation using tactics that a Judge is going to have little sympathy for.
If it was 1 girl claiming to have been misled I'd say it's questionable but the sheer number of them tells me otherwise.
I 100% agree that girls agreeing to have sex on camera is horrible judgment in the first place but when the thought is that no one they know or even in their country will ever see it verse everyone I know will see it theres a big difference in thinking.
Personally I hope GDP gets smoked on this one despite my enjoyment of their videos.
One thing to understand is that cases don't necessarily only go to trial to decide whats right and what is wrong. Often times they will go all the way to trial despite one party knowing full well they will "lose" as the real question is how much are they going to have to pay out.
You have to understand something that people not in litigation don't understand. The law in cases like these will likely have precedents (although not necessarily on point) that support both sides. This leaves the judge to effectively make a decision based on whats fair and whats just.
Who do you think a judge is likely to have more sympathy for. Guys who lied to young girls about the usage of their tape and had them sign contracts that weren't in line with what they were told? Absolutely not.
There were cases like this I read in law school but of a different nature where a door to door salesman comes in and gets older people to sign contracts based on his verbal representations. Of course the contract ripped off the older people and didn't line up with the verbal representations. The older people got their money back.
My understanding is that GDP verbally told these girls it would be given to private individuals in countries like Brazil and not online. I.e. like a dvd. I may be off on these assertions as I haven't reviewed the case in a long time. The judge isn't likely going to have sympathy for a bunch of older males manipulating young females. How much they are ultimately awarded in damages is going to vary widely based on who the judge is and any expert / medical opinions given at court.
If I were arguing the case I'd argue that all profits should be disgorged and given back to the girls. This isn't a case of fast speak its blatant misrepresentation using tactics that a Judge is going to have little sympathy for.
If it was 1 girl claiming to have been misled I'd say it's questionable but the sheer number of them tells me otherwise.
I 100% agree that girls agreeing to have sex on camera is horrible judgment in the first place but when the thought is that no one they know or even in their country will ever see it verse everyone I know will see it theres a big difference in thinking.
Personally I hope GDP gets smoked on this one despite my enjoyment of their videos.
One thing to understand is that cases don't necessarily only go to trial to decide whats right and what is wrong. Often times they will go all the way to trial despite one party knowing full well they will "lose" as the real question is how much are they going to have to pay out.