

Victims of Revenge Porn Mount Class Action Suit Against GoDaddy and Texxxan.com - benjaminkabin
http://betabeat.com/2013/01/victims-of-revenge-porn-mount-class-action-suit-against-godaddy-and-texxxan-com/

======
Shenglong
I am not a Godaddy fan by any means, but I'm finding it difficult to ascribe
blame to them for this incident. Godaddy lets people register domain names; it
is not their responsibility to censor content.

~~~
notahacker
Yeah, whatever you think of GoDaddy's conduct, making hosts legally
responsible for their clients' content is exactly what we don't want to see.
(I think in this instance it could be argued they had an ethical duty to shut
the site down after being notified, but certainly not a legal obligation)

As for Texxxan, _if_ their business model was encouraging users to upload
pictures of people in compromising positions without their consent and then
charging for the takedown, it's just a shame the charges against them aren't
criminal.

~~~
analog
I think you could make the case that they had a legal obligation. Isn't this
what the DMCA is for? You get safe harbour providing you take down content
which is objected to on request.

~~~
16s
DMCA is not what you think. She does not hold the copyright to her nude photos
unless she took the photos herself. The photographer or the company that
employs the photographer holds the copyright.

A valid DMCA take-down notice, may only be made by a rights holder.

~~~
abiank
you hold the rights to your image, unless you're in public space and/or have
signed a waiver.

~~~
unreal37
Its not so clear cut. You have three rights: (1) a right to privacy, (2) a
right to protect against defamation, and (3) a right to the use of your image
to promote a product "only if the general public would recognize you". So only
if you're famous.

[http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/controlling-
th...](http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/controlling-the-use-of-
your-image-or-likeness.html)

------
rayiner
Considering the blood lust bullying creates on here, I'm quite surprised to
see so many people rush to the defense. This is nothing more and nothing less
than a site profiting from and enabling bullying. Maybe if the victims were
more sympathetic to the HN crowd...

~~~
dsl
Its bullying you can mastrubate to.

Amateur produced, "self shot" and "ex-girlfriend" are the fastest growing and
most profitable niches of porn right now. Just like HN has a huge population
that comes out to defend content piracy, you'll likely see the fans of this
fetish out in full force to defend it.

------
Semaphor
I'd be totally in favor of this lawsuit if they hadn't included GoDaddy (as
much as I don't like them).

But at least we can see once again how well the Streisand effect works:

> TEXXXAN.COM has currently been placed into MEMBERS ONLY MAINTENANCE MODE due
> to scheduled maintenance and updates. Normally this would be unnecessary but
> unfortunately the extremely large amounts of traffic to TEXXXAN.COM has
> caused overloads when performing scheduled maintenance.

------
venomsnake
Also sue Tim Berners Lee for inventing the WWW and HP(or Dell) for providing
the servers and Intel for providing the chips.

The suit makes sense but for godaddy. What is this war on the service
providers lately.

~~~
rayiner
If you're a gun salesman, you can get in trouble if you sell a gun to someone
knowing that they're going to use it to kill someone. You don't get in trouble
if you just sell a gun that happens to be used in a crime. I think this is a
pretty common sense state of affairs. In this case, if GoDaddy continued to
host the site after being made aware of its nature, why shouldn't they be held
liable for helping to perpetuate the crime?

~~~
venomsnake
Because GoDaddy shouldn't have the power to censor content hosted on their
servers.

It is up to the courts to decide what content is legal, not the corporation.

If the site is legal, there is no reason to take it down. If the appropriate
institutions decide that it is illegal they should take it down the moment the
court order arrive and not a nanosecond earlier.

I don't think that a world in which corporations are allowed to be gatekeepers
on their own is a good one.

That is why we have court system and rule of law.

~~~
rayiner
Their servers are their private property. They have both power and
responsibility over what's on their servers, just as I do over what's on my
lawn.

~~~
kamjam
So by that same reasoning, maybe the ISPs should all block access to this
content, since it is via their service that the content is actually delivered?

~~~
rayiner
ISP's have a special status as common carriers. Not everything reduces to the
ISP scenario. It's just how the owners of a private toll road don't have any
responsibility if drugs are shipped over them, but the owners of a shop where
drugs are being sold out of do.

I'm not saying that you should be able to hold hosting providers liable for
content they aren't aware of. I'm saying that hosting providers have a right
to control the content that they host, and at the same time if they know about
illegal content they have an obligation to address the problem.

~~~
kamjam
But at this point the content has not been deemed illegal, no court has ruled
as such. So the hosting provider has no obligation to remove it, doesn't
matter how immoral it actually is.

------
zimbatm
I don't see any direct involvement of GoDaddy in this case. They provided a
service, as did Visa and MasterCard. Should they be liable of the hosting
content of their customers ? If they get convicted it would set a dangerous
precedent because it would push them into playing a censorship role outside of
the judiciary system.

My hunch is that the law firm behind the class action suit has added GoDaddy
to potentially be able to reap more money from the case.

~~~
rayiner
Held liable, not convicted. It's a civil case.

------
alanctgardner2
It definitely seems like a spray and pray tactic, suing the host, site and
users to see what sticks. I actually have no idea if there's any law one way
or the other about using someone's likeness without their consent. If I was in
an embarrassing, nonsexual video, could I have it taken down on any grounds?
That seems like it would restrict free speech excessively.

That said, I hope they find something to nail these guys for.

~~~
venomsnake
I think they have standing on copyright issues. Since they are (involuntarily)
models and not signed a release.

~~~
alanctgardner2
I suppose. But does every person in a video have copy right to it? For
example, if I film a public street and put it on youtube, can anyone walking
on the street take it down? Is there a test for a particular person performing
some sort of act which is inherently creative, or otherwise the focus of the
video, having more rights than say the extras in the background?

~~~
Ensorceled
I think you should read the article again. They plaintiffs were not "extras in
the background" of the photos/videos they were the subjects.

~~~
alanctgardner2
What I meant was, what, if any, legal standing does someone have for being in
a frame of video. If there was prior case law regarding this, they would have
established an objective test which granted copyright or some protection to
those deemed 'critical actors'. This is all speculation, I doubt if any such
test exists.

If it doesn't, the subject of videos and the extras in the background have the
same standing. I don't know what standing that is. I'm just flailing my
metaphorical arms hoping for a real lawyer to show up.

------
Anechoic
On the Media segment on "Is Anybody Down":
[http://www.onthemedia.org/blogs/on-the-
media/2012/nov/19/rea...](http://www.onthemedia.org/blogs/on-the-
media/2012/nov/19/reactions-anybody-down/)

------
makomk
Bear in mind that Bullyville - who are behind the other lawsuit against a
different revenge porn site that's mentioned in the article - have a financial
interest in online extortion schemes in general remaining legal.

Last time I looked, the only apparent source of revenue for their entire
network of sites was ads on cheaterville.com for various companies offering to
remove your profile in return for thousands of dollars. Looking at the source
code, the ads were inhouse and I couldn't find any information on how to place
ads with them - so they've obviously come to some kind of private deal with
the takedown extortion sites.

It's probably in their interests to get the porn extortion sites taken down
too. They've managed to pick something profitable but not heinous enough to
get negative media attention, and the porn extortionists are a potential
threat to them.

------
hippich
Yeah, you also should sue Google for
<https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atexxxan.com>

------
discountgenius
It seems like a DMCA takedown request should probably do the trick. As much as
I think what sites such as Texxxan.com are doing is sleazy and classless, I
don't think it should be illegal. We have to protect the rights of sites with
user-submitted content.

Edit: Also, digitized nude pictures of yourself are basically always a bad
idea.

~~~
rayiner
What about protecting the rights of people to their privacy? The world does
not live and die on protecting the particular business model of user submitted
content. Their protections must be balanced against the existing rights people
have.

~~~
discountgenius
I assume the majority of the pictures were taken with consent and trusted to a
boyfriend, etc. If you don't like what your boyfriend did with the picture you
sent him, file a DMCA request.

If the pictures were not taken with consent, then it's a law enforcement
issue. Voyeurism, hacking, etc. are already illegal.

~~~
rayiner
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too. People say: crimes should not
be treated differently just because you use a computer to do them. I agree! If
I was running a bar where I solicited jilted ex-boyfriends to send in naked
pictures of women, and then plastered them all over the wall and purposefully
profited from the business they brought in, then you can bet I would be
charged with a crime! Acting in concert with someone else to violate someone's
rights makes you liable in meat space, and the same should be true in digital
space.

~~~
cracell
With your bar example what crime could you charge the bar owner with? It's a
very sleazy thing to do but I don't know of any laws in the United States that
it violates. If the ex-boyfriends took the photos than they own copyright to
them and as far as I know the subject has no rights to them.

~~~
rayiner
All states have privacy-related torts that could be leveled directly at the
bar owner, as the publisher of the pictures.

See: [http://blog.internetcases.com/2012/05/21/social-media-
legal-...](http://blog.internetcases.com/2012/05/21/social-media-legal-photo-
best-practices-tag-photo-facebook/)

Specifically: [http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/10/07/group-sex-photos-
ca...](http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/10/07/group-sex-photos-case-heads-
to-trial/)

Disclaimer: this is not a legal opinion.

------
marmot1101
To everyone objecting to GoDaddy being involved with the suit, this is how the
US Civil Courts operate. If you are going to sue someone whom you believe is
responsible for causing you harm, you have to take into account that they may
blame the issue on a third party. It is better to bring in obvious possibly
liable third parties at the beginning of the suit to save time getting to a
conclusion of the case. Otherwise the case thrashes around in counter claims,
cross claims and all other manner of pretrial non-sense. I'd bet a nickle that
GoDaddy gets absolved fairly quickly on in the process, but I'd bet a dollar
that texxxan would have tried to ascribe blame to GD later in the case had
they not been in the initial filings.

------
Yhippa
This is a specific instance of what I could see being a generalized incidence
of cyberbullying now and in the future. You take X confidential information
from a person and host it on a website in exchange for blackmail money. Our
laws are going to have to adapt to this at some point very soon.

~~~
tomjen3
Isn't extortion already illegal?

------
drcube
Why should anybody be punished here? Girl takes naked photos, gives them to
their SO and/or posts them online... but people should be prohibited from
sharing what they've been given?

I agree, it's shitty and an asshole thing to do, but is it, and should it be,
illegal? Don't share nude photos of yourself and they won't be shared with
anybody else. Share them once and you must assume, like everything else
online, that it's public. Assuming these are adults, does nudity matter?
Should I be charged for posting pictures of that party the other night on
facebook and not getting a release from each and every attendee?

Now people who are stealing private photos off of hard drives are another
thing entirely and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And of
course ISPs, registrars, and web hosts shouldn't be implicated in either
scenario. The people who post pictures of people against their wishes are the
issue here.

Flame away.

------
lifeisstillgood
it seems that

1\. This is a vile and cruel "revenge" - I can easily see the term cyberrape
resonating with some of the victims

2\. Whilst there is talk of criminalising this behaviour the current action is
civil and I suspect that is where it should stay.

3\. DCMA is not effective here - the victims probably do not have copyright to
the images, and presumably gave consent for the image to be taken. There is
probably a lot of wriggle room here.

4\. Suing go Daddy (as a _hoster_ not a DNS provider) is pretty much par for
the course - hosters regularly get hosed with DCMA takedown requests as well
as sites that are obviously criminal, godaddy probably has a whole department
for just this sort of thing. All UK hosters I know do. It is unlikely goDaddy
will be held liable but if the site was criminal they would be obliged to
suspend hosting - so it is reasonable to include them in the case.

5\. horrible stuff - the most likely outcome is some form of damages is found
to exist for these victims, that means the whole "industry" can be sued based
on case law, one site at a time. As for GoDaddy - quite likely they will not
be held liable. I would not want them to be obliged to take it down unless it
is criminal behavoiour. I would however not want to host with them

------
robomartin
I think these sites are despicable. I do hope that she and others prevail. No,
GoDaddy sshould not be a part of this lawsuit.

OK, that said, here's something I know I am going to catch rounds for, but I
think it has to be said:

I learned a long time ago that you should treat everything you do with the
idea that a million people are going to see it. This includes "private"
emails, boards, newsgroups, site comments and, yes, pictures you take and
post. Before you take a picture take a second to answer this question: Would I
mind if a million people saw this picture tomorrow? If the answer is "yes",
don't take it and don't allow anyone to take it.

I really don't get the idea of young women taking compromising, nude,
partially nude or provocative pictures of themselves. Or worst, allowing
someone else to take these pictures. Do they really expect them to remain
private forever?

The woman who is the subject of this article is, at least on first inspection,
a victim of something very cruel. Someone needs to pay for that transgression.
However, she holds significant responsibility for having allowed these
pictures to be taken in the first place. Unless she was completely unaware of
the pictures being taken, she, at some point, became an active participant
--and the enabler-- in the sequence of events that led to this embarrassing
situation.

I talk to my kids about these issues whenever they come up. The message is
exactly as I stated above: If you don't think a million people should see your
picture or read that angry or compromising email you wrote, don't take the
picture and don't write the email. In this day and age being stupid can
seriously affect the rest of your life and end careers. It's not something to
take lightly.

At one point we have to assume responsibility for our actions.

~~~
munin
I really don't get the idea of young women getting drunk in bars. Or worse,
going home with men they met that evening. Do they really expect to not be
raped?

These women are victims of something very cruel. Someone needs to pay for that
transgression. However, they hold signifigant responsibility for having
allowed to be raped. Unless she was completely unconcious, she, at some point,
became an active participant -- and the enable -- in the sequence of events
that led to her rape.

I talk to my kids about these issues whenever they come up. The message is
exactly as I stated above: if you don't want to get raped, don't go out, stay
at home, and wear clothes that cover your legs, shoulders, and forearms. In
this day and age being stupid can seriously affect the rest of your life and
end careers. It's not something to take lightly.

At one point we have to assume responsibility for our actions.

(seriously, how does victim blaming bullshit like this not get buried
instantly)

~~~
robomartin
Well, I knew I was going to take rounds.

POINTING OUT THAT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS AN IMPORTANT HABIT OR VIRTUE IS
NOT, IN ANY IMAGINABLE WAY, AND EXPRESSION OF APPROVAL FOR SOMEONE BECOMING A
VICTIM.

THE TWO ARE SEPARABLE.

In most parts of the world, if I walk into certain neighborhoods while wearing
a sign that openly insults a large segment of the ethnic population in that
neighborhood it is highly likely that I will suffer serious harm or even be
killed. Such an attack on my person is and will always be a despicable crime.

However, I had a choice to make and it was my action that provoked the attack.
And, while I would not, for even a second, excuse or justify the attack on my
person, in retrospect an intelligent person can only conclude that the
decision was the catalyst and it was an absolutely moronic decision at that.

Now, you and other can go on believing that you are free to act as you wish,
do and say as you want and that there should be no consequences to your
actions. And that's fine. Go ahead and do it. Let's see how long you last.
What I am talking about here isn't some kind of a higher moral ground. This is
about the real world. Reality. And reality works like this: You do something
stupid and you pay the consequences. Plain, simple, cruel and very fucking
real.

The new way of thinking seems to be that you ought to be able to be a complete
moron and not suffer any consequences for your actions. Nice thought. Not
reality.

AGAIN: NONE OF THIS IS TO SAY THAT A CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST SOMEONE MAKING A
DUMB MOVE IS EXCUSABLE. IT IS NOT. BUT IT IS OK TO LOOK AT THAT PERSON AND
SAY: "YOU MORON. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT WOULD HAPPEN?"

Yes, I am yelling at you. Snap out of it. Reality, in most parts of the world,
is as I have painted it.

So if you have a little girl: Would you tell your little girl to go ahead and
allow nude pictures of herself to be taken? And then, would you say: "Don't
worry, they are not going to be published all over the internet no matter
what".

Right

~~~
bostonpete
The problem is that even raising the point (at least in the way you did) that
a victim whose only fault was being too trusting when she was young and stupid
(imagine!) is partially at fault comes across as callous and serves no
purpose. It's obvious she screwed up and undoubtedly regrets it. Also, it's
obvious to anyone who reads the story that she should have been more careful.

So what's the point of making these observations? At best you may get a few
head nods, but at worst you come across sounding a lot like the guy who says
"I know she got raped, but hey, she was wearing a short skirt...".

~~~
robomartin
I did not create a nexus of justification between the dumb move and the crime.
Nowhere did I say something like that. Nowhere.

And nowhere did I bring-up horrible crimes such as rape. Other's made that up.
Not me.

I focused on this issue of young one's taking compromising videos or photos of
themselves and then crying foul when, through twists and turns, they end-up
posted online to cause them grief. Let's not go one millimeter past that. I
did not say anything whatsoever that has anything to do with rape or any other
crime.

That's it.

Every situation is different. I know nothing about the details of the case.
For all I know the boyfriend took pictures while she was sleeping. How could
she be blamed for that? If that were the case though, he would have to be
charged criminally as well.

I think what I said was that one has to assume that anything you say or do
today might be seen by a million people. So long as you are comfortable with
that outcome, then, by all means, do as you please. If you are not, then
don't.

With regards to this serving no purpose. Well, if only one kid reads this and
thinks twice before posting a dumb picture on Facebook or something of that
nature the outcome is good.

