3 ms·

I agree, but would-be fakers should be deterred by the airtight defamation case that would cost them millions. That is, of course, if the plaintiffs can prove t

I agree, but would-be fakers should be deterred by the airtight defamation case that would cost them millions. That is, of course, if the plaintiffs can prove the video is in fact, fake.

prepend 8y ago
I think it’s actually hard to launch such a case. I mean take Sterling. The tape was illegally leaked and was there a defamation suit against the leaker? California requires dual consent for recording [0], and no criminal charges have been brought or civil charges. Not the same, but shows there’s no repurcussion in this type of situation. The issue is that it will be really hard to prove as fake so even if an adversary didn’t just anonymously leak the material. In a PR situation you don’t need authenticity, just confusion. I expect that you could use this pretty effectively for stock scams (eg, video posted on Friday that Bezos is launching electric car tanks Tesla, etc). Or even more sinister fake videos of things that may be true (video of Musk assaulting some woman). What I’m actually scanning for are small markets with small $10-100k upside potential like a fake video of Tom Cruise that impact Mission Impossible opening that can be shorted through mediapredict or other markets that aren’t SEC regulated. Not to do it of course, but to see trends in how these videos are developed. [0] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law