6 ms·

I guess in the case of pornography, both participants are being paid by a third party (the producer) for taking part in the sex act. This is different from a ty

I guess in the case of pornography, both participants are being paid by a third party (the producer) for taking part in the sex act. This is different from a typical prostitute/client relationship, where one is paying the other for sex. (I don't know if this is addressed in the article - the site seems to have fallen over.)

pavel_lishin 10y ago
That's one of the criteria, yep. Another one is legal forms required for producers and actors - there are forms that each actor must fill out, these must be verified and kept. Not doing so is a felony.
- irishcoffee 10y ago
  So, I can't believe I'm about to say this: this kind of presents a prostitution loophole, no? As long as a 3rd party is involved, and "films" it (still, unmanned camera in the room) and everyone fills out the paperwork, and the 3rd party handles the payment (minimum wage for party A, minimum wage + $X for party B), party A "buys some porn" at the curious cost of minimum wage + $X. Am I missing something? Did I explain this poorly?
  - ge0rg 10y ago
    I suppose most customers will be strongly opposed to being filmed, for fear of blackmail or leakage.
  - pdpi 10y ago
    "A" buying for minimum wage + $X won't pass the smell test. Judges aren't automatons blindly following a set of rules, they're (usually, pretty clever) human beings with both the capacity and the authority to use their best judgement in interpreting the law.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Law is not code, prostitution as a concept is illegal. This is sort of like wondering if you could avoid income tax by just doing a bunch of favors for your really good friend, and then getting a totally unrelated Christmas present from them.
    - bfstein 10y ago
      FWIW, this is taxable by law. Gifts above a certain amount (I believe $10k) are taxed as normal income.
      - cbr 10y ago
        It's also not a gift if it's compensation for doing work.
        _audakel 10y ago
        but then doesn't the reciever have to pay taxes?
      - akurtzhs 10y ago
        At least in the US, this is incorrect. There is a gift tax, but it's paid by the donor, and they can give up to the annual exclusion amount a year without hitting it. This year, the limit's $14,000. Once a gift goes past that for the year, the excess starts counting against the donor's lifetime exclusion and needs to be reported on the donor's taxes. Gift taxes come into play once the lifetime exclusion limit is exceeded, and it's $5.4 million.
    - pc86 10y ago
      > Law is not code Remembering this would put a stop to 90% of legal "discussions" on HN.
      - mcphage 10y ago
        It's disappointing how many people here imagine that an incredibly transparent ruse will get them out of legal difficulties no problem. It's like they can't conceive that yes, other people have thought of it before, and yes, it's transparently obvious, and no, you can't get away with a crime with a "gotcha!".
  - quirkafleeg 10y ago
    From the article: I get a handful of calls per year from guys who think they're the first geniuses to come up with the great idea of setting up a "Freeman Brothel" and calling it a "film studio." They're all disappointed when I tell them that they're not getting away with this "brilliant plan" unless they take so many steps to make it look legitimate that it will, in fact, become a legitimate porn production enterprise — in which case, why bother with the ruse in the first place?
    - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
      So, yes? The author incredulously assumes that "it's not worth it" in which case it actually might be worth it for someone and that is an avenue to do it.
  - schoen 10y ago
    The linked article is primarily about this scenario.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    A friend who claims to have watched a fair amount of free online porn suspects that many of the "POV" sites are basically just fat ugly trust-fund dudes paying for intercourse with attractive young women, in those particular locales in which lots of attractive young women are interested in "getting started in porn". (SoCal, Miami, Eastern Europe, etc.) The "producer" and "camera operator" and "actor" seem all to be the same person.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      I've watched some of the porn that's like what you describe, and yeah, it seems to be the same camera guy every time - and nobody else but the girl - but I think the key distinction is that they market themselves, they do sell the videos, and they are actually producing porn that a lot of people end up watching. One of the things the article points out is that if you're going to "exploit the loophole", it's going to take about as much work as actually running a production company. This seems to be the case here. (And, presumably the guys in question are also keeping records of the actresses, filling out all the paperwork, etc. No fun going to prison for fucking a 17 year old on camera.)
    - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
      Oh man, maybe that's why there is so much free porn out there!
bashinator 10y ago
That might once have been true, but these days most of the public own a pocket-sized video production and distribution studio.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

That's one of the criteria, yep. Another one is legal forms required for producers and actors - there are forms that each actor must fill out, these must be verified and kept. Not doing so is a felony.

irishcoffee 10y ago
So, I can't believe I'm about to say this: this kind of presents a prostitution loophole, no? As long as a 3rd party is involved, and "films" it (still, unmanned camera in the room) and everyone fills out the paperwork, and the 3rd party handles the payment (minimum wage for party A, minimum wage + $X for party B), party A "buys some porn" at the curious cost of minimum wage + $X. Am I missing something? Did I explain this poorly?
- ge0rg 10y ago
  I suppose most customers will be strongly opposed to being filmed, for fear of blackmail or leakage.
- pdpi 10y ago
  "A" buying for minimum wage + $X won't pass the smell test. Judges aren't automatons blindly following a set of rules, they're (usually, pretty clever) human beings with both the capacity and the authority to use their best judgement in interpreting the law.
- burkaman 10y ago
  Law is not code, prostitution as a concept is illegal. This is sort of like wondering if you could avoid income tax by just doing a bunch of favors for your really good friend, and then getting a totally unrelated Christmas present from them.
  - bfstein 10y ago
    FWIW, this is taxable by law. Gifts above a certain amount (I believe $10k) are taxed as normal income.
    - cbr 10y ago
      It's also not a gift if it's compensation for doing work.
      - _audakel 10y ago
        but then doesn't the reciever have to pay taxes?
    - akurtzhs 10y ago
      At least in the US, this is incorrect. There is a gift tax, but it's paid by the donor, and they can give up to the annual exclusion amount a year without hitting it. This year, the limit's $14,000. Once a gift goes past that for the year, the excess starts counting against the donor's lifetime exclusion and needs to be reported on the donor's taxes. Gift taxes come into play once the lifetime exclusion limit is exceeded, and it's $5.4 million.
  - pc86 10y ago
    > Law is not code Remembering this would put a stop to 90% of legal "discussions" on HN.
    - mcphage 10y ago
      It's disappointing how many people here imagine that an incredibly transparent ruse will get them out of legal difficulties no problem. It's like they can't conceive that yes, other people have thought of it before, and yes, it's transparently obvious, and no, you can't get away with a crime with a "gotcha!".
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  From the article: I get a handful of calls per year from guys who think they're the first geniuses to come up with the great idea of setting up a "Freeman Brothel" and calling it a "film studio." They're all disappointed when I tell them that they're not getting away with this "brilliant plan" unless they take so many steps to make it look legitimate that it will, in fact, become a legitimate porn production enterprise — in which case, why bother with the ruse in the first place?
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    So, yes? The author incredulously assumes that "it's not worth it" in which case it actually might be worth it for someone and that is an avenue to do it.
- schoen 10y ago
  The linked article is primarily about this scenario.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  A friend who claims to have watched a fair amount of free online porn suspects that many of the "POV" sites are basically just fat ugly trust-fund dudes paying for intercourse with attractive young women, in those particular locales in which lots of attractive young women are interested in "getting started in porn". (SoCal, Miami, Eastern Europe, etc.) The "producer" and "camera operator" and "actor" seem all to be the same person.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    I've watched some of the porn that's like what you describe, and yeah, it seems to be the same camera guy every time - and nobody else but the girl - but I think the key distinction is that they market themselves, they do sell the videos, and they are actually producing porn that a lot of people end up watching. One of the things the article points out is that if you're going to "exploit the loophole", it's going to take about as much work as actually running a production company. This seems to be the case here. (And, presumably the guys in question are also keeping records of the actresses, filling out all the paperwork, etc. No fun going to prison for fucking a 17 year old on camera.)
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    Oh man, maybe that's why there is so much free porn out there!

bashinator 10y ago

That might once have been true, but these days most of the public own a pocket-sized video production and distribution studio.