Posted on 12/15/2013 11:15:57 AM PST by nickcarraway
The release of names is a big mistake, say some lawyers, based on the court not knowing the difference between streaming and downloading copyrighted material.
Thousands of porn watchers have had their personal details released by a German court.
Some 20,000 people who watched porn on a U.S.-based website have had their names and addresses released by a court and could end up paying a fine.
Cease and desist letters were sent to people who had accessed the smut site, Redtube.
They were traced after a German court released their personal details in a case where people were claiming videos had been uploaded onto the explicit site without permission, thus infringing copyright.
Lawyers had asked the Cologne court to order German Internet service provider Deutsche Telekom to release the names of tens of thousands of people who had watched these videos.
This, the court did.
Users face a fine of almost $350 — as well as public embarrassment.
Other lawyers argued that there was no copyright infringement because the videos had not been downloaded but "streamed".
They say forcing people to pay the fine is a sign the court has made a wrong decision, reported NBC News.
All of those asked to pay a fine are thought to live in Germany, said NBC.
It is thought many of those ordered to pay a fine will appeal to the court.
It would also be unconstitutional.
I think a bunch of you didn’t read this. All of the people watching are in Germany.
Reading the underlying article was outlawed on FR in 2008.
Reading the excerpt was outlawed in 2012.
Read the headline, shoot from the keyboard!
I did some research and sacrificing my exquisite taste I went to Redtube attempting to verify the news report. There are various categories there, Asian, Japanese, Latina, Ebony, others I don’t understand, but nowhere is there a Deutsche Fraulein category, so what’s up with that?
Well I think the gov’t releasing these names is obscene and there is zero justification for it. They could try to claim it was about enforcing a sort of morality or something like that, but then, as I noted above, considering the tens of millions that have watched porn in the US alone, it would still be completely arbitrary how the ended up releasing these particular names.
Actually they do. The sand on parts of the Arabian peninsula is not suitable for filtering municipal water supplies.
Countries on those parts have to import it. *sigh* Figures.
I love when cliches are exposed. Apples are actually almost identical to oranges, chemically speaking.
Now you really are comparing apples to oranges...
LOL!!! Oh man what a perfect pic, that is him to a tee.
Another excellent reason to kick the habit. Well, aside from most of it being crap anyway.
Or, the court ordered the German ISP to release info about which of its customers appears in its logs as having visited that porn site. Never forget, your ISP knows who its subscribers are, and keeps logs of what sites were visited. Upon court order, it might even quietly record all traffic, each way.
There is a solution. In the tradition of pre-paid cell phones, Americans can opt to pay a “dwelling exit fee” to a government agency online, giving them a one-trip waiver from inadvertent and unwitting violation of the millions of “crimes” they would otherwise commit just by existing. It would be mandatory to carry a receipt in order to show the various hordes of officials thus created in the new bureaucracy who will be confronting them to prove their right to be outside unmolested.
Just think of it as the price of a free society.
My computer, several years ago, could have been collected at numerous porn sites and from there, authorities could have gotten my name.
Some years ago, I worked on a court case with a lawyer as the county judge was being tried for watching porn on his office computer. However, the county had NO rules about an employee using his/her computer for personal use. An investigator in this case was a personal friend of the district judge trying this case (and I think she, Democrat district judge, wanted the county judge in prison), said the county judge was watching “child” porn. Watching child porn definitely gets you into prison. I knew this county judge was not watching a child, no way he would do that.
As a result of working on this case, I accessed many legal sites on my computer that were supposedly “porn” sites. Then, I wrote a series of articles on a website set up specifically about this case. I attempted to first identify what nudity was as that is what makes up porn. It is in the eye of the beholder. Is your definition of nudity if the ankles are shown? What about the whole leg up to where it attaches to the body - is that porn? Is a bare arm porn? Is a bare chest porn (on either sex)? Is nudity only when “private parts” are shown or partially shown and are breasts private parts? Who determines what nudity is and says it is porn?
I’ll stick a personal story in here - I have a female relative who is extremely religious. One day, she was upstairs in my house in my bedroom for a bit. Later in the day after she left, I went to my bedroom for something and noticed my figure of the Biblical David by Michelangelo I bought at the Louvre in Paris, was turned around facing the wall. I laughed. David is in the nude completely. She had to turn the statue around so his private parts would not be shown. I still smile at that today when I think of it. David is still in my bedroom on a table and he is not turned around. He is not porn although he is nude. If you think David is porn, you have a problem.
Back to the case: I looked at numerous totally legal websites that some people think are porn. I saw the picture of the MAN the investigator said was a child. When nailed down on the stand, he said the picture “could” be a child but he couldn’t be certain. Well, that took away the child porn case and we were left with the judge using his county computer for personal use.
If you have never been to the “Playboy” website, it is full of undressed ladies (now don’t everyone rush over there right this minute). Playboy on the web is perfectly legal.
After that case, I had porn sites popping up on my computer every day because I had accessed them once. I couldn’t get rid of them until that computer finally died and I got another one. So, if you go to the Playboy website, don’t be surprised if you can’t get rid of it popping up at any moment.
Why would German porn fans be embarrassed? Is there any morality left there that would conflict with a porn habit? I mean, they have legal prostitutes, don’t they?
The internet has changed a lot of things.
Blockbuster has practically gone out of business as have other movie rental business’s, There was a guy at a local flea market who used to sell porn DVD’s as well as other things , it put him out of that business he no longer carries them. Why would he ? Anyone with a computer can watch for free. I submit that Red Tube or whomsoever came up with this scam, is about to go under so they came up with this scam in Germany to make a few bucks. Hopefully they put themselves out of business.
Right. It's only about looking at it. As long as no one does that, it's perfectly fine.
> ...Redtube. They were traced after a German court released their personal details in a case where people were claiming videos had been uploaded onto the explicit site without permission, thus infringing copyright.
Bluetube, by contrast, casts very ugly women.
So, if you go to the Playboy website, don’t be surprised if you can’t get rid of it popping up at any moment.
<><><><><
Unfortunate wording.
I think.
I see what you did there...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.