Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

hynesie08

irishproduce wrote: »

Beginning to think it's made up as part of the upcoming petitions in legislation changes.

Shhhhhhh.......... We're not allowed point out the very convenient timing. This definitely happened and if you dare question it or ask for evidence you hate women...........

Topgear on Dave

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Young lady on with Matt Cooper on the tonight show has in solidarity with those affected by revenge porn, posted pics of herself on social media in see through underwear.

Please tell me your joking here?

BIG GUNZ

Why was my comment deleted?

To repeat, nudes of Irish girls have been traded on 4chan since forever. This is nothing new.

Padre_Pio

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Please tell me your joking here?

Didn't 4Chan do a take on this?

Posted a load of bullsh*t content about a woman who had topless photos leaked, and encouraged women to "show solidarity" by posting toplessm pics online.

Then made a compilation of all the gullible women for all and sundry to see.

Padre_Pio

robinbird wrote: »

Yes. Exactly.. But now they have got all the political parties involved and the Gardai are tracking down and will be prosecuting those that looked at their private porn for free. Politicians and newspapers all on board with the outrage.

Take away the porn aspect and replace it with anything else.

Your credit card information is stolen and published
An artist has copies of work taken distributed without their consent.
A software developer has a program that's pirated and distributed.
Someone takes pictures of your child from Facebook and puts them onto some Shutterstock website.

Either way, people have access to information they shouldn't have, and that should be illegal. Regardless of the content, regardless of how you feel about the content creators.

The world is online. Good luck getting a job, or bills, or services, or shopping, or chatting with friends, or conducting business without an online presence. Everyone should have a right to online privacy,regardless of who you are or what content you produce.

BIG GUNZ

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Didn't 4Chan do a take on this?

Posted a load of bullsh*t content about a woman who had topless photos leaked, and encouraged women to "show solidarity" by posting toplessm pics online.

Then made a compilation of all the gullible women for all and sundry to see.

They did. #leakforlawrence if I recall. Not sure if many girls fell for it. But what does it matter when most of the them are dumb enough to hand out nudes to the guy they hooked up with on Saturday night?

BIG GUNZ

BIG GUNZ wrote: »

Why was my comment deleted?

To repeat, nudes of Irish girls have been traded on 4chan since forever. This is nothing new.

And finally something is being done about it.

BIG GUNZ

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And finally something is being done about it.

Nothing will be done. You people are so navie about the internet. How exactly will you stop pictures being posted on websites like 4chan?

bigpink

Well the sharing of underage is sick
But the porn stars and over 18s can't complain if they are putting pics online

Feisar

bigpink wrote: »

Well the sharing of underage is sick
But the porn stars and over 18s can't complain if they are putting pics online

This is pretty much it. There seem to be a number of issues coming to the fore here under the same umbrella of victim:

1. Underage stuff - sick/criminal/etc
2. Lads sharing pics women sent them - Grade A asshole act however what is the crime? Who owns the copyright of the image?
3. Only fans content being shared - A copyright issue I presume? Or is this classed as a violation of trust somehow? If a punter pays for a private video surely they own the content and can distribute as they wish?

paw patrol

irishproduce wrote: »

Beginning to think it's made up as part of the upcoming petitions in legislation changes.

agreed, when you see professional NGOs and woke politicians like Linda Hayden on the case - chased then by the usual suspects - I am particularly glaring at my local numpty Duncan Smith TD (labour) crying that the sky is falling with no evidence.


At this stage not one person has seen these pics. It smells like a 4chan style wind up or a stupid rumour like the UCC one years ago.
Which is worrying that the people in positions of influence get so worked up over a rumour online - is this the state of society??


If I was a suspicious person (which I am tbh) one would wonder at this outrage and attack on men emanating from the usual suspects coming on International Mens day?

sbsquarepants

Feisar wrote: »

This is pretty much it. There seem to be a number of issues coming to the fore here under the same umbrella of victim:

1. Underage stuff - sick/criminal/etc
2. Lads sharing pics women sent them - Grade A asshole act however what is the crime? Who owns the copyright of the image?
3. Only fans content being shared - A copyright issue I presume? Or is this classed as a violation of trust somehow? If a punter pays for a private video surely they own the content and can distribute as they wish?

I'd imagine the photographer owns the copyright. Even in the event that you pay to use the image, you can't just use it however you want.


You don't own the rights to distribute anything you pay to stream. You only buy the right to view it.

seamus

Feisar wrote: »

2. Lads sharing pics women sent them - Grade A asshole act however what is the crime? Who owns the copyright of the image?

In that case, it's more than copyright, it's a breach of privacy. There's an implicit understanding that the picture is for the use/view of the recipient only, and it becomes a breach of privacy to show that to anyone else.

But you can see it's wishy-washy, hard to prosecute and the penalties are pretty small if the subject in the photos is an adult.

This is why there are calls to make "revenge porn" a specific criminal act; that is the deliberate distribution of private explicit material beyond its originally intended audience.

3. Only fans content being shared - A copyright issue I presume? Or is this classed as a violation of trust somehow? If a punter pays for a private video surely they own the content and can distribute as they wish?

Being in possession of any works, whether that be a story, video, photo, drawing, etc, does not mean you are entitled to distribute that.
Paying for it, likewise, does not entitle you to distribute it.

In this respect distributing private onlyfans videos or photos is no different to photocopying a book and sending that out to other people. Or scanning a piece of artwork and distributing copies of it. Or ripping a BluRay and giving copies to your mates.

It's a very clear breach of copyright. But it's complicated area of law and as a result small content creators are very unlikely to do anything about it.

You wouldn't buy a piece of original artwork from a market stall, scan it, print out copies and distribute it. Why? Because that's a dick move; you're stealing the work of a small business, a private individual, and directly impacting them. This is no different.

I guess it's a bit of a shock for some onlyfans creators that this would happen. But it's inevitable. There are assholes out there who don't really care. There are people paying for their content who don't consider them to be private individuals deserving of respect.

Ultimately though they may find this a bit of a boost, given the nature of their work. There are individuals who will see this content and decide they want more of a particular girl and so will consider paying for new material.

banie01

irishproduce wrote: »

Beginning to think it's made up as part of the upcoming petitions in legislation changes.

https://twitter.com/HMcEntee/status/1329754918249492481?s=19

Seriously starting to look that way, another day passes our Justice Minister jumps on the bandwagon.

Yet there is still no actual 1st hand reporting or evidence of this mass leak as yet?
There 100% needs to be better legislation around revenge porn and other outing and sharing of private images.
That needs to be separated from upset Huns complaining that their paid content was shared.
Good legislation does not come from moral panic, much like white van kidnappers, satanic creches and those Romanian hair dying kiddie snatchers?

Where is the actual meat to this story?

The_Brood

seamus wrote: »

In that case, it's more than copyright, it's a breach of privacy. There's an implicit understanding that the picture is for the use/view of the recipient only, and it becomes a breach of privacy to show that to anyone else.

But you can see it's wishy-washy, hard to prosecute and the penalties are pretty small if the subject in the photos is an adult.

This is why there are calls to make "revenge porn" a specific criminal act; that is the deliberate distribution of private explicit material beyond its originally intended audience.

That's completely not how it works. I mean anyone who has used emails for any official purpose knows this. If you are sending something online, regardless of what or who it is, unless you put in a legal declaimer that the material is not to be shared, you have no rights to anything. That's why every last company/agency of any kind that deal with sensitive information have that declaimer. Without that, you are completely out of luck.

The_Brood

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Take away the porn aspect and replace it with anything else.

Your credit card information is stolen and published
An artist has copies of work taken distributed without their consent.
A software developer has a program that's pirated and distributed.
Someone takes pictures of your child from Facebook and puts them onto some Shutterstock website.

Either way, people have access to information they shouldn't have, and that should be illegal. Regardless of the content, regardless of how you feel about the content creators.

The world is online. Good luck getting a job, or bills, or services, or shopping, or chatting with friends, or conducting business without an online presence. Everyone should have a right to online privacy,regardless of who you are or what content you produce.

Credit card information that could lead to your account being stolen may be the exception, but....are you seriously suggesting people need to be employed to try and get involved any time all the other information you mentioned gets shared?

Do you have the slightest clue how much manpower that would require? You'd need half a country's population doing that job.

You'd be 100% better of getting rid of the internet all together than somehow trying to implement that level of monitoring and enforcement.

Mister Vain

It's scary to think where this sort of thing could go when deep fakes become easier to make. You could see yourself in a porno some day.

85603

Mister Vain wrote: »

It's scary to think where this sort of thing could go when deep fakes become easier to make. You could see yourself in a porno some day.

good reason to get in one now then.

2025 .. oh that, thats just a deep fake.

Limpy

Women shows her snatch online for a few buck's is surprised a pic gets leaked. Spare me.

85603

Limpy wrote: »

Women shows her snatch online for a few buck's is surprised a pic gets leaked. Spare me.

why do you have to use such a word as 'snatch'. thats so graphic and disrespectful.




























Its clunge.

Limpy

Blitzkrieg It For Hitler! wrote: »

Imagine being a simp and paying money for pictures and knowing they're now freely available online? Ouch!

What about the poor women, they will lose revenue.

Faugheen

banie01 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/HMcEntee/status/1329754918249492481?s=19

Seriously starting to look that way, another day passes our Justice Minister jumps on the bandwagon.

Yet there is still no actual 1st hand reporting or evidence of this mass leak as yet?
There 100% needs to be better legislation around revenge porn and other outing and sharing of private images.
That needs to be separated from upset Huns complaining that their paid content was shared.
Good legislation does not come from moral panic, much like white van kidnappers, satanic creches and those Romanian hair dying kiddie snatchers?

Where is the actual meat to this story?

Well the plan was to pass this bill through the Committee on December 1st before all of this came to light (and indeed still is) so there’s no ‘bandwagon jumping’ really going on.

This legislation was drafted by Brendan Howlin in 2017. Both McEntee and Howlin met about this a couple of weeks ago and it’s going to come before the committee next month anyway. The plan was always to have this done and dusted by the end of the year.

Did you actually do any research on this or did you just see this to have a pop at a minister when there are files of hundreds of thousands of images involving thousands of women which have been passed around without their consent?

I know many men here are just going to go down the route of ‘shur they shouldn’t be taking the photos anyway’ but of course they would think it’s fair game for lads to share them around as they wish without the woman’s consent.

banie01

Faugheen wrote: »

Well the plan was to pass this bill through the Committee on December 1st before all of this came to light (and indeed still is) so there’s no ‘bandwagon jumping’ really going on.

This legislation was drafted by Brendan Howlin in 2017. Both McEntee and Howlin met about this a couple of weeks ago and it’s going to come before the committee next month anyway. The plan was always to have this done and dusted by the end of the year.

Did you actually do any research on this or did you just see this to have a pop at a minister when there are files of hundreds of thousands of images involving thousands of women which have been passed around without their consent?

I know many men here are just going to go down the route of ‘shur they shouldn’t be taking the photos anyway’ but of course they would think it’s fair game for lads to share them around as they wish without the woman’s consent.

Ah blame misogyny when all else fails.
If the Minister in question had bollox, my opinion would be precisely the same.
My pop at the minister is squarely and solely for her reference to the thousands of images, and upset Irish women exposed on the internet.
Only they haven't been.
The story is being used as a convenient lens to frame the legislation.
Legislation that FG were instrumental in blocking when Howlin 1st tried presenting this 2yrs ago.

This is a matter of timing, of quite astounding convenience and a story that still has actually not one verifiable iota of proof as to occuring.

A minister under pressure and trying to spin her way out of facing censure over Woulfe and the Supreme court suddenly has a "serious" matter to attend to.
We are 2 days into this story now, and there is still no 1st hand reporting of the leak, no independent verification from anyone without something to gain.
No actual evidence this purposes leak exists at all.

Isn't the purpose of Only Fans to use your body and looks for likes?

Rubberchikken

Anyone who posts naked pics online doesn't deserve respect.
Why should they?

Naked pictures to make money. Posted online on a pay for site. And these people expect respect/privacy/rights. I'd laugh but it's so pathetic. As are the posters on this site and the users.
Get a life.

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Isn't the purpose of Only Fans to use your body and looks for likes?

Onlyfans yes.
But the alleged leaked material includes material from other sources shared privately and personal photos of claimed underage girls.
All of which would seriously ramp up the criminality of sharing the underage photos.

Currently sharing the other photos onlyfans and the revenge porn that is claimed to have leaked as part of the "hack" aren't necessarily a criminal act.

The proposed legislation will make it so.
Legislation is certainly needed and it's long overdue.
If FG had taken action when Howlin 1st proposed the bill, it'd be 2yrs on the books at this point.

Beechwoodspark

This “story” was on RTÉ news just now.

The guards are saying they are trying to establish the facts before taking this any further

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

Onlyfans yes.
But the alleged leaked material includes material from other sources shared privately and personal photos of claimed underage girls.
All of which would seriously ramp up the criminality of sharing the underage photos.

Currently sharing the other photos onlyfans and the revenge porn that is claimed to have leaked as part of the "hack" aren't necessarily a criminal act.

The proposed legislation will make it so.
Legislation is certainly needed and it's long overdue.
If FG had taken action when Howlin 1st proposed the bill, it'd be 2yrs on the books at this point.

Ah. There was a report a few minutes ago on RTE where a woman spoke about photos being taken from Snapchat and Google Drive. Having images that you think are private taken and shared is a huge invasion of privacy and is even abusive. However I have little sympathy for anyone who posts a naked image of themselves on a public site.

EileenDunne

EileenDunne wrote: »

Snapchat is not private.

If I have a facebook profile with 10 friends and I post a pic of my dick and it spreads around the internet, who's going to have sympathy for me?

No evidence there's any from google drive or anything anyways.

I haven't a clue about Snapchat. I thought you had to follow people in order to see their content.

EileenDunne

EileenDunne wrote: »

Yes and no.

But anyone can screenshot. Snapchat even tell you if someone screenshots so it's not like it's a private chat. In any case, it's not different to being on facebook. No one seemed to have a problem with the private whatsapp chats where the lads in UCD were upto naughty stuff.

I was thinking more of a situation where someone could share a naked pic of themselves with another person in a message or where they don't mean for it to be seen publicly.

Any image on a public site though and I think you must take responsibility for yourself. Surely you know the risk involved.