Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI | Hrm. I posted earlier in the day stating that I was curious what bomb Chris was about to drop re: this issue.
Unfortunately, as I stated my brain was telling me, this isn't much of a surprise or an exposé. I'm not entirely certain if it's illegal to claim they're under 18 if in fact they're over 18 (IANAL, I literally don't know). Who knows how legit any of it is. And it's no shocker that the bundlers would target this type of file for distribution. Duh, this just in: people on the internet like porn.
The (brushed over really) implication that they're also using copyrighted materials they don't own rights to though... that's somethign that would seem to me to stand better from a legal standpoint,a nd would be a bigger mistake.
Like I said I could be wrong, IANAL. But to me this is nothing, not new news, and won't do anything to slow anythign down. |
1 edit | from looking athe strict letter of the Canadian law, it appears that they would indeed take a hard line on simply making it look like they were under 18, even if they were not:
...and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer either. Though there is of course the horrible possiblility that the girls in the mediafiles could actually be under 18 anyway, in which case its pretty irrelevant anyway. though IANAL either 
however - it looks like MMG used an affiliate of their own in some crazy way to possibly sort out the mediacontent on their behalf. which is nuts. but if thats the case, the top brass at MMG would likely not know about this either.
and i do not think the adware companies involved had any idea that this kind of file was out there. its just too big a risk. my disappointment comes with the knowlede that nobody seemed willing to take Dave up on his offer of help. |
