5 ms·

was it hidden in the contract? just curious the extent of the lying.

Consultant32452 7y ago
My understanding is the girls are told that the videos will go in some wealthy dude's private collection or something like that. No one reads contracts.
- gizmo686 7y ago
  And even if they do, contracts dont always represent the actual agreement being made [0]. As someone who does actually read contracts, most of the time they are generic contracts for the general thing you are agreeing to, and reflect none of the specific details (and sometimes contradict the specific details). [0] Of course, absent compelling evidence to this effect, courts would look to the contract to determine what agreement was made, so if you care about the innacurate provisions, do not sign until they are corrected.
- RKearney 7y ago
  That seems to echo exactly what is stated in the article. "They were promised that the footage would go straight to DVD for wealthy buyers in other countries, in particular Australia and New Zealand, where the defendants come from."
  - taxidump 7y ago
    They were ok with making porn, just not if someone seen it they knew... Got it.
    - wmeredith 7y ago
      They were defrauded. Full stop. I don't understand the smugness in your reply. (Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, this is the internet after all.) But what is remarkable/condemnable about a human willing to do something relatively harmless yet embarrassing for money "if no one finds out"?
- userbinator 7y ago
  "private" of course doesn't mean will remain private, however.
- randyrand 7y ago
  I’ve read all the important contracts I get. Apartment, car, job, etc.
wavefunction 7y ago
from the article >plied with alcohol contracts might not matter
- peteretep 7y ago
  ... and then told they wouldn’t be flown home, too, if they tried to back out. There are jurisdictions where this would be a rape case.
rolltiide 7y ago
the contracts were standard release forms for people that arent part of guilds, the court looked at the coercion should also know that this headline isnt the main part of the case
propter_hoc 7y ago
"The contracts were filled with “dense and ambiguous language,” including one 140-word paragraph that Enright called “a grammatical labarynth.” The contract covers “photographs, pictures or portraits” and printed material. “It does not, however, mention GirlsDoPorn.com, nor the words ‘internet,’ ‘online,’ or ‘website,’” Enright wrote. “It is thus designed to obscure what will actually be done with the videos and to encourage continued reliance on defendants’ repeated representations, promises, and testimonials from hired ‘references.’”" https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/01/02/girlsdoporn-faces-12-8m-verdict-for-duping-models/?slreturn=20200003222356 https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/01/02/girlsdoporn-faces...
- randyrand 7y ago
  I’m just curious if they, barring other circumstances, broke their legal textual contracts as well. A contract that just says “we can do anything we want” would fit your description.
wmeredith 7y ago
The contracts were copy/paste boilerplate bullshit. The women were told the recordings were for wealthy private collectors and would never be widely released. The women were often flown to other states, plied with alcohol, and then told they would only be flown home if they co-operated. These guys are barely a notch above kidnappers, rapists, and sex traffickers. The stories have been around online for a while, but now they're convicted of this insidious garbage. Do not support GirlsDoPorn.
- AchieveLife 7y ago
  From the article "launched in 2006 by New Zealander Michael Pratt and operated by Ruben Garcia and Matthew Wolfe. Filmed in homes, hotels and trailer parks" "During the course of the civil trial, Pratt, Garcia and Wolfe were criminally indicted for sex trafficking, among other charges. Garcia and Wolfe are currently in federal custody. Pratt is a fugitive." Disgusting criminal, manipulative behavior that harmed a lot of people.
lozenge 7y ago
Contracts can be spoken as well as written, and spoken things can also legally be considered part of the contract even when there is a written contract.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  Very hard to prove, even in a civil case. Best to have things in written or some other form of legal recorded medium
- randyrand 7y ago
  That seems like the precedent that is being set by this case. I’m curious if this is a novel ruling.

My understanding is the girls are told that the videos will go in some wealthy dude's private collection or something like that. No one reads contracts.

gizmo686 7y ago
And even if they do, contracts dont always represent the actual agreement being made [0]. As someone who does actually read contracts, most of the time they are generic contracts for the general thing you are agreeing to, and reflect none of the specific details (and sometimes contradict the specific details). [0] Of course, absent compelling evidence to this effect, courts would look to the contract to determine what agreement was made, so if you care about the innacurate provisions, do not sign until they are corrected.
RKearney 7y ago
That seems to echo exactly what is stated in the article. "They were promised that the footage would go straight to DVD for wealthy buyers in other countries, in particular Australia and New Zealand, where the defendants come from."
- taxidump 7y ago
  They were ok with making porn, just not if someone seen it they knew... Got it.
  - wmeredith 7y ago
    They were defrauded. Full stop. I don't understand the smugness in your reply. (Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, this is the internet after all.) But what is remarkable/condemnable about a human willing to do something relatively harmless yet embarrassing for money "if no one finds out"?
userbinator 7y ago
"private" of course doesn't mean will remain private, however.
randyrand 7y ago
I’ve read all the important contracts I get. Apartment, car, job, etc.

wavefunction 7y ago

from the article >plied with alcohol contracts might not matter

peteretep 7y ago
... and then told they wouldn’t be flown home, too, if they tried to back out. There are jurisdictions where this would be a rape case.

rolltiide 7y ago

the contracts were standard release forms for people that arent part of guilds, the court looked at the coercion should also know that this headline isnt the main part of the case

propter_hoc 7y ago

"The contracts were filled with “dense and ambiguous language,” including one 140-word paragraph that Enright called “a grammatical labarynth.” The contract covers “photographs, pictures or portraits” and printed material. “It does not, however, mention GirlsDoPorn.com, nor the words ‘internet,’ ‘online,’ or ‘website,’” Enright wrote. “It is thus designed to obscure what will actually be done with the videos and to encourage continued reliance on defendants’ repeated representations, promises, and testimonials from hired ‘references.’”" https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/01/02/girlsdoporn-faces-12-8m-verdict-for-duping-models/?slreturn=20200003222356 https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/01/02/girlsdoporn-faces...

randyrand 7y ago
I’m just curious if they, barring other circumstances, broke their legal textual contracts as well. A contract that just says “we can do anything we want” would fit your description.

wmeredith 7y ago

The contracts were copy/paste boilerplate bullshit. The women were told the recordings were for wealthy private collectors and would never be widely released. The women were often flown to other states, plied with alcohol, and then told they would only be flown home if they co-operated. These guys are barely a notch above kidnappers, rapists, and sex traffickers. The stories have been around online for a while, but now they're convicted of this insidious garbage. Do not support GirlsDoPorn.

AchieveLife 7y ago
From the article "launched in 2006 by New Zealander Michael Pratt and operated by Ruben Garcia and Matthew Wolfe. Filmed in homes, hotels and trailer parks" "During the course of the civil trial, Pratt, Garcia and Wolfe were criminally indicted for sex trafficking, among other charges. Garcia and Wolfe are currently in federal custody. Pratt is a fugitive." Disgusting criminal, manipulative behavior that harmed a lot of people.

lozenge 7y ago

Contracts can be spoken as well as written, and spoken things can also legally be considered part of the contract even when there is a written contract.

o-__-o 7y ago
Very hard to prove, even in a civil case. Best to have things in written or some other form of legal recorded medium
randyrand 7y ago
That seems like the precedent that is being set by this case. I’m curious if this is a novel ruling.