dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
396
share rss forum feed

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

This may cause suicides

BBC reports that a 19yo new york guy committed suicide after a video of him having sex with a male friend was published on the internet by his roommate. The roomate and another person are to be charged with invasion of privacy.

I think the porn industry may have to review its "shame" policy because if their deeds ever causes someone to kill themseves, they would be liable for some heavy duty lawsuit if not criminal charges.

Walter Dnes

join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
said by jfmezei:

I think the porn industry may have to review its "shame" policy because if their deeds ever causes someone to kill themseves, they would be liable for some heavy duty lawsuit if not criminal charges.
It's totally different. The case in the news involves someone having legal, consenting, sex, with "a reasonable expectation of privacy", being filmed in the act.

Your leap-of-logic would make it illegal to file charges against anyone for anything. E.g. RIAA and MPAA couldn't file charges either. Heck, banks couldn't file charges against bank robbers.

Just don't be stupid enough to explicitly point out in writing, or verbally, that the mere filing of a charge would destroy the defendant's career. Simply get a lawyer to write up boilerplate letters... "we have evidence that you infringed on our IP. We request that you compensate us with a payment of $X, and to cease and desist such IP infringements immediately. If you do not comply, we reserve the the right to seek redress via the legal system".

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
There is quite a difference between Film company X filing charges against an individual, accusing him of copyright infringement for one of their productions,

and Film company X taking out ads on the net/newspapers revealing that an invididual has illegally watched < embarassing film title >

Walter Dnes

join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
said by jfmezei:

and Film company X taking out ads on the net/newspapers revealing that an invididual has illegally watched < embarassing film title >
That crosses the "stupid" line I mentioned in my post. It's one thing to issue a press release saying that you have filed charges. If you issue a press release saying that Mr. X HAS done something, you run into a couple of serious problems...

•Item 1) You can win 99 out of a 100 cases, and get several thousand dollars from each defendant. But the 100th defendant, who is found not guilty will be able to sue for every last single penny the plaintiffs have. Given the situation, the only people who will stand up and face the publicity are those who truly are innocent, and want to destroy you. This self-selection means that anybody who does stand up to the suits will have a better-than-average chance of being found innocent,

•Item 2) If you publicize the case, the defendant can claim that he can't get a fair jury trial because of the publicity that YOU have done. Courts do not take kindly to "obstruction of justice". This, again, increases the chances of a defendant being found innocent.


Buzz69

join:2003-09-22
Atlanta, GA
The lawsuit in the second paragraph is o behalf of Larry Flynt/On the Cheap, LLC., for the video of Danielle Staub.

»www.slyck.com/story2079_Over_750 ··· ts_Filed

A quick search on the interwebs you will find that "Danielle Staub Raw" is not selling very well.

»www.google.com/search?q=danielle ··· irefox-a