Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

R3d Pill wrote: »

This whole thing just proves that young women are really dumb.

Not really. It's part of a wider conversation about online privacy.

More and more of our lives are online and we should have a right to privacy.
Legislation just hasn't caught up.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Not really. It's part of a wider conversation about online privacy.

More and more of our lives are online and we should have a right to privacy.
Legislation just hasn't caught up.

I don't think people appreciate the fact that legislation has very little to do with it.
Online and privacy should not really appear in the same sentence.

kippy wrote: »

I don't think people appreciate the fact that legislation has very little to do with it.
Online and privacy should not really appear in the same sentence.

Why not?

Most of our lives are online.
How many website have your name, age, address, CV, credit card, bank details photos of you, your family, maybe your kids. Your shopping history, your browser history, the history of your Google searches etc.

Who's fault is it if these things are leaked?
Should the people who leak this info be punished, or is it all the victims fault?

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Why not?

Most of our lives are online.
How many website have your name, age, address, CV, credit card, bank details photos of you, your family, maybe your kids. Your shopping history, your browser history, the history of your Google searches etc.

Who's fault is it if these things are leaked?
Should the people who leak this info be punished, or is it all the victims fault?

Would that not be covered under GDPR.

anewme wrote: »

Would that not be covered under GDPR.

Nope. You give consent that these websites hold your information, which is required to use their services.

Someone hacking a website and stealing your info is not covered by GDPR

Wibbs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Especially when person sharing was a child, under 18 years old.

You don't say... Of course children need more protection.

.anon. wrote: »

I did read your next post, which is precisely why I found it odd that you took exception with that poster's use of the term 'victim blaming'. Perhaps you did so in your usual knee-jerk, oh-so-anti-woke way, I don't know.

More in my usual I've a pain in my arse with the perpetual victim complex being pushed in lieu of personal responsibility and basic bloody cop on in grown arsed adults. If being "anti woke" equals that then fire away.

coinop wrote: »

Dunno, I have never paid for pornography and never will. It's a horrible, exploitative industry that demeans women despite their insistence that it's empowering. Yer wan all over the media crying about the OnlyFans leak wouldn't be my cup of tea anyway. Nose job, lip fillers, camera filers, an inch of make-up plastered across her face.

My point stands - if you buy a CD, DVD, magazine or even a photo, it's ridiculous to try to prosecute for showing it to your friends. For family movie night should we be expected to buy a separate DVD for each family member as we watch it alone on separate TVs in separate rooms?

I'd respectfully suggest that you demean women with your comments above more than OnlyFans demeans women.

Here's the relevant bits from their terms, with my bolding for emphasis.

https://onlyfans.com/terms/intellectual-property-rights

Intellectual Property Rights
Other than User Content, the Website and its entire contents, features, and functionality (including but not limited to all information, software, text, displays, images, video, and audio, and the design, selection, and arrangement thereof), are owned by FIL, FIL licensors, or other providers of such material and are protected by international copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, and other intellectual property or proprietary rights laws.
You must not reproduce, distribute, modify, create derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, republish, download, store, or transmit any of the material on the Website, except as follows:
you may store files that are automatically cached by your Web browser for display enhancement purposes; and
you may print or download one copy of a reasonable number of pages of the Website for your own personal, non-commercial use and not for further reproduction, publication, or distribution.
If you print, copy, modify, download, or otherwise use or provide any other person with access to any part of the Website in breach of the Terms, your right to use the Website will end immediately and you must, at FIL option, return or destroy any copies of the materials you have made.

Other than User Content, no right, title, or interest in or to the Website or any content on the Website is transferred to you, and all rights not expressly granted are reserved by FIL. Any use of the Website not expressly permitted by these Terms is a breach of these Terms and may violate copyright, trademark, and other laws.

Licence
Subject to all of the terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions contained in these Terms, we grant to you a conditional, revocable, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive and limited licence to use the Website for your own lawful and personal use only. You acknowledge and agree that the foregoing license may be revoked and terminated by FIL at any time and for any reason (including, without limitation, if you violate these Terms or any applicable law). Any use of OnlyFans other than as expressly permitted by these Terms is strictly prohibited. All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by FIL.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Nope. You give consent that these websites hold your information, which is required to use their services.

Someone hacking a website and stealing your info is not covered by GDPR

If the website host was negligent in securing your information, it is very much covered by GDPR. Looks at the big fines issued to Talk Talk and BA by the UK Information Commissioner.

Paul Weller

Women? Why do you presume it's only women?! That's a shocking supposition to make

Wibbs

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Why not?

Most of our lives are online.
How many website have your name, age, address, CV, credit card, bank details photos of you, your family, maybe your kids. Your shopping history, your browser history, the history of your Google searches etc.

Who's fault is it if these things are leaked?
Should the people who leak this info be punished, or is it all the victims fault?

Most of the above is already "public" to one degree or other, certainly within the organisations that are collecting that data to sell you "goods and services". Never mind data mining to sell to other organisations for different purposes. The internet is remarkably public, but many if not most people don't realise that and clamour to share more of their personal lives on it.

Now there's no reason to go full tinfoil hat on it, but some care should be applied and kids should most definitely be more educated on how public and private their online activities actually are and how to minimise any risks that stem from that.

Whatever goes up on the internet stays on the internet. Security breaches are common. As the fella says don't put anything up on the internet you wouldn't want your granny to read or see. Or at least that was the common sense advice years ago when tracking and data mining was a lot less intensive. Then again that was more a time when there were more "nerds" online and they knew more of the score and they tended to go by usernames. Now it's everybody from 9 to 90 tapping away on phones with their actual names etc, seemingly oblivious.

Wibbs wrote: »

You don't say... Of course children need more protection.
.

Not everyone on this thread seems to agree. Some people that anyone who shares a photo with anyone deserve everything they get.

Wibbs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not everyone on this thread seems to agree. Some people that anyone who shares a photo with anyone deserve everything they get.

Then they're morons. Children almost by definition aren't as nearly responsible as adults and need protection. It's why we make the distinction in law and culture between kids and adults. Same for those with intellectual disabilities.

riclad

i dont think anyone over 16 is a child , more like a young adult or a teenager.
A person of 17 can marry in ireland with permission from their parents .
if a woman wants to appear in porn videos she should be allowed to,
if she is over 21.its a lot safer than working as an escort on the streets and it pays more than working in a supermarket,.
the law in america called fosta has made it difficult for any websites that advertise any sex worker services online . i think only fans is popular because people are staying in more ,
We are in a free western country ,if prostitution is legal than only fans should be legal too.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not everyone on this thread seems to agree. Some people that anyone who shares a photo with anyone deserve everything they get.

Can you show us where this has happened?

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Why not?

Most of our lives are online.
How many website have your name, age, address, CV, credit card, bank details photos of you, your family, maybe your kids. Your shopping history, your browser history, the history of your Google searches etc.

Who's fault is it if these things are leaked?
Should the people who leak this info be punished, or is it all the victims fault?

You are muddying the waters greatly but as to who is at fault, it depends very greatly on the circumstances and the parties involved....
There are potentially a number of 'victims' depending on the specifics.

Again, sharing or storing something online that you wouldn't share with your granny etc is not good practice. It's very hard to compare it with something in the 'real' world because it's not.

BorneTobyWilde

Kids don't get a pass when it comes to breaking the law, if a kid murders someone we don't just say, '' ah it's okay, they're only 14''
But they seem to get a pass when they produce self made CP, and distribute it among their inner circle. ..doesn't make sense. They should bring out a law that makes it illegal for people under 18 to share such images over smartphones and internet.It might make them think twice, because at the end of the day, all those images will end up somewhere dark online without them ever knowing.

kippy wrote: »

Again, sharing or storing something online that you wouldn't share with your granny etc is not good practice. It's very hard to compare it with something in the 'real' world because it's not.

IMO it's no different to any other media or product online.

If you're taking someone else digital property and sharing it without their consent, there should be some punishment.

Doesn't matter if it's your music, software, family photos, personal information, nudes whatever.

Given how people's businesses and private lives are more online than ever, the notion that "don't put something online that you wouldn't share with your granny etc" is out of date.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not everyone on this thread seems to agree. Some people that anyone who shares a photo with anyone deserve everything they get.

Jeez, are there really people here looking to exploit children?

Sick fuchs. Denounce them

For me, there's a massive difference between sharing/distributing a photo of someone (created/sent by the person not for commercial gain if you like) and sharing/distributing a photo of someone who originally published it for commercial gain.

The former is criminal.
The latter civil.

Are unsolicited dick pics included in the former?

Padre_Pio wrote: »

IMO it's no different to any other media or product online.

If you're taking someone else digital property and sharing it without their consent, there should be some punishment.

Doesn't matter if it's your music, software, family photos, personal information, nudes whatever.

Given how people's businesses and private lives are more online than ever, the notion that "don't put something online that you wouldn't share with your granny etc" is out of date.

Im not saying there shouldn't be punishment but it's damn near impossible to investigate and prosecute due to the very nature of the medium.

If you accept the fact that passwords get compromised, data gets compromised and sites get hacked, you have to accept the fact that you shouldn't put something online that you wouldn't be happy showing your granny.

The damage is often done well before prosecutions come so why not take some control of the situation and not share something you wouldn't share with your granny?

Ash.J.Williams

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

There appears to be a lack of understanding in this thread on this issue.

When you buy or rent a movie or music or any intellectual property, you are buying a single license to be used in a personal capacity. Within your home with others is fine for music or a movie. If however you share that item with others by lending it to them or allowing them to copy the CD for example, thats copyright infringement.

The same for a programme bought online or Windows on your computer. Its single use. Once you start allowing others to use the disc or serial number, thats copyright infringement aka piracy.

Thats why there are commercial licenses for pubs to show Sky Sports or companies to have hundreds of Windows computers using Office and so on and so forth. In the day, DVD rental via Xtravision was the same, they had to buy a rental version of the movie instead of the normal version.

and yes, I am aware that the world and its dog does these things in one form or another but its still a copyright offence.

There is also a large gap between someones made for commercial use nude images being shared by a legitimate purchaser and an ex sharing what was supposed to be intimate images for his eyes only. The Onlyfans stuff was produced knowing and with the esxpress intent that multiple strangers would view it. The victim is a victim financially only as the only problem is lack of payment. No different to someone watching a private lapdance through an open window.

And until the laws you speak of are enforced people should expect their onlyfans vids to be public at some point

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40084931.html

From Irish Examiner about the protest.

According to Ms Hayden, images have been taken from various platforms including Only Fans, Tinder, WhatsApp, and Instagram......

"....Ms Hayden said a large proportion of victim-blaming has been seen around the crime of image-based abuse.

“An attitude of ‘well if you didn’t want this to happen you shouldn’t have taken the pictures’ and in response to that we say ‘cop on’. It’s our body, our choice, but likewise, we maintain control over the consent around these images."

anewme wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40084931.html

From Irish Examiner about the protest.

Ms Hayden said a large proportion of victim-blaming has been seen around the crime of image-based abuse.

“An attitude of ‘well if you didn’t want this to happen you shouldn’t have taken the pictures’ and in response to that we say ‘cop on’. It’s our body, our choice, but likewise, we maintain control over the consent around these images."

It's important to ensure the three issues at play here remain seperate and not muddied.

Is the person aboves main issue with onlyfans and sharing of images from there and the likes?
It's not immediately obvious to me...

Ash.J.Williams

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'd respectfully suggest that you demean women with your comments above more than OnlyFans demeans women.

Here's the relevant bits from their terms, with my bolding for emphasis.

https://onlyfans.com/terms/intellectual-property-rights

Every subscription porn site would have that , 3 months later porn ends up on free sites and only fans will be the same, it’s just Karen from the gaa club down the road is on only fans and expects to be treated differently

kippy wrote: »

It's important to ensure the three issues at play here remain seperate and not muddied.

Is the person aboves main issue with onlyfans and sharing of images from there and the likes?
It's not immediately obvious to me...

Sorry I was trying to reply to your post earlier about consent but could not link it.

kippy wrote: »

It's important to ensure the three issues at play here remain seperate and not muddied.

Is the person aboves main issue with onlyfans and sharing of images from there and the likes?
It's not immediately obvious to me...

You might think there are separate issues, but not everyone does, hence the protest being linked back to consent issues.

anewme wrote: »

Sorry I was trying to reply to your post about consent but could not link it

Ok.

Again, there is some muddying of the waters here, not necessarily by you, however if people expect every single incidence of online sharing of copyrighted adult pictures to be investigated and prosecuted by the Gardai, we would need a few thousand more Gardai.
This is sperate to the issue of the sharing of underage photos and/or revenge porn type sharing.

anewme wrote: »

You might think there are separate issues, but not everyone does, hence the protest being linked back to consent issues.

Indeed. I hope some commonsense may prevail at some point and the right issues get the right action.

banie01

anewme wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40084931.html

From Irish Examiner about the protest.

According to Ms Hayden, images have been taken from various platforms including Only Fans, Tinder, WhatsApp, and Instagram......

"....Ms Hayden said a large proportion of victim-blaming has been seen around the crime of image-based abuse.

“An attitude of ‘well if you didn’t want this to happen you shouldn’t have taken the pictures’ and in response to that we say ‘cop on’. It’s our body, our choice, but likewise, we maintain control over the consent around these images."

Again, this is an activist with a specific aim claiming the hack has happened and there has been widespread dissemination of the claimed pirated, leaked, stolen and otherwise obtained material.

That article is from the 18/11, it's the 21st now and do you know what?
There's still not a peep of this material anywhere?
Why not?

As I've said earlier in thread, if there was such material in the wild?
It would propogate wildly, that's one of the immediate downsides and dangers of digital media.
The genie gets out of the bottle, and can't be put back in.
Except, in this case?
The genie is still invisible.

kippy wrote: »

Ok.

Again, there is some muddying of the waters here, not necessarily by you, however if people expect every single incidence of online sharing of copyrighted adult pictures to be investigated and prosecuted by the Gardai, we would need a few thousand more Gardai.
This is sperate to the issue of the sharing of underage photos and/or revenge porn type sharing.

Part of it push to stop using the term revenge porn.thats where the term image based sexual abuse comes from.

"Revenge porn’ is an outdated term that fails to capture severity of the offence and implies blame should be focused on the victim" - not my words, from another article on the topic.

No I'm not muddying any waters, I'm saying what is being pushed for in legislation,