Online free porn at mobile phone

verysmartperson · 29th August 2019, 23:07

fyi: 22 Women Say They Were Exploited by Porn Producers

Their lawsuit, a rare look into an opaque industry, seeks $22 million in damages.

Code:

http://nytimes.com/2019/08/29/style/girls-do-porn-lawsuit-testimony.html

In a trial that began on Aug. 19 in San Diego Superior Court, nearly two dozen young women say that they responded to Craigslist ads seeking models and were then tricked into performing in internet pornography. “Wanted,” an ad would read: “beautiful college type preppy girls,” for video and photo shoots.

The ads turned out to be from producers behind a website called Girls Do Porn, who were seeking women to make so-called amateur porn, a style in which fresh-faced new actresses are often paired with seasoned male performers. The trial could last a month, but no matter its outcome it will provide a rare look into a part of the industry that remains shrouded in mystery — often intentionally, by its makers.

Respondents to the Craigslist ads said they were directed to innocuous websites, with pictures of clothed women, that asked for their contact information and photographs.

Instead of being offered modeling jobs, however, they were offered roughly $5,000 to make pornography, they said. But they did it, a number of them now say, based on the assurance, from the producers and their associates, that the videos would be distributed only on DVD outside of the United States and would never be published online.

The producers did publish the videos online, on Girls Do Porn, which specializes in amateur porn. The clips were also distributed to major sites, like Pornhub.

Shortly after the videos were posted, the women’s names and identifying information popped up on a site called PornWikileaks, which identifies people who have done porn.

Those are some of the allegations in a legal action brought by 22 women, identified as Jane Does, including a former law student who worked to organize the group. The women are seeking $22 million in damages from the people involved with making the videos. They also want their videos removed from the website.

An Industry That Exposes All but Itself
The testimony of the women offers an unusual look at the specifics of how people are recruited to participate in so-called amateur pornography.

Mike Stabile, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry trade group, said his organization has received more reports of unscrupulous producers in the last decade that in years before. “With the changes in technology, you have a lot more fly-by-night companies,” Mr. Stabile said. They run shoots that he described as “unethical if not illegal.”

Reports that women who are recruited for the porn business face mistreatment have long accompanied the industry, but reliable data is scarce. Even prominent performers have told of being mistreated by producers, agents or fellow actors.

Mia Khalifa, a former porn performer whose videos have been viewed millions of times, recently reported that she was paid $12,000 in her three-month porn career, and warned young women not to enter the business.

The case consolidates three lawsuits and names three defendants and the legal entities the defendants operate.

Those three are Michael J. Pratt, the chief executive of GirlsDoPorn.com; Andre Garcia, an actor; and Matthew Wolfe, a videographer. Their lawyers said they will show that the women signed contracts that said the videos they made could be “used anywhere, anyhow, for any purpose.”

The women also recorded videotaped statements to say they were not under the influence of drugs or mind-altering substances, and that they consented to the videos being used in any way, according to court documents.

“In our view, the women’s regret over their decision to make pornographic videos was and remains the primary motivation for this lawsuit,” Aaron Sadock, a lawyer representing the defendants, wrote in an email. Their complaint, he said, seems based on the idea that “young adult women are incapable of making their own decisions, good or bad, and consequently should not be bound by the contracts they signed.”

Lawyers for the women argue that it is part of Girls Do Porn’s business model to mislead women and coerce them into signing contracts. The women say they want their own videos removed and other women told how videos will be used in the future.

Brian Holm, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said his clients, wanted to bring the case, “as a P.S.A. to the world, to put everyone on notice, that this was going on.”

‘It’s Completely Legit’
Early in the trial, Amberlyn Clark testified that she worked for Girls Do Porn as a reference for young women, a role that included misleading recruits. Ms. Clark said that she was paid to deceive prospective performers, and to assure them the videos would never be posted online.

Another woman in Ms. Clark’s role wrote a text message to a recruit that read: “I’m sure you’re nervous or maybe even sketched out a little bit but you seriously have nothing to worry about! It’s completely legit.”

She continued: “There is absolutely no way anyone will find out.”

And Jane Doe 15 testified on Monday that she understood there was a small chance the clips would appear on the internet, but her worries had been eased.

“I had been assured that after hundreds of videos that this had never happened,” she said.

The women who appeared in the videos say the producers bought them flights and booked rooms at upscale San Diego hotels. But once the women arrived, they said, they were told they couldn’t be paid the agreed-upon price. Promised $5,000, some were paid $400; others, $2,000.

Producers presented the women with documents to sign, the women said, and were told they could be sued for the cost of the flight and hotel room.

A few months after filming, the women said, the videos appeared on Girls Do Porn and other major porn sites. Shortly after, they claim the defendants posted the women’s legal names, hometowns, social media accounts and pictures online. The women said that producers also sent clips to their families and college classmates.

Lawyers for the producers denied this. “What Plaintiffs complain about are the actions of third parties — ‘internet trolls’ — who ferreted out the names of the women on the internet,” according to their filings.

“I had to drop out of college to avoid ongoing harassment from classmates,” a plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe 6, said in the lawsuit. “I have been harassed at work about the video to the point that I had to quit. I am now scared to apply for new jobs.”

The defendants’ lawyers also said the producers never agreed to limit distribution to a single buyer or DVD release.

“Logic dictates plaintiffs had no basis to expect the video would languish in a video store in Australia on an anachronistic DVD format,” lawyers for the producers wrote in their filings.

cowboy9 · 29th August 2019, 23:12

Who knows what a jury will find but as long as they weren't forced to engage in sex acts against their will I don't see where they have a case. Regardless of what the porn producers lied about they reasonably had to know what they were doing once they began participating in sex acts in exchange for pay.

alexora · 29th August 2019, 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowboy9

Who knows what a jury will find but as long as they weren't forced to engage in sex acts against their will I don't see where they have a case. Regardless of what the porn producers lied about they reasonably had to know what they were doing once they began participating in sex acts in exchange for pay.

Release forms must be signed in order to distribute this material, and if the signatures were obtained under false pretences (which is what this legal action is based on) then it is a legitimate judicial decision that is being pursued.

If these girls were tricked, then they deserve to be compensated.

I hope that this will be the outcome, and that this outcome will deter the industry from committing the same crime again.

DigNap15 · 30th August 2019, 00:13

yes the DVD wolud only be sold outside the US and not online!

Those girls were very naive in believing that!

They got 5,000 - pretty good for one hours work!

alexora · 30th August 2019, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigNap15

They got 5,000 - pretty good for one hours work!

The compensation they received was not compliant with the distribution rights they had been promised and agreed to: a clear case of, at the very least, fraud.

I say at the 'very least', because there is a potential for prosecuting the studio for many more crimes.

FrankOlsen · 30th August 2019, 01:59

Was because of this sole case that PornWikileaks was bought and closed?

Karmafan · 30th August 2019, 02:19

No because Bangbros bought PWL and closed it down. There is some backroom smoke and mirrors shit going on there. Porn companies like Bangbros are not known for doing things out of the goodness of their hearts.

allworkboy · 30th August 2019, 03:50

Not siding with the porn producers but these girls should had said no when they show up and was told it was for porn.

verysmartperson · 30th August 2019, 05:55

I don't know what to think. But up until recently it probably was true that female models didn't realize that making porn videos for a single site might result in much wider distribution (on pornhub, videobox, planetsuzy, etc.).

I can't speak about gdp, but as of recently most of the girls appearing in similar amateur/interview sites knew exactly what they were getting into.

If it is true that the recruiters used softcore sites to illustrate the kind of shoot they would be doing, there might be a case. Also, presumably they made the girls sign a promise to reimburse them for cancellation before sending them the plane ticket. A judge and jury will look skeptically at that.

From a practical perspective, even if the lawsuit succeeds, it's doubtful that the site owner has a lot of assets (probably not over a million dollars!)

bill_az · 30th August 2019, 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karmafan

No because Bangbros bought PWL and closed it down. There is some backroom smoke and mirrors shit going on there. Porn companies like Bangbros are not known for doing things out of the goodness of their hearts.

That probably centers from GDP's domain registry being listed in Ontario, CA. It's pretty common knowledge that BB, though incorporated in Florida under the name Sonesta Technologies, is owned by Manwin/Mindgeek...headquartered in Canada. Another Mindgeek subsidiary in Florida, RK, has had problems in the past with underage performers (remember Bieyanka Moore sp?). The further suspicion is that all 3 of the studios may have shared some talent. With PWL dumping all the data about GDP a while back, well...smoke/fire. Oh and guess who is allegedly back in the U.S. living in Florida? Yep, Puka Shell Donny.

Even more interesting, the GDP 2257 listing names a Vanuatu company called Oh Well Media, a small shell company incorporated in Vanuatu whose owner has been linked to Russian arms dealers. If the forensic accountants wade far enough back and link any of these producers and Mindgeek to Oh Well Media directly, Canada would almost certainly suspend their corporate activities, sending Fabian Thylmann scrambling for another haven. I haven;t followed his stuff lately, but German authorities were keen to grill him about former owners and tax evasion.

Legal rundown of the case from a familiar angle: respondent in civil court tried to avoid judgement by filing for bankruptcy. #BadTimingDummy.

Code:

http://docketbird.com/court-documents/Michael-J-Pratt/Declaration-of-John-J-O-Brien-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Relief-from-Stay-filed-by-Michael-T-O-Halloran-of-Law-Office-of-Michael-T-O-Halloran-on-behalf-of-Does-1-22-related-documents-16-Notice-of-filing-of-Motion-for-Relief-from-Stay-O-Halloran-Michael/casb-3:2019-bk-00271-00018

29th August 2019, 23:07	#1
verysmartperson Registered User Addicted Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 186 Thanks: 6,701 Thanked 322 Times in 106 Posts	GirlsDoPorn discussion fyi: 22 Women Say They Were Exploited by Porn Producers Their lawsuit, a rare look into an opaque industry, seeks $22 million in damages. Code: http://nytimes.com/2019/08/29/style/girls-do-porn-lawsuit-testimony.html In a trial that began on Aug. 19 in San Diego Superior Court, nearly two dozen young women say that they responded to Craigslist ads seeking models and were then tricked into performing in internet pornography. “Wanted,” an ad would read: “beautiful college type preppy girls,” for video and photo shoots. The ads turned out to be from producers behind a website called Girls Do Porn, who were seeking women to make so-called amateur porn, a style in which fresh-faced new actresses are often paired with seasoned male performers. The trial could last a month, but no matter its outcome it will provide a rare look into a part of the industry that remains shrouded in mystery — often intentionally, by its makers. Respondents to the Craigslist ads said they were directed to innocuous websites, with pictures of clothed women, that asked for their contact information and photographs. Instead of being offered modeling jobs, however, they were offered roughly $5,000 to make pornography, they said. But they did it, a number of them now say, based on the assurance, from the producers and their associates, that the videos would be distributed only on DVD outside of the United States and would never be published online. The producers did publish the videos online, on Girls Do Porn, which specializes in amateur porn. The clips were also distributed to major sites, like Pornhub. Shortly after the videos were posted, the women’s names and identifying information popped up on a site called PornWikileaks, which identifies people who have done porn. Those are some of the allegations in a legal action brought by 22 women, identified as Jane Does, including a former law student who worked to organize the group. The women are seeking $22 million in damages from the people involved with making the videos. They also want their videos removed from the website. An Industry That Exposes All but Itself The testimony of the women offers an unusual look at the specifics of how people are recruited to participate in so-called amateur pornography. Mike Stabile, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, a porn industry trade group, said his organization has received more reports of unscrupulous producers in the last decade that in years before. “With the changes in technology, you have a lot more fly-by-night companies,” Mr. Stabile said. They run shoots that he described as “unethical if not illegal.” Reports that women who are recruited for the porn business face mistreatment have long accompanied the industry, but reliable data is scarce. Even prominent performers have told of being mistreated by producers, agents or fellow actors. Mia Khalifa, a former porn performer whose videos have been viewed millions of times, recently reported that she was paid $12,000 in her three-month porn career, and warned young women not to enter the business. The case consolidates three lawsuits and names three defendants and the legal entities the defendants operate. Those three are Michael J. Pratt, the chief executive of GirlsDoPorn.com; Andre Garcia, an actor; and Matthew Wolfe, a videographer. Their lawyers said they will show that the women signed contracts that said the videos they made could be “used anywhere, anyhow, for any purpose.” The women also recorded videotaped statements to say they were not under the influence of drugs or mind-altering substances, and that they consented to the videos being used in any way, according to court documents. “In our view, the women’s regret over their decision to make pornographic videos was and remains the primary motivation for this lawsuit,” Aaron Sadock, a lawyer representing the defendants, wrote in an email. Their complaint, he said, seems based on the idea that “young adult women are incapable of making their own decisions, good or bad, and consequently should not be bound by the contracts they signed.” Lawyers for the women argue that it is part of Girls Do Porn’s business model to mislead women and coerce them into signing contracts. The women say they want their own videos removed and other women told how videos will be used in the future. Brian Holm, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said his clients, wanted to bring the case, “as a P.S.A. to the world, to put everyone on notice, that this was going on.” ‘It’s Completely Legit’ Early in the trial, Amberlyn Clark testified that she worked for Girls Do Porn as a reference for young women, a role that included misleading recruits. Ms. Clark said that she was paid to deceive prospective performers, and to assure them the videos would never be posted online. Another woman in Ms. Clark’s role wrote a text message to a recruit that read: “I’m sure you’re nervous or maybe even sketched out a little bit but you seriously have nothing to worry about! It’s completely legit.” She continued: “There is absolutely no way anyone will find out.” And Jane Doe 15 testified on Monday that she understood there was a small chance the clips would appear on the internet, but her worries had been eased. “I had been assured that after hundreds of videos that this had never happened,” she said. The women who appeared in the videos say the producers bought them flights and booked rooms at upscale San Diego hotels. But once the women arrived, they said, they were told they couldn’t be paid the agreed-upon price. Promised $5,000, some were paid $400; others, $2,000. Producers presented the women with documents to sign, the women said, and were told they could be sued for the cost of the flight and hotel room. A few months after filming, the women said, the videos appeared on Girls Do Porn and other major porn sites. Shortly after, they claim the defendants posted the women’s legal names, hometowns, social media accounts and pictures online. The women said that producers also sent clips to their families and college classmates. Lawyers for the producers denied this. “What Plaintiffs complain about are the actions of third parties — ‘internet trolls’ — who ferreted out the names of the women on the internet,” according to their filings. “I had to drop out of college to avoid ongoing harassment from classmates,” a plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe 6, said in the lawsuit. “I have been harassed at work about the video to the point that I had to quit. I am now scared to apply for new jobs.” The defendants’ lawyers also said the producers never agreed to limit distribution to a single buyer or DVD release. “Logic dictates plaintiffs had no basis to expect the video would languish in a video store in Australia on an anachronistic DVD format,” lawyers for the producers wrote in their filings. Last edited by DoctorNo; 30th August 2019 at 18:43.

30th August 2019, 00:13	#4
DigNap15 V.I.P. Clinically Insane Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,843 Thanks: 9,602 Thanked 12,816 Times in 3,721 Posts	yes the DVD wolud only be sold outside the US and not online! Those girls were very naive in believing that! They got 5,000 - pretty good for one hours work! __________________ Could I suggest that you backup all of your files to an external hard drive and store this offsite.

29th August 2019, 23:12	#2
cowboy9 Registered User Novice Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 91 Thanks: 6,157 Thanked 284 Times in 83 Posts	Who knows what a jury will find but as long as they weren't forced to engage in sex acts against their will I don't see where they have a case. Regardless of what the porn producers lied about they reasonably had to know what they were doing once they began participating in sex acts in exchange for pay.

30th August 2019, 01:59	#6
FrankOlsen Junior Member Newbie Join Date: Jan 2018 Posts: 23 Thanks: 26 Thanked 41 Times in 14 Posts	Was because of this sole case that PornWikileaks was bought and closed?

30th August 2019, 02:19	#7
Karmafan Who Cut The Cheese? Beyond Redemption Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 11,387 Thanks: 39,606 Thanked 38,086 Times in 9,848 Posts	No because Bangbros bought PWL and closed it down. There is some backroom smoke and mirrors shit going on there. Porn companies like Bangbros are not known for doing things out of the goodness of their hearts.

30th August 2019, 03:50	#8
allworkboy Registered User Clinically Insane Join Date: Mar 2019 Posts: 2,730 Thanks: 6,893 Thanked 8,719 Times in 2,513 Posts	Not siding with the porn producers but these girls should had said no when they show up and was told it was for porn.

30th August 2019, 05:55	#9
verysmartperson Registered User Addicted Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 186 Thanks: 6,701 Thanked 322 Times in 106 Posts	I don't know what to think. But up until recently it probably was true that female models didn't realize that making porn videos for a single site might result in much wider distribution (on pornhub, videobox, planetsuzy, etc.). I can't speak about gdp, but as of recently most of the girls appearing in similar amateur/interview sites knew exactly what they were getting into. If it is true that the recruiters used softcore sites to illustrate the kind of shoot they would be doing, there might be a case. Also, presumably they made the girls sign a promise to reimburse them for cancellation before sending them the plane ticket. A judge and jury will look skeptically at that. From a practical perspective, even if the lawsuit succeeds, it's doubtful that the site owner has a lot of assets (probably not over a million dollars!)