7 ms·

Stupid censorship. The only thing that should make "revenge porn" illegal is the copyright issue of the people who share this material not having the copyright.

cLeEOGPw 10y ago
You should leave these kind of issues to the people without Asperger's to take care of. I understand that some people lack social awareness, but I don't understand people who refuse to acknowledge that they have no say on the matter because of, let's say, a certain kind of incompetence.
- sctb 10y ago
  You can't make these kinds of personal attacks here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
davidcelis 10y ago
So you'd be okay with a(n ex) partner posting intimate pictures and/or videos of you online for the whole world to see? Without you saying it's okay? Your face totally visible? Many wouldn't. It can be life-ruining.
- kahrkunne 10y ago
  I wouldn't send intimate pictures to anyone in the first place, because that goes against what I find moral. I respect others' choice to engage in these things, but the last thing we need is more laws that can get people locked up for posting pictures online, when there was already a perfectly usable law in place (copyright).
  - nl 10y ago
    Err.. no. Firstly, the copyright of the pictures is almost always likely to reside with the person taking the pictures who is often the one sharing them. Secondly, in many/most jurisdictions many/most forms of copyright violation fall under civil, not criminal law. However, this is a criminal act and the penalty should be much higher.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    Who said anything about "sending" pictures? I think you've confused this with sexting. Your girl/boyfriend takes a photo of you nude. Then they post it online without your consent. Are you okay with this?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - xupybd 10y ago
    What? This is not a simple copyright violation this is a sexual violation. I don't want to see someone go to jail for uploading a movie, fines are a sufficient punishment. But if you expose someone online like this you're not reducing their profits you're deeply injuring a person that once trusted you. There is little hope of ever removing a photo like this once in the public internet, these women need all the protection the law can give.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    Rubbish. Copyright rests with the photographer. That's going to be the person uploading, not the person in the photo. In the case of an abusive relationship consent to be photographed probably doesn't exist either (and is not relevant for copyright as I understand) In the case of photos of two or more copyright becomes even more inappropriate. Given some of the news pieces about revenge porn, from both sides of the Atlantic, this seems a very sensible addition.
MatthewWilkes 10y ago
It's a form of domestic violence and absolutely should be prevented by things other than the threat of being sued under intellectual property law.
- kahrkunne 10y ago
  It's not "violence". Posting pictures isn't violence.
  - bitwize 10y ago
    Modern society and the law, seeing women as particularly vulnerable and in need of protection, recognize forms of violence against women that need not involve physical contact or threat of physical contact. Calling a woman a "bitch" can, in some cases, be considered violence against her because it is implicitly threatening.
    - karmachameleon2 10y ago
      This kind of virtue-signalling "feminist" PC-hyperventilation needs to stop. What about men then? No one would take you seriously if you said the same thing about a man being called a "fag"! But oh noes won't-you-please-think-of-the-women works every damn time!
      - pjc50 10y ago
        No, that's also a hate crime. Just because it's endemic in certain parts of the internet and homophobic areas doesn't make it acceptable.
        karmachameleon2 10y ago
        So you're a respected member of this community, a highly intelligent and rational programmer dude with 16k karma. And you want us to believe you sincerely think calling someone a fag constitutes a "hate crime", even though the term is nebulous enough to be meaningless?
Flimm 10y ago
Besides the points other people made, I would also like to add that the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, not the model. That's why there are laws protecting a model's rights and protecting people's privacy in addition to copyright.

cLeEOGPw 10y ago

You should leave these kind of issues to the people without Asperger's to take care of. I understand that some people lack social awareness, but I don't understand people who refuse to acknowledge that they have no say on the matter because of, let's say, a certain kind of incompetence.

sctb 10y ago
You can't make these kinds of personal attacks here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

davidcelis 10y ago

So you'd be okay with a(n ex) partner posting intimate pictures and/or videos of you online for the whole world to see? Without you saying it's okay? Your face totally visible? Many wouldn't. It can be life-ruining.

kahrkunne 10y ago
I wouldn't send intimate pictures to anyone in the first place, because that goes against what I find moral. I respect others' choice to engage in these things, but the last thing we need is more laws that can get people locked up for posting pictures online, when there was already a perfectly usable law in place (copyright).
- nl 10y ago
  Err.. no. Firstly, the copyright of the pictures is almost always likely to reside with the person taking the pictures who is often the one sharing them. Secondly, in many/most jurisdictions many/most forms of copyright violation fall under civil, not criminal law. However, this is a criminal act and the penalty should be much higher.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Who said anything about "sending" pictures? I think you've confused this with sexting. Your girl/boyfriend takes a photo of you nude. Then they post it online without your consent. Are you okay with this?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- xupybd 10y ago
  What? This is not a simple copyright violation this is a sexual violation. I don't want to see someone go to jail for uploading a movie, fines are a sufficient punishment. But if you expose someone online like this you're not reducing their profits you're deeply injuring a person that once trusted you. There is little hope of ever removing a photo like this once in the public internet, these women need all the protection the law can give.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Rubbish. Copyright rests with the photographer. That's going to be the person uploading, not the person in the photo. In the case of an abusive relationship consent to be photographed probably doesn't exist either (and is not relevant for copyright as I understand) In the case of photos of two or more copyright becomes even more inappropriate. Given some of the news pieces about revenge porn, from both sides of the Atlantic, this seems a very sensible addition.

MatthewWilkes 10y ago

It's a form of domestic violence and absolutely should be prevented by things other than the threat of being sued under intellectual property law.

kahrkunne 10y ago
It's not "violence". Posting pictures isn't violence.
- bitwize 10y ago
  Modern society and the law, seeing women as particularly vulnerable and in need of protection, recognize forms of violence against women that need not involve physical contact or threat of physical contact. Calling a woman a "bitch" can, in some cases, be considered violence against her because it is implicitly threatening.
  - karmachameleon2 10y ago
    This kind of virtue-signalling "feminist" PC-hyperventilation needs to stop. What about men then? No one would take you seriously if you said the same thing about a man being called a "fag"! But oh noes won't-you-please-think-of-the-women works every damn time!
    - pjc50 10y ago
      No, that's also a hate crime. Just because it's endemic in certain parts of the internet and homophobic areas doesn't make it acceptable.
      - karmachameleon2 10y ago
        So you're a respected member of this community, a highly intelligent and rational programmer dude with 16k karma. And you want us to believe you sincerely think calling someone a fag constitutes a "hate crime", even though the term is nebulous enough to be meaningless?

Flimm 10y ago

Besides the points other people made, I would also like to add that the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, not the model. That's why there are laws protecting a model's rights and protecting people's privacy in addition to copyright.