Posted January 3, 2020 (edited) https://www.foxnews.com/us/women-win-13m-in-lawsuit-against-porn-site-in-california I haven’t read the model releases/contracts, so I’m not sure if these gals were conned or just regret their stupidity. But it seems to me that if you get paid to have sex on camera then you should expect it to hit the Internet someday. Edited January 3, 2020 by Bit Banger 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 3, 2020 Except for when you’re told it will not appear online. Now, you can’t promise it won’t happen if it’s sold and someone uploads it but in this case it sounds like GirlsDoPorn said they would not upload it and then did it. A judgement that large should suggest there was something more at play, and very provable than simple regret. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-50982051 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 3, 2020 2 hours ago, JoDoe27 said: Except for when you’re told it will not appear online. Now, you can’t promise it won’t happen if it’s sold and someone uploads it but in this case it sounds like GirlsDoPorn said they would not upload it and then did it. A judgement that large should suggest there was something more at play, and very provable than simple regret. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-50982051 I had read some earlier articles on the situation which were some what vague at the time . this bbc link explains in detail with updated information, great read.... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 3, 2020 I tend to agree that the ‘models’ were conned, especially after reading the BBC article. Still I ask, did they have reasonable expectations? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 3, 2020 31 minutes ago, Bit Banger said: I tend to agree that the ‘models’ were conned, especially after reading the BBC article. Still I ask, did they have reasonable expectations? I think the reasonable expectation is if those women agreed to and had a contract stating GirlsDoPorn wouldn’t upload it to the internet then they’d uphold their end of the deal and, you know, not upload the content to the internet under threat of suit. It gets even murkier if intoxicants were supplied before they signed the contracts. Either way, I’m not pointing the finger at the women or #MeToo when you have people doing sleazy, shitty, and ultimately explorative things and then try to shift fault. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 3, 2020 7 hours ago, JoDoe27 said: Except for when you’re told it will not appear online. Now, you can’t promise it won’t happen if it’s sold and someone uploads it but in this case it sounds like GirlsDoPorn said they would not upload it and then did it. Just did a google search, GirslDoPorn are on the tube sites such as pornhub and youporn ,as well as on their own site. So their videos are online forever. ( tube sites are mostly based in other countries ) There was a rumor circulating that this companys' male talent didn't show girls their HIV tests,so allegedly legit licensed agencies didn't send them any women. Obviously GirlsDoPorn did not have the girls slate as well as shoot video of the girls reading and signing their contracts.If such videos were made,the girls would have lost,if such videos were shown and the company did not state where the videos would show up..the girls should have won more money. This case should make escorts that have shot videos with clients AWARE that those videos could show up anywhere. With the slow demise of hardcore DVDS, Bit Banger is right..these girls should have figured out that they would wind up on the internet. I haven't seen or read their contracts,but did watch some of the interviews the girls did on camera. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 3, 2020 FYI...I have never been on a set where alcohol and/or marijuana was present.Getting the models loaded before reading a contract...is very unethical and the idea of it pisses me off. Sure would like to see those 8 page contracts. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 4, 2020 48 minutes ago, JRWolfe said: Obviously GirlsDoPorn did not have the girls slate as well as shoot video of the girls reading and signing their contracts.If such videos were made,the girls would have lost,if such videos were shown and the company did not state where the videos would show up..the girls should have won more money. For clarity; video of ladies signing contracts or not sighing contracts? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 4, 2020 As stated before, I have not seen the models’ contracts/releases. Yet I wonder if there were verbal statements that the videos were only for private/foreign distribution, but the written contract did not contain this restriction? Things seem fishy on both sides of this case. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 4, 2020 5 hours ago, Kaduk said: For clarity; video of ladies signing contracts or not sighing contracts? To slate is to have the performer hold their two forms of government issued IDs next to their face and in a closeup state their real name,their stage name and that they are not forced to act in the video. For further clarity...video is usually taken of ladies reading their contract aloud and signing it. (as in pen to paper ) 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, JRWolfe said: To slate is to have the performer hold their two forms of government issued IDs next to their face and in a closeup state their real name,their stage name and that they are not forced to act in the video. For further clarity...video is usually taken of ladies reading their contract aloud and signing it. (as in pen to paper ) Here's a another article from Jan. 3, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/03/judge-awards-million-women-who-say-they-were-tricked-into-pornography/ "Both the Civil and now Criminal case pending." 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 4, 2020 3 hours ago, Bit Banger said: As stated before, I have not seen the models’ contracts/releases. Yet I wonder if there were verbal statements that the videos were only for private/foreign distribution, but the written contract did not contain this restriction? Things seem fishy on both sides of this case. There have been cases where the performer claims to have been forced to perform . Usually that happens when they fall in love and marry someone that finds out about their porn past and does not accept it ,when family finds out or in a child custody case. That is when the video of the girls slating ,reading contracts and signing come out in the defense of the company (and filmmaker ). I could name examples,but don't want to out anyone . In the case of GirlsDoPorn, in the posted videos..the girls are interviewed before performing....which makes it seem a bit fishy. But it the getting drunk (and or stoned ) before reading/signing the contract is what I do NOT like. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, Kaduk said: Here's a another article from Jan. 3, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/03/judge-awards-million-women-who-say-they-were-tricked-into-pornography/ "Both the Civil and now Criminal case pending." Yes,Kaduk, I've spent some time today reading various articles on this particular case. Obviously these guys went against the rules of the trade. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 4, 2020 44 minutes ago, JRWolfe said: I've spent some time today reading various articles on this particular case. Obviously these guys went against the rules of the trade. I suppose you can give credit on trying to help--> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9keb4d/bang-bros-bought-pornwikileaks-doxing-forum-and-set-fire-to-it 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 4, 2020 13 minutes ago, Kaduk said: I suppose you can give credit on trying to help--> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9keb4d/bang-bros-bought-pornwikileaks-doxing-forum-and-set-fire-to-it Pornwikileaks has always been out to ruin retired performers lives .Very happy to learn its been shut down. Be nice if other,similar, sites became history. However,I didn't like that vice.com wanted to access my personal history. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 6, 2020 Adult Video News..the industry magazine..has this report : https://avn.com/business/articles/legal/girls-do-porn-plaintiffs-awarded-millions-in-lawsuit-ruling-860136.html 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 6, 2020 They were young and stupid. Still I believe the company wasn't truthful to them. The only thing the article didn't point out l, was how much the lawyers were getting out of the settlement. I would venture to think the girls will get fucked once again but this time the lawyers have a valid contract. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 6, 2020 38 minutes ago, Alex Majors said: They were young and stupid. Still I believe the company wasn't truthful to them. The only thing the article didn't point out l, was how much the lawyers were getting out of the settlement. I would venture to think the girls will get fucked once again but this time the lawyers have a valid contract. In my experience with dealing with a lawyer they were upfront about their payouts which depended on if things were settled at certain stages. Going to trial meant about 40% going towards legal fees in my case. Which again I knew going in. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 6, 2020 So at 40%, the girls are getting 180, 000 to 330,000. Their reputation is still shot in their hometown. So much for high school reunions. Old boyfriends probably downloaded what they could. The vidieos will probably still be out there, because of the internet. If they try to get a government security clearance, you know this will turn up. You have no idea how much they dig into your past. Even employers offering well paying positions might find this in a background check. So with 22 plaintiffs, you know the lawyers didn't work much more than if there were just 3 or 4. Just saying the girls should have received more. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 6, 2020 Utterly shocking that some people in the porn industry could be dishonest or stupid. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 6, 2020 2 hours ago, Alex Majors said: So much for high school reunions. Hey ! There were three alumni in my high school class that worked in porn....and no one gives us a hard time about it at our reunions ! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Admiral C said: Utterly shocking that some people in the porn industry could be dishonest or stupid. This is a very rare case....and an example to those entering the industry as to what NOT to do . 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted January 6, 2020 5 hours ago, Alex Majors said: They were young and stupid. Still I believe the company wasn't truthful to them. Actually,this company has a sister site for MILF...30 and older ladies. Very surprised that none of those ladies have come forward. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 2, 2020 Here is an update. Girls Do Porn website is closed. However,the tube sites still have those videos up.They simply changed the source from " Girls Do Porn " to "unknown". But the videos themselves are still stamped with "Girls Do Porn' towards the end. Their sister site " Mom Pov" is still up and the tube sites still credit their source as "Mom Pov." Interesting that these middle aged ladies did not take this company to court,as their younger counterparts did. No surprise that the tube sites did not obey the court order. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) The old adage of: Once on the ‘Net it’s there forever! IDK how tightly these sites are linked corporately, but porn gets passed around from site to site like 3 Card Monte. The original producers may have complied with the court order, but copies are floating in the wind. The plaintiffs now get to play wack-o-mole, just like our ladies do with the ad scrapers. Edited February 2, 2020 by Bit Banger 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 2, 2020 You go into a hotel room and there are three sleazy guys wanting you to do porn....and ...wait for it....they turn out to be three sleazy guys. Color me shocked! Thanks God, I downloaded most of the girlsdoporn stuff a long time ago. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 2, 2020 3 hours ago, JRWolfe said: Here is an update. Girls Do Porn website is closed. However,the tube sites still have those videos up.They simply changed the source from " Girls Do Porn " to "unknown". But the videos themselves are still stamped with "Girls Do Porn' towards the end. Their sister site " Mom Pov" is still up and the tube sites still credit their source as "Mom Pov." Interesting that these middle aged ladies did not take this company to court,as their younger counterparts did. No surprise that the tube sites did not obey the court order. All of the girlsdo porn videos are available on pornhub. So, they recruited mom and daughter tag teams? Moms do porn, room 301, daughters room 302. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2020 22 hours ago, 2Big said: So, they recruited mom and daughter tag teams? Moms do porn, room 301, daughters room 302. Haven't seen any "tag teams." Nor any indication that its real life moms and their of age daughters doing porn in separate rooms. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2020 On 2/2/2020 at 8:11 AM, Bit Banger said: The old adage of: Once on the ‘Net it’s there forever! Exactly ! (sure wish I could get my hands on those "contracts", in the interviews before the action,its obvious they are not being forced ) 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, JRWolfe said: Exactly ! (sure wish I could get my hands on those "contracts", in the interviews before the action,its obvious they are not being forced ) Were any arguing they were being forced? In all I read that wasn’t the case against GirlsDoPorn. It’s that GirlsDoPorn was in full breach of their contract. I’m also not sure you want to wag a finger at “tube sites” when the legality and issue here is with an actual, now defunct studio. Edited February 3, 2020 by JoDoe27 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
